Army lists are abstract, mental creations and don't any "real world" conflicts. They can (theoretically) be consistent internally and with each other.

OTOH, mini games are inherently fuzzy because the rules do bump into "real world" situations. No set of rules can cover all the possible situations that happen on a game board (or at least no set of rules most people are interested in playing).

It's a fan project. Everything is based on a person or a small group seeing a need for something and taking on the task. Any time there is less than consensus, those are the responses you will face.

I understand your frustration, but it's inherent to the process.

Here is the thing Dobbsy, you want a document creating that clears up what you find fuzzy. That is probably a different set of things to what I might find fuzzy. So while I could create the list, you would need to add the bits you want after.

I accept you started the debate on this thread, so what is stopping you starting another thread with what you think should be done to fix the fuzzy bits of the rules. As you say many people are saying they don't think it's needed so they aren't going to start anything are they?

Also there is no consensus in Europe. France and Belgium play a very different game to the UK as they rely on shooting to win games, while the UK is predominantly an engagement dominated meta. This is probably why they have 2 widely divergent set of lists developed.

To some extent I see a divergence in many of the batreps from AUS where no terrain is placed in deployment zones, if I were to play in this meta I'd amend my list choice to allow for this, as my choice of blitz guard formation would change. Actually I have a question about that. Do you also leave blank areas up flanks incase some one elects to play corners? Or are corners not really used often enough for it to matter?

Isn't that just the FAQ, in any case?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Hey Dobbsy, I think Neal hit it on the head. While I understand the desire to iron out absolutely everything so there is never a problem, I don't think it is practical... I don't think it is even possible! I think FAQs are easier to write and help players digest ideas that normally might be difficult to conceptualize in a rule format.

With that said, IMO the best approach is to combine a full FAQ with a comprehensive list of things to review during the 5-minute warm up <--- this should be along the lines of what you are aiming at. It might read like this, for example:

Terrain: Review each piece of terrain and decide what type it is. The hills with the cliff face are impassable on the one side but regular terrain everywhere else. This fuzzy brown edge along the river is dangerous terrain for vehicles but normal for infantry. The ring of trees represents a full area of trees. Cover for infantry starts when the stand is more than halfway into the ruins.

Objectives: Take a look at each other's objective models and determine what is the center point of these models so that both players understand where measurements are to be taken from.

Etc.

I also think a more comprehensive terrain chart would also be to your liking.

Then a quick reference sheet for the 5-minute warm-up like the one posted earlier can be put in the back. This matches the format of Epic: Armageddon, where the most commonly referenced material is all on the very last page.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Pretty much, I guess. A more organised system in place to put forward issues of clarification or for ruling, to get definitive answers. Slap the NetEA badge on it, so a Tourney Organizer can go "NetEA FAQ/Lists" and link directly to them.

It's more for a unifying rules/list set, house rules excepted. Rather than each group having their own separate (but technically legal) rules system.

In recent months, we've had clarified Barrage "exact type" and "defensive" AA on Aircraft. Both of which have significant impacts on the worth of units that have these abilities (the latter makes Imperial Marauders a LOT better).

Adding definitions of "within" for disembarkation and a unified version for objectives (unless 29cm objectives are considered legitimate), would be starts.

Morgan Vening

Now, this right here reinforces my point. I don't remember seeing the discussion on barrages so unless I'm aware of the specific thread I can't hope to know every single rules debate. Having a place like Morgan mentions would be a great tool for all TOs/players anywhere, regardless of whether they use that ruleset or just like to compare.

An FAQ for NetEA would be an excellent point of reference if it covers these sorts of questions. Hell, it could even show the conventions from known play groups for each question to give people the options.

I was the main culprit with keeping deployment zones clear.

It seems my thinking was shaped by my early games where I played Orks against Guard. It seemed like such an advantage for the Guard to deploy in terrain. It's only taken me all these years to realise my error .

Since our 1 day event in October, I've started putting terrain all over the board. I don't remember seeing any other players keeping the deployment zone clear.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Incidentally, what do you mean by this, Morgan? Is this just about whether ground units get cover saves from air, or are there people counting cover for flak shots against aircraft if the flak unit is in cover?

I think it's more the "Aircraft are assumed to be flying high enough in the air to ignore any terrain that might block the line of sight when they shoot at any targets..." part of the rule was misinterpreted to mean aircraft ignore terrain for all purposes, rather than just LOS; units in cover do still get the -1 to be hit and cover saves if applicable is the clarification.

I honestly can't remember. When I put together that list, I did a couple of searches for "5 min warmup" questions, and couldn't remember the searches I did. But it was definitely in there as part of a standardized list of questions.

I've never played it that way, or even considered playing it that way, but as Chroma points out, there is a possible interpretation for it to be done so.

Morgan Vening