Please see this post as an update:

http://www.taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/ ... 69&t=21385

With so many changes happening over the last few weeks, and the general opinion being (rightly) that things have not moved, as well as the external opinion that the project has become an 'old boys network', it is clear that changes need to be made, and that this appears to be the best time for them. So, in the spirit of the project, and to open this up as much as possible, I wanted to open discussion on the NetERC, NetEA and the future and structure of development to anyone.

I wanted to structure this into the following sections:
- perceived problems
- tasks and goals
- potential solutions

At this point, I want to make it very clear that we are not discussing membership of any groups. When we have a structure, and posts assigned, we can deal with filling them.

Perceived Problems

Its clear that there are a few, core issues with the current process.
- Firstly, that forward momentum has slowed to a crawl, and in some areas stopped.
- Secondly, that there is a bottleneck at certain levels which halt and slow progress when a few key members are otherwise occupied.
- Thirdly, I believe that we need more focus and structure in this place as a gathering point and in the compilation of suppliments for rules and campaign packs (which I classify the Raiders and other projects as).

I feel that these are the core issues.

Tasks and Goals

Its clear to me that the first order of business, following an examination of the structure and methdology, should be a firm and adhered to schedule. Following this, I feel that we need:
- A NetEA web site/section
- A clear resources section with downloads
- Clear responsibilities and structure
- An updated core rules and army list document
- A clear definition of what is being developed, and what is 'closed'

Potential Solutions

I am not going to go into a lot of ideas and details here. Several potential solutions have been raised, from fundamentally changing the NetERC, to assigning a new NetERC with defined roles (one member for core lists, one for rules, one for tournament rules, etc), and many others in between.

Initially, I will use this thread as a sounding board. I invite comments and feedback on the current structure, and would be grateful if people could be clear and constructive. It is obvious that there are issues with the system in place. The rules for the thread are:

- Be as objective as possible. This is not an opportunity to raise past grievances, but to voice honest opinions in an as unbiased way as possible.
- No names. Keep things unpersonal. Feel free to discuss any issues with the system, but not with the people.
- Solutions are often more useful than problems. Try to avoid complaining unless you can point out a clear fault and, preferrably, suggest a remedy at the same time.
- No-ones opinions is more important. Post count here is not an indicator of status, knowledge, experience or worth in any way. I am interested in the general opinions and viewpoints out there, and if people have the ear of players not registered here, their opinion is valued too. We are not here to promote the game to experienced players. New players just getting into it are just as important (more important in many ways) and we want to make the experience as accessible to them as possible as well.

Feel free to discuss any aspects here. When I have an idea of the feeling of you guys, your concerns and suggestions, we can categorise things and get some decisions made, but first I am truely interested in hearing from you.

I may not be able to respond to every comment - I have a feeling that this thread will develop a life of its own - but I will read every opinion here. My aim is to come out of the other side with a clear idea of the issues, and some suggestions to make the process as open as possible, and a structure and shcedule to take us to new strengths in the near future.

It is testament to the players and community that a 'dead game' has not only survived so long, but has actually strengthened and grown without Games Workshops attention or support. For that, I thank you.

EDIT: I will update the footer of this post to reflect some of the key points of the discussion below.

Key ToDo List (in order)
- NetEA Army Book completed
- NetEA Web site
- Development schedule and structure

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

I'd say there is one, and only one goal that matters: finish a website and put an army book on it.

After that, we can wander around fiddling with our bureaucracy. Plus, any problems that come up won't be as much of an issue.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

It seems that real-life issues are the main problem to maintain momentum.
Army lists need Army Champions who have a certain amount of free time to dedicate to their lists under their umbrella. Otherwise progress will stagnate as it happened to the Tyranids where several other people muddied the water with a myriad of variant lists as the AC(s) got MIA again and again. I don't even know which list i should introduce to a potential new Tyranid player as the "official" list is outdated.

Other races armies have it better. There IS little progress there too but the reasonis that most of those races army lists are pretty much "done". What little developement is in these sectors are NEW variants. But those variants usually attract only a specific clientel (the inventor of the variant list, some of his gamemates and perhabs some other forum users) so development tends to be slow or is entirely ignored after some time (happened to a lot of my lists ).
BUT: No forum activity on a given list isn't an indication that the list isn't played! Recently more often than not poeple won't post a battle report. There was a time where batreps where more often.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

A website and armybook are definitely our first priority, but the other thing that we can provide is a set of tools for gamers and developers to utilise to improve their experience. BatRep sheets and summary sheets for rules and armies come to mind, so one doesn't have to go searching as much. Chroma's Total War scenarios. Even papercraft buildings, to get players started with terrain more easily and cheaply.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

The first order of business before discussing anything else should be the NETEA armies book

I have really no idea what format people are wanting it in (it changes so much) but here is one hand up to offer what little time he has to help get it done.

Just send me what you have and I will get working on it. All I want is for a central repository that collects the lists and shows their development schedule (experimental, etc etc)

From there, the game will at least be accessible to those that find the site and want to know what army to play.

The rest can be discussed later. In effect we do not really need a NetERC to get an army book available or even a website up.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

For both my own interest and the sake of the community I think getting the army book done and online at long last is by far the most important thing and I'd like to see it done ASAP.

+1 army book

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

having a web running and the army book finished seems the perfect starting point, from this point momentum should speed up

As others +1!

Introducing my group of players to some of the niche lists is tricky at best. If there was 1 document with them all in that I could point them to I would have a lot less headaches.

I just hope with Neal standing aside the delay doesn't get exacerbated by NetERC committee selection.

Army book + website however i am a bit concerned about the time scale of the website given what has now been proposed. The big database driven project of awesomeness is a great idea, but wont this massively increase the time taken to get stuff up? Eg, can we just get a single page with a download link first and any awesome list creators and tools etc later?

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

well hopefully all the nominations and counternominations and whatnot from the last one will still hold true. certainly my thoughts on the issues havent changed in the last month and a half.

but yes, book and barebones website (to be improved upon later)

aside from that and the occasional get-together to ratify or veto a developmental list into approved status (with, one assumes, much jowl-shaking and monocle clutching) i must admit that i'm not really clear what else the ERC actually does...

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Thanks guys. I have edited my initial post to provide a summary of the key discussion points so far. To deal with the initial discussion....

- Yes, the previous nominations and decisions on membership remain. It is my view that Mephiston was a popular choice, has injected some needed drive into the process, and is a popular choice. Assuming that the NetERC will remain in some form, I would be looking to keep current NetERC members in place.

- Points on the Army Book and site are duly noted. While discussion progresses here, I will chat with the NetERC about getting the Army Book on track, and handing it over to them. In the meantime, I will concentrate on a NetEA web site here to get a structure in place and a focal point for downloads and players.

- Please continue to discuss issues here, as both the Army Book and site may take a while and we should continue to get organised in all aspects, and I continue to be interested in the viewpoints raised. Even if you feel that you have few points to make, the point that you have few points to make is a useful... point. The view of the 'silent majority' says something itself.

Thanks.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

1 - Appoint an Epic Army Lists Committee to oversee the Armies Book project, as distinct from the ERC (Which concentrate on the core rules)
2 - Armies Book
3 - Website to host Armies Book

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

And just to add the overlooked...

4- Consolidated FAQ (PDF of all NetERC/Neal's rulings)

Morgan Vening