I'm not sure if Matt means he thinks the NetERC is a secretive club, but he can clarify his opinion.

Speaking for myself, I think that this perception is merely a product of a very few number of members asserting that there is some sort of conspiracy/empire building/development stifling with no evidence to back it up, rather than anything the NetERC has actually done. Perhaps its lack of action on the "army book" and small size makes such perceptions more likely. Personally I do not think the delays are intentional, and whining/complaining about it is now counterproductive. So what has months of squawking about the lack of a compendium got us? That's right, no book. Isn't there some definition of insanity that says something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? In any case, the end result is that it's been posted enough that there is some sort of trust problem between the community and the NetERC, so therefore there actually is a problem. I'm going to have to raise the ole' bullsh*t flag on that one.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I think a compendium is more an editing/updating nightmare, and not necessary at all. A reorganized website with clear links to official GW/NetEA/EpicUK/in development lists would serve the purpose of making the information easily accessible just as well. The lists change too much for an armies book to be practicable.

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

I can see why the current situation that you outlined above is excellent for people already familiar with the game and the website, but for anybody that stumbles upon Taccoms wanting to play EA, it's less than intuitive where they would find the rules and the army lists. I'm not saying that the way it's done now is bad, more that there are better ways to make the key bits of relevant information (rules, FAQ, army lists) more visible to newcomers, who are, after all, what a large part of the Army Book's purpose is about.



Let me be clear, this is not my opinion. I think the NetERC has done a decent job of herding the cats, so to speak. I'm merely commenting on a view that a number of regulars on here hold. Captpiett has done a good job of summarising the reasons why they might hold that opinion.



yeeah, sort of. Having more people would make one or more of them disappearing much less of an issue. Having seconds means that the seconds have next to no responsibilities, aren't involved in current decision making, but are expected to take over a fair heap of work and responsibilities after an unspecified amount of time when things go pear shaped. It doesn't sound like a terribly appealing position to volunteer for or necessarily an especially efficient way to do things. That opinion does, however, come with the caveat that I'm entirely unfamiliar with the workload expected of each NetERC member, although I can at least presume that it's high enough that all 3 NetERC members were unable to cope when Real Life got in the way (and that's not meant as a criticism of the NetERC members especially as I've been through what's happened to one of them twice, even though I love them both dearly).

Thanks for your replies, guys...



Many thanks. I was less 'accusing' Matt of thinking this, and more wondering how this perception arose. Clearly, it has been voiced enough to mean that people are aware that others find it an issue. My concern is that either it is a genuine issue - and I am not going to dismiss it out of hand as that would everyone a disservice - and one that I would like to rectify, or it wasnt a big issue but has become something that people are now aware of, and therefore we still need to address.

Its possible that this is a genuine concern, and that it is justified, and that I am not aware of it. Its also possible that it isnt a justifiable concern but that people are worried about it asit has come up enough.



This is very true. As a full solution, I would like to see a full web site with downloads of the latest stable versions of army lists and rules, and the latest developments and changes on these boards in a compiled thread. This would mean that new players, or those who just want to play, could go to a single page and get all that they needed in a balanced game, while those that wanted to be completely up-to-date and participate could do so here. However, the most important thing to me is that whatever versions are available, they are clearly marked and logically organised.



This is true, and being a 'second' in this may not be a great role! Perhaps it would be better to establish clearly defined roles for each member of the NetERC while expanding the membership. I dont think that the work load of the NetERC is high enough being the problem, but that it requires members to be constantly active and plugged in.

I am happy to hear further suggestions on NetERC structure and future. Thanks for your input.

_________________
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 can see where the comments came from re difficulty of knowing where to turn as a new player. I had played EA regularly and followed several playtest lists. Yet when i got back into things after two year break due in part to illness, I found it very confusing what lists to use and which were approved/experimental.

Having the disvision between Net EA and EUK lists does nt do us any favours, although I can understand some of the reasons for this. I had to hunt around for the Net EA Army Compendium- these were not always stickied. I have nt yet found the SM one.

Anything we can do to help make it easier for a new player to navigate, is a good thing.

I think C/S suggestion of having a second for each AC is a good one- will enable more continuity.

Thanks

James

Seriously send me the lists I'll format them

I have to say I'm iclined to agree to the separation of rules and army list development into two groups. There would be nothing to stop anyone being in both camps if they have the time.

I would say that anyone that did join the list dev group should be prepared to play not only the lists they are responsible for, but with and against any other lists chosen to be in active development. This group by it's nature should be larger and as diverse as possible.

As to the current state or location of the army book I have no idea I'm afraid so can't hand it on to anyone.

Neal had it, last I knew. It had been farmed out to a number of people for formatting and copy editing - I don't know what became of it after that.

I'd love to help with it. I really would. But I have three other editing projects I should finish before that (two of which are completely immovable).

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

Hello... (treads carefully into a non-Elysian thread).

A few years back I had proposed a NetEA structure that had multiple people from different facets of the game. Modeling, rules, fluff, website development, etc. Then there was one person who was a Chairman. ERC was a smaller group within the NetEA. Quite honestly I think -while the rules are important- the NetERC became the de facto governing body for all Epic when clearly there are other considerations for the game.

Rules
Army Development and Lists
Playtesting (different from above)
Website development
Document development
Publication
Forum development
Model resources
Painting resources

Some of them require more than one person involved (like ruling on rules). Other things like model resources could easily be handled by one person like Legion4 who already has at least one model of everything ever made.

All of these things stand alone as important, but also intersect in various ways. Sometimes issues crop up where available models (Tau, for example) impact army list development. Or special rules from one army list impacts another. If we break out Epic Rules Committee and make them just another cog in the big machinery, it takes a lot of pressure off of the people involved.

Face it. Nobody is trusted for a rules call more than Neal Hunt. It is just a fact. But because we make him the head of EVERYTHING it becomes too much. Epic isn't a set of rules - it is a hobby. In a newer structure, Neal and others could just make a call, submit those recommendations to a NetEA Committee, and they could discuss and vote. The Chairperson would make sure the information was passed to the person in charge of updating the FAQ & the website, consult with the ACs to make sure the rule doesn't interfere with any lists in development, and so on.

If you don't want a small body of people, this is a good way to go: put people in places where they have an interest in helping.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

And as for the "Army book", "Compendium" etc, the obvious solution is in your hands CS - set up a separate thread in the Forum with the "NetEA approved" materials in it. This would be locked and controlled by yourself, (and possibly a very select group of individuals). Navigation to this location is key and should be strongly advertised and indexed.

Personally I would argue against a single tome given the way that virtually all the lists seem to be changing, but rather I would suggest that all lists use a particular template, and preferably a given software tool so that the user can pick and choose what to download.

The development thread of each Army or Race list should have the list(s)under development held on the initial entry, whilst also having a link to the "official" list in the central location.

Finally, I would also recommend publishing some guidelines, hints and tips for list development - which would form part of the 'official' materials (along with the FAQ, updated rules etc)

I can't possibly see how adding additional layers of bureaucracy will help get anything done.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I don't think anyone is talking about adding layers, rather flattening what is already there...So in the current setup the AC's would collectively approve or reject lists without the need for the netERC to be involved. Or that's how I see it in any case.

There needs to be some oversight otherwise a Champion can go off the rails and do silly things with their list, or worse go AWOL without replacement.

That oversight used to be the ERC who would appoint and keep an eye on Champions. However the only currently active ERC member (Mephiston) has no interest in the armies book project, so I'd propose a Armies Lists Committee to replace the ERC's old function. This could potentially include appointing new Champions who've gone AWOL, if the ERC wants to take a back seat on that too.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Not true, I merely asked the question to canvas opinion. I hadn't been keeping up with it so was interested to see if the AC's still felt it valid to release it in its current state.

Why do you need a group to monitor a group? Surely you could look after yourselves?

In general, you don't.

However there are two occasions when you do:

1 - Army Champion goes AWOL without a replacement, and a new Champion needs appointing. This needs to be done with Eldar and Tyranids, and isn't happening. An ALC could be tasked with making sure there are always Champions matched up to lists.

2 - You also need a group to put the Armies Book together in one cohesive document, and run a website for it.


Number 2 was originally supposed to be one of the tasks of the ERC, but those ERC members who volunteered to do the work, repeatedly did not, for a variety of reasons. So unless you feel like volunteering Dave, I'd say it'd be better to get an ALC of keen forum members appointed as they'll doubtless have the document done within a month.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I would like to say that E&C has stated my feelings on this subject better than I could. We need to have those members that are active and will to support involved with this as much as possible.