A Universal Rules Document?

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Version 0.3: MEDM rules integrated. Let's hear it for the swiftly abandoned concept of Prisoner Taking! :)
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Ben you are of all current CoE members the one most submerged (and interested) in Rules lore, so all signs green for this great effort I would say.

However, giving Mark Alfano 3 days is a bit scant, don't you think? :wink:

Working together on these things is perhaps difficult, but also rewarding in the end, at least send the stuff to him halfway so he can give some feedback, I'd say.

Seems to me this is a work of Herculean proportions, it's always good to get more people involved in such things. Also contact Joe as I seem to remember it was his initial idea (kind of). Yes those 2 are reasonably absent from the game lately, so best pm them.

Lastly, shouldn't this URD somehow also include the Play Example file and an excerpt of all NetRep rulings? Somehow...
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

i'm not sure if Mark is into the game anymore, i mean, i wonder when was the last time he checked the forum or whatever. But Joe is a CoE member, a person that has big knowledge of rules and, like Eric said, the promoter (somehow) of such project. It would be good if you can work together.
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Well Mark was still present at Lure X, so he's not out of the game as much as chooses his moments, I guess.
Either way, updating him pro-actively doesn't hurt, it's a single email, let him decide for himself what to do with it.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:Well Mark was still present at Lure X, so he's not out of the game as much as chooses his moments, I guess.
Either way, updating him pro-actively doesn't hurt, it's a single email, let him decide for himself what to do with it.
sounds ok
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

NetRep rulings will be integrated in version 3.0.

My plan, once 1.0 is done, is to post it here so that people can look over it and mention things I've overlooked (keeping in mind the version plan). In that sense, once the structure has solidified enough, people will be able to participate, and I'll do all the busywork.

Unless I get too busy. However, if I do get too busy, I promise to actually let people know instead of just not working on the thing and not mentioning it. ;)
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Version 0.5 is done: Your Ringwraiths may now move to non-Darkhaven sites if they are in a mode. :)

Edit: Make that version 0.6. MEAS actually included no new rules.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Version 0.75 done: Saruman has fallen.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Version 1.0 is here! Feel free to post any typos or oversights (keeping in mind that this version is not meant to include CRF or NetRep content).
Attachments
Middle Earth Universal Rules Document 1.0.pdf
(252.76 KiB) Downloaded 390 times
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
thorondor
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 727
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

great work (after a first glance)!

in the past we had 2 groups of rules experts committed to this task for years - without any result. now it took a few days for a single man. looks like having people working together where nobody feels resonsible is not very efficient.

proposal: make this document much nicer by adding some illustrations. we could have 2 versions: with illus and without (printer-friendly).

its probably a good idea to have some people look over it. i am pretty sure mark is not out of MECCG, but life takes its toll atm. anyway:
either have a couple of experts as proofreaders, or why not just put it in the public forum and invite everybody to add their comments?
important: haivng a deadline, and then ben will (or will not) implement the document.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

I wanted a smaller test group before I got larger feedback, so I wouldn't look like TOO much of an idiot if I forgot something. ;) Probably just a little stubborn pride.

As far as images go, I'm not much of an image layout person. If somebody wants to add images, I'd still suggest it wait for the fully integrated version so that they don't have to keep moving the images as the document grows. I should be starting on adding the CRF this week.

I'm in favor of waiting another two days for feedback and then putting it on the rules forum for general feedback.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Shapeshifter
Ex Council Member
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Excellent! Keep this thing going.

Just one little note: I would suggest that you keep to common/often used terms that are also mentioned on cards. As an example, Company vs. Company Combat (or CvCC) is not mentioned anywhere in the document. Instead you use Combat As The Result of an Opposing Company.
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Shapeshifter wrote:Excellent! Keep this thing going.

Just one little note: I would suggest that you keep to common/often used terms that are also mentioned on cards. As an example, Company vs. Company Combat (or CvCC) is not mentioned anywhere in the document. Instead you use Combat As The Result of an Opposing Company.
i agree
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Will do.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Update: Will be posting version 1.1 (added CvCC) to the main rules forum here and at meccg.net. The meccg.net thread will be locked and link people to the rules forum thread here.

Will also be starting to incorporate non-card CRF rulings and work towards 2.0 release.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”