Tactical Command | View topic

Page 1 of 2

[ 28 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

NetEipc or EA

colonel_sponsz

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:08 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390

Whilst EA did get me back into Epic gaming and our group have got used to it now. However, I wouldn't say that we were locked into those rules or ever felt they were so good that there was no real alternative. Which brings me to NetEpic:

Why is NetEpic better than EA and why should we be using it?

Orde

_________________
"I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan."

Tau Army List Archive

Top

gary_clark1946

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:38 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:40 am
Posts: 280
Location: Dominican Republic

I can't speak for everyone but for me it is the variety of armies and openness of the people and game.

It is a lot like it was like years ago when it was all for fun and not so restricted as EA has become. The game is always expanding to allow new armies and does not kill-off races because someone thinks they don't make a proffit.

Gary

_________________
Wolf1

Top

primarch

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:39 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA

(colonel_sponsz @ Apr. 15 2007,07:08)

QUOTE

Hi!

I think the issue is less which is "better" and more what kind of gamer you are and what you are looking for in a game.

Netepic, based on its predecessor SM2 was a game of very large armies based around larger units. OF course that was back in epic "golden age" when epic was easily obtainable and prices were more reasonable. If you collection is "small" or getting the units you need for a "complete" experience then perhaps E:A is better fit in that regard since you could use smaller forces or dont need as much.

On a rules basis, that will depend solely on what you look for in rules. The older rules place more of an emphasis on rules that give the army or units more "character. Orks have zanny equipment that either destroys the enemy (or themselves), chaos has a lot of rules and mechanics to use magic and chaos powers during play (including CSM primarchs and such) and squats exist as a full self contained army.

I think more directed questions on what you like or looking for would help me give you a more personalized answer.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch

The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Top

colonel_sponsz

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:38 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390

Yeah, it was a deliberately facetious question - I wasn't expecting such a balanced answer

. I guess what I'm really asking is what people who play with the NetEpic rule set see as its advantages over EA from their perspective.

Orde

_________________
"I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan."

Tau Army List Archive

Top

zap123

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:43 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 3065
Location: Brisbane, Australia

E:A for me is like a set of rules & lists that are about 35% complete. All too often who wins in E:A (in my direct experience only) comes down which army you've taken rather than who played better. I also find E:A to be far too tactical a game for me....it's kinda just 40K in 6mm.

NetEpic seems far more balanced, flavoursome and "complete". It is also played on a much grander scale and to me at least rewards good play rather than purely good army selection.

_________________
Fire bad, tree pretty - Buffy

Top

mageboltrat

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:00 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:07 pm
Posts: 1015

I disagree. I remember Space Marine (though I'm getting old now so my memories going) as a game where you put down hugh armies and ran them at each other. Lots of things died and it was normally won by the person that had broken the special rules best. eg. Vibro Cannons followed by Web Spinners to destroy titans... or Greater Daemons with Very Long Legs flying into the heads of Imperator Titans. Though this was all very fun and all, and it was really fun at the time, I think my tastes in wargames have matured over the years.

I would therefore say Space Marine:Epic is closer to 40K than E:A in feel. E:A has moved away from the whole run towards the enemy have a big barney in the middle of the board nicely and feels much more tactical. Which is why I now prefere it to 40K.

I would also disagree with the fact that it comes down to which army you play. Me and Inquisitor played a lot of games while he was still in England. Him playing AMTL and me playing Space Marines. Never has there been a more unfair match up than these two. Space Marines should not be able to win and that was how it started out. However it gradually changed and by the time he left England I was winning far more than losing.

_________________

My Photobucket

Top

primarch

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:10 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA

Hi!

Mageboltrat, netepic, is many respects has moved quite far from the old SM2 rules as to render "old memories" very incongruous to how netepic is played. All the old rules problems like vibro cannons and webspinners have been clarified and even how chaos cards are played and on whom, is vastly different. We also use alternating movement as well as fog of war (you dont reveal orders until the unit is activated. Things like psychic saves and when it applies has also been extensively categorized and cleared up. Even the old holofield versus barrages debate was settled long ago (and works well).

To summarize, netepic, and the changes it has undergone probably make netepic a wholly different game in practical terms. As I am often heard saying pretty commonly, I dont play SM2, I play netepic. :;):

I will list for clarification purposes the major differences between the two. Those who desire more info can search older posts where I have always answered this more extensively.

1. Alternating movement. Just like firing you move according to orders, alternating one unit at a time with your opponent. The old "you-go-I-go" is gone. It make movement much more interactive and increases tactical choices and consequences. This is synergistic with two other major changes to produce a major change on how you play SM2 under netepic rules.

2. FOW. IN the old days all orders were revealed simultaneously. Boring. Now you flip the order counter when you ACTIVATE the unit for movement. This increases tension since you don't know what orders the opponents units are on until they are activated and produces some good tactical choice scenarios (shall I charge those units in the building? What if they are on first fire orders and I get mowed down? What if they aren't and move out of range before I get there?).

3. Snap fire (overwatch). Units on first fire can now react quickly and fire at units in the movement phase. Usually there us a -1 penalty, but there are units that can avoid this penalty, thus adding more depth to army selection

These three in unison transforms how the game is played to a great degree. So much so ad to make it a different game from its predecessor all together.

4. Titan build system. Certain rules from SM1 were to good to be left out. SM2 had the ridiculous situation where all titan, regardless of weapons outfit were worth the same. It led to the overuse of some weapons (the titan with 4 vortex missiles, or 4 volcano cannons) and no use of others (close combat weapons - whats a laser burner anyways?!). Netepic bases titan cost and VP yield on the hull used and weapons fielded. Thus a titan fielding massive titan killer weapons will be worth more than one with anti-personnel and close combat weapons. Suddenly titans with artillery, laser blasters and close combat weapons have appeared again on the table.... :;):

Also, titan rules were fully revised to make them the machines of death they should be (they were seriously under powered per cost compared to SM/AT era rules). Remember assaulting titans with droves of cheap infantry? Not any more, titan anti-personnel weapons fire BEFORE close combat is resolved and you don't get extra d6 either. Suddenly this tactic is the suicidal desperate move it should be. Rules for shield repair, hit location templates and all titan weapons were modified to befit the vision of what titans should be. Also WHERE titan weapons could be mounted. Some are carapace, others arm or head mounted. No more 4 vortex missile titans (your limited to two carapace mounted missiles... assuming you can pay 300 point FOR EACH ONE.... :;):

)

4. Praetorians. This is the AT era name for those lovable HUGE epic mobile fortresses. These units were a joke under the original SM2 rules. No better than any other vehicle. Fail one save and it was gone. Hardly worth the high cost. Under netepic they have templates just like titan do. The fear of the famous Capitol Imperialis was back! Armed with shields and point defense (like titans) the things could go toe-to-toe with titans in truly epic battles!

5. Psychics. This was a source of HUGE discrepancies and arguments. The old psychic phase (introduced by TL) was eliminated (it was ill thought out anyways). Psychics were defined as physical and non-physical. Physical attacks worked like normal firing attacks and thus DO NOT ignore shields and must strike them down like regular firing. Non-physical psychic attacks DO ignore shields (and before you get too excited most infantry based non-physical psychic attacks don't overly affect titans anyway, no more cheap psychic solutions to incapacitate costly titans... :;):

).

All powers were revised and toned down were possible. Chaos cards for example can only be played on "organic", non-mechanical units. No more invisibility on titans, long legs on rhinos and all the other crap players could do before. Chaos cards are a boon, not a game breaker.

5. Game rule and statistics changes and modifications. This one is vast. I dont beleive even I can name them all to extensive. I will list some major ones:

a. Marines have saves (as well as other similar units). In the old days, infantry got it, it died. No saves. Not the greatest way to represent the Emperor's finest or other powerful infantry units. We gave units (according to fluff) armor saves, some not modifiable beyond a certain value, to simulate the units power. Terminators (to costly and not good enough per cost) are fearsome (heck, add the new teleport abilities and your enemies will fell the burn).

b. Buildings are tough! Anyone who played vanilla SM@ knew that buildings, ironically, were death traps. The building went down and so did everyone in it. No longer. Using a modified AT era rule, buildings have wounds (called Damage Rating), so it takes a lot of pounding to bring down. Still there are mighty weapons made for siege that could bring it down more quickly. Thus bombards and other siege artillery gain new value.

c. Holofields vs. barrages. Who would field phantoms against the IG? Or squats for that matter? The fix was simple. Barrages ALWAYS scatter versus a target with holofield. Doesn't matter if its a direct barrage or not, holofields will screw up targeting and thus it scatters. Phantoms run wild once more on the battlefied.

d. Pinning classes defined and classified. The concept of "pinning" was an often debated game mechanic. Netepic created strict classes and applications bases on unit size and function. No more pinning titans with infantry or lesser vehicles. You'll need to less than another titan or praetorian to do that!

e. Vehicle point defense. Vehicles with bolters can fire at oncoming infantry to try to balance the odds BEFORE close combat is resolved.

f. Just to cover some specifics you mentioned: Vibrocannons do not penetrate shielded targets (they now excel as an eldar anti-fortification weapon. If it hits an unshielded target it hits the lowest leg/track location (hardly lethal most of the time). Webspinners do not penetrate shields and even unshielded titans have little to fear (to high an armor value). It is most used as interdiction and anti-fortification duties.

The is a VAST amount of other stuff going from HQ's (and there old abuses of this feature) to who can ally with what.

After ten years netepic has changed so much as to make comparisons with SM2 to be meaningless.

Why I like netepic more than E:A? It's a customized, tweaked game that suits my taste. This something the current game (or any other for that matter) could never hope to compete with.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch

The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Top

Mojarn Piett

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:35 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:35 am
Posts: 5455
Location: Finland

(colonel_sponsz @ Apr. 16 2007,01:38)

QUOTE

Yeah, it was a deliberately facetious question - I wasn't expecting such a balanced answer

. I guess what I'm really asking is what people who play with the NetEpic rule set see as its advantages over EA from their perspective.

Orde

Well, ironically, IMO it's the same thing people playing E:A would call it's disadvantage. Namely, the amount of variety, flavor and, as a consequence, special rules in each army.

Confusing enough? :;):

What I mean is that, just as Primarch sayeth, it all boils down to what gaming style you have. Even at the risk of sounding too diplomatic I honestly don't think it's possible to say which game is better. E:A has more abstract way of doing things and, thus, probably takes less time to play. Net Epic has far more flavorful armies and none have been dropped. As this is a sci-fi game you can't compare it to reality to see it's value as a simulation like you can WWII and modern games, for example. Thus, it's all a matter of taste.

_________________
I don't know and I let who care. -J.S.

Top

mageboltrat

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:44 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:07 pm
Posts: 1015

(Mojarn Piett @ Apr. 16 2007,08:35)

QUOTE

Yeah but E:A better isn't it, you know, go on, don't let the netepic players scare you, you can admit it. ;P

_________________

My Photobucket

Top

bans

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:22 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:56 pm
Posts: 1113
Location: barcelona

hey!! you can play the two systems... two games are good games.

EA is more tactic than Netepic, but Netepic is more upgraded by the community.

I'm playing the two systems.

cheers
bans

_________________
Riau!!!!! O_o!
http://elbansblog.blogspot.com/

Top

colonel_sponsz

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:54 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390

That's a Primarch load of information there! Thanks, having read it that's pretty much what I was after. It does sound more interesting than EA, mainly for the order system and FOW. Whilst it is a good system I have found EA to be almost straight-jacketed by the focus on building tournament armies, more effort has gone into balance than playability and the 1/3 points allocations mean that most armies seem very similar.

I think I'll give it NetEpic a try.

Orde

_________________
"I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan."

Tau Army List Archive

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:08 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

Do you still both line up on your table edge like 2nd ed? I do like the forward deployments in E:A.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Top

loofnick

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:49 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:35 pm
Posts: 246
Location: Sheffield, England

Primarch,

I'd really like it if we could have something similar to that bit of salesmanship in the intro to Netepic core rules. I think a lot of players coming from a SM2 background expect the rules (and especially unit decriptions) to be mostly the same as SM2. It would be good to point out the advantages, and make it clear that new players really need to read all the rules- your blurb nicely tells people how much difference to expect. It's also a good advert to E:A players.

Caveat: Vibrocannons DO ignore shields- it says it in the rules and everything! Maybe some other little corrections wanted; maybe a bit shorter as well.
----------------------------

For myself, I've barely tryed E:A. The rules seem fluid, but the system is nowhere near as complete as Netepic's (E:A fortifications just for SiegeMasters? for example). And I like the old crazy weapons (Vortexes, Madboyz, wierd Pychic Powers, Vibrocannon) rather then the abstract E:A stuff. And I hate E:A formation vs formation targetting, and assault resolution is ugly and unnaturally mean to small units.

And of course I want to use all my old models. But if I had to start from scratch, and wanted new models, my bank balance would say E:A, as you seem to need less units to have a good tactical game. Maybe that's just our style of Netepic play- we do tend to rush forward. I'm waiting on the rules review to before trying E:A some more.

Table edge lines? Still min. 80cm apart, with some units (scout types) infiltrating one move into the table. Except, I think just Planatary Defense forces (Siegemasters like?) get to occupy forward fortifications.

Top

Dwarf Supreme

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:34 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11148
Location: Canton, CT, USA

I'll be the first to admit that E:A is indeed a good game, but I think it lacks some of the flavor you find in SM2/NetEpic.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: NetEipc or EA

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:52 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

I think that E:A is a superior system in all respects except its handling of :

- Titans - E:A's Titan build system is woefully inadequate, completely unofficial and the critical hit tables are dumbed down far too much.

- New Rules / New Armylists - There is a considerable (And oddly, completely contrary to the game-writer's original intentions) resistance to introducing new units into pre-existing armylists. For some reason the Epic Comittee would rather put new units in variant armylists that hardly anyone will ever use.

But both of those can be solved with the judicial application of House Rules.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 1 of 2

[ 28 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

NetEipc or EA

Who is online