All of these things makes it, as I see it, hard to bring back the players to the Epic table.

My bad... Epic III (E40k), NOT Epic IV (Ea).

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

I'm sorry, but this is fantasy-land. Even if someone went to the enormous effort of writing a new version of Epic combining the best of EA and NetEpic, it still wouldn't satisfy everyone, and it still wouldn't convert new gamers.

It's just not going to happen.

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

I would totally agree even if I had suggested it myself.

But have I?

What I actually proposed was to use the orgnizational form from Epic II and use it in Epic IV.
Easier to build your force, easier to see what does what etc.
Easier (I guess this was where it went astray) to get Epic II gamers of old to get their armies out again. They don't have to reorganize their armies, just learn a new setof rules (which are extremly easy to learn).

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

Except that EA players LIKE being able to pick and choose their armies how they wish...

I very much doubt that anyone would choose to convert to EA just because of a different army selection system.

The EA rules are quick to learn, yes, and so are its army selection rules.

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

Oh, so that's your goal. Now I understand what you're trying to do. I'll admit that the different unit sizes between SM2/NetEpic and E:A is a bit bothersome, but as someone pointed out (Neal, I think), detachments of three units are fragile in E:A. Take only one casaulty and the unit is already broken.

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

And Epic II players can always dust them off and play NetEpic with a minimum of fuss.

_________________
Fire bad, tree pretty - Buffy

Ok, this sounds a little like some mainstream wargames debates over figure to formation ratios and the level that the rules are attempting to represent. As Dwarf Supreme points out, the E:A formations are deliberately made a particular size and this is integral to their capabilities - in effect the formation size is at the core of the rules.

Creating or imposing any kind of "organisational" structure on E:A would only work at a higher level, which would therefore only apply to much larger games (and may end up running counter to the "Fluff"). If your aim is to field entire Companies of Space Marines, whole armies of Imperial guard etc, and to provide the general costs and makeup of these organisations, then as Neal suggested earlier, go ahead and produce the organisational sheets, breakdowns and costs and publish them here. I am sure there will be many who will argue the relevant details.

However, I suspect you actually want to find a way of getting Epic II formations etc working with the E:A rules. This will be virtually impossible to do, because EPIC II and E:A are fundementally diferent game systems with different mechanics - and so the core formation sizes in Epic II do not work with E:A.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I'd suggest you take a look at Seeds of War from Dark Realm Miniatures. Last time I took a look at the rules it struck me as a combination of SM2 and Epic A with some other twists.

SoW is my primary choice.  
But I can't get Shaol to play it.  

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

And why not, out of interest?

I suspect his reply is probably around 'look and feel' which is at the heart of why those people who play Epic II and NetEpic tend not to want to play E:A and visa-versa.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

That he has to answer himself.
But I think it was that he finds SoW a (bad) replica of Ea.
Whereas I think that SoW is an evolved variant.

Ideally I would like nE's organization, Ea's dice and stats handling and SoW's rules. That would be splendid.

Ah yes, another reason for E2's organisation is that making new company cards to include forces would be fairly easy.
Things like CH's new Rasthur (yeah, I can call them that, even if Baccus can't) and even EW's zombie's (whatever they really has for place).
That I personally think that a company is the smallest to play with troupes (½-squads) is another matter.

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

Easier (I guess this was where it went astray) to get Epic II gamers of old to get their armies out again. They don't have to reorganize their armies, just learn a new setof rules (which are extremly easy to learn).

Sorry, I found them first!

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

In reply to why I won't try SoW.

First off time is a big factor, usually I love testing new games, but with my workload and a small child at home I simply find it tough to find time for the games I alreday like.

Secondly I don't want to call it plagarism or anything like that. But SoW to me feels like they've started with Epic:A and added rules until it was something else. Thereby losing the streamlined feel of EA. And for me what I loved with E40k and EA is the streamlined feel.

_________________
/Shoel
My Painting Corner