Hi,

With all the work that is going on with updating the rules and army lists, I have been thinking this may well be a good time to re-do the way armies are structured. I play EA, but am very keen to play Netepic too. The problem is that the armies are organised differently.

SM for example.

In EA, a battle company is 2 tac detachments (of 6 stands each) a Dev detachment (4 stands) and an assault det (4 stands, also no rhinos)

In netepic, a battle company is 1 tac (6 stands) 1 assault (6 stands) and 1 Dev (6 stands). note for some reason the assault det also has rhinos as transport. (how do they fit in them, wearing jump packs?)

Again, vehicle dets in EA are 4 strong, and in netepic they are 3 strong. Surely the netepic fans and the EA fans can get their heads together and agree a common organisation?

The only reason i bring this up is that im painting up a few armies for Netepic, but would also like the option of using them to play EA.

In an ideal world id like to see a combined ruleset, that combines the best of net epic and EA, as the way i see it, as someone who has only dabbled in epic over the years, the epic community seems fractured into different camps. very similar to the way DBA players are. I just think that if everyone were to work together towards a common goal, we would not only have an excellent ruleset, but the whole thing would be more accessible to newcomers.

Also, as the epic game is no longer supported by GW, I really think that the producers of 6mm scifi models should be represented, not just with using their miniatures as proxies, but they should have army lists in their own right.

I dont want much do I? lol.

Steve

The past/modern company structures have be brought up before (mainly by myself).

Here:

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?p=484638#p484638
Point 7

And I also raised it here:

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?p=483708#p483708

And also because I like the Salamanders, I had a go at making their own companies as they have an even more different structure to normal marine chapters. Info here:

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=24389

The long and short of it is I think we are planning on producing an alternative marine list that players can build armies from that utilise the more modern structures, though that process is likely some way off after we get the revision out of the way. But what we are trying to avoid is to alienate the existing NetEpic players who have their armies built around the 6/6/6 structure of companies.

With regards to jump packs and rhinos, that is a throw back to the original 2nd Ed Space Marine and Rogue Trader days were everything on foot was slower. Jump packs were about getting over/around terrain rather than carrying you long distances (you needed rhinos for that as there weren't any Thunderhawks).

Matt

It is a lovely idea Yorkie! But the problem as Mattman points out there are many of us that have had our armies set up in the 666 formation for years and are unwilling to change. It seems to be a problem even more deeply routed and intractable than disputes on either side over Israel/Palestine, Catholic/Protestant and butter/margarine. Maybe if you could have a word with those E:A fellas and tell 'em it's the NetEpic way or the highway?

Until those damn E:A splitters are ready to capitulate and agree to our terms of surrender I can't see this changing. We were here first after all so why should we give in to 'em?!

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Ok. So ive been thinking about this, and an alternative method may be to introduce a system similar to the one used in EA.

So you start with a basic detachment roster sheet/card. each det will have several options listed.

For example:

SM tac detachment. 6 tac stands / 3 rhinos. As your basic organisation. Then give the player options to further customize the detachment. Such as as, Add dreadnought, Add Vindicator , remove rhinos, insert thunderhawk/drop pods etc. Once the det has been chosen, total the points value and work out the break point, and VP points per 100 points as normal.

That would perhaps alleviate the need to have loads of variant lists covering different chapters etc. The player can customize his force to suit what he thinks is right, not what someone else thinks. So if for example i reckon a blood angel assault det should be 8 bases strong then i can, or if I think my whirlwind det should be 6 whilwinds and a hunter to protect them then so long as the points are correct, then why not?

Im just throwing this idea out there, as i feel we could end up tying ourselves in knots, when in reality it could be as simple as, let the player decide what his detachment/company should contain.

Steve

I dunno Steve... To do this, you'd need a unit cost system. Not only that, but if you are making up unique units you'd need to implement rules about Break Points (for NetEpic). That would involve a lot of work for someone!

So far as the former goes, there has been some discussion of that also; viewtopic.php?f=144&t=25701

You may want to place your vote if you want to see it happen!

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Fair point Bissler.

However, not un-achievable. But like i said, just throwing it out there. you guys have far more experience of the game than me.

For what its worth, what i really like about netepic is the order system using counters, and the chrome and variety of different units with all their special rules etc. But what I think is great about EA is the blast marker system to model the effects of suppression, and ultimately breaking of units.

With the blast marker system, it allows more variety in detachments, as there is no "break point", just when there are blast markers equal to the models remaining, then fall back. simple.

Anyway, back to army lists, if such customization is not going to work, then perhaps, just more optional detachment cards to cater for for the heretics like me who have armies set up for EA

Steve

I Have only played E:A, but this does sound intriguing.

One of my issues with Epic (and other rules systems) is trying to relate the results with the relevant histories; in this case the level of casualties with the basic army structure. Notionally over the space of a very few games, we should have wiped out the entire Space Marine corps several times over.
One answer to this conundrum is to consider the usual army structure as being only notional, because reality bears little resemblance to the "paper" structure due to casualties, replacements, cycling formations in and out of combat etc.

A long winded way of suggesting that there ought to be scope for starting with smaller elements and combining them to create the "Marine company" for this particular combat or sector etc. built under the standard Codex processes, but which may only bear a passing resemblance to the "paper" company.

2nd Ed Space Marine and Net Epic was never about small elements, it is all about fighting on a multiple company scale, you can see that in the differences in standard EA/NE games. If you wanted to start small and build on it to create a Net Epic force then I suspect the amount of options you could make available would make army building quite a long winded process.

In most large scale wargames (i.e non skirmish), a stand/model being destroyed doesn't always reflect death it is just that is easiest to say it is dead rather stunned, knocked out, degrees of injury etc.

And following Bisslers (tongue in cheek) comment, surely the EA community should develop rules to allow us Net Epic players to use all our formations it is easier for you guys to take a model out of a detachment to drop its size from 4 to 3 models, more trickier for some NetEpic players to find a fourth model, especially when the old stuff was only sold in 3's.

Matt

I think you missed my point - I was suggesting that when building up a Tactical formation (or any other for that matter) you could start by considering a base of "x" squads, and a cost per squad extra up to the limit of "6".

For example, in E:A the tactical formation costs 300 (dropped to 275 in NetEA), thus the tactical squad is notionally 50 points. Because the number of activations is critical to the game, there is a need to graduate the cost of base formations and upgrades, so you might start with a Basic Tactical formation of 3x squads costing 175 points and allow the player to buy additional squads at 45 points each to a maximum of 6.

E:A Rhinos are 'free' - costed into the value of the tactical squad, though they are considered a notional value of roughly 10 points. So the player might pay the extra points to upgrade Assault Marines etc

Using an approach like this might allow people to set up E:A armies that are structurally equivalent to NetEpic, and visa versa.

@Ginger: Because I have shielded myself from the fluff of 40K I've never been too irked about the game mechanics not matching the background. But (correct me if I am wrong) I am aware of the fact that each Chapter is supposed to have about 1,000 Marines, or 200 stands. If I went through all of the stuff I have I reckon I could field an entire chapter, and watch them all be slaughtered in a huge single game!

That aside, you're right to suggest that the scale of slaughter in Epic means that a Chapter is likely to have lost an unsustainable number of casualties in any given battle! One company in Net Epic is 18 stands worth + 1 Company HQ, which is 95 guys. We throw them into the meat grinder and expect pretty much all of them to be wiped out. That's almost 10% of a Chapter's Marines - and that's in an example where I'm using only 1 Company! Typically I'd have at least 2 such companies in a normal game. That does seem a bit daft. When you consider the fact that the Marines are supposed to be deployed across the whole of space it seems like madness, surely the Chapters would have to be far larger than that? This is probably a hangover from 1st Edition 40K when the game was designed for skirmishes, but they should have changed it by now in my opinion.

I'm sure someone up on the fluff will let me know I'm talking out my arse!

@Yorkie: I wasn't too impressed with the blast marker system, it felt like a lot of accountancy was going on and I do enough of that in my day to day job. I much preferred NetEpic's "fail a save you die" method of doing things, but maybe I'm just too stuck in my ways. I did like the logic of the blast markers though, just not how it worked in practice.

@Mattman: Yep, maybe I should have made it clearer for anyone not in the know, when I am baiting E:A players, my tongue is very much in my cheek! We all love the scope and scale of Epic, so I think there is more that unites us than seperates us!

@Everyone: I don't think it would be a bad thing at all to see both versions of the game cater to players of the other by offering alternative army lists which reflect the compositions of the armies for the game they usually play. I dunno if that makes sense! Hope it does!

Such alternative lists might make trying the other game out a more attractive proposition. If it opened up NetEpic to E:A players a little more I think that would be a good thing. I'd hope E:A players would agree but with their numbers I'm not sure if they'd care either way if we did or didn't play their version of the game!

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

@Ginger, that's exactly what I was trying to say, thankfully you stepped in and now it makes sense.

Personally I'm quite taken with the idea of flexible detachments, however i also recognize that it will involve quite a bit of work with reference to point values and stuff. I also recognize that for the majority, they have their armies painted and based and to start changing such a thing may well alienate them, and further fracture the epic community.

Perhaps just making alternate lists is the way forward, either that or I just conform to the net epic lists as written.

Cheers
Steve

I've always looked at this issue from the other side, as Bissler pointed out: why can't E:A match the SM2 TO&E? I know E:A reflects Marine chapters as they are now in 40k and even though I play more E:A than NetEpic, I still have my inventory organized per SM2.

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

I suppose there will never be agreement, were gamers after all and cant agree on anything . hence the suggestion of the more flexible lists.....

Steve

That's actually some of the joy of EA. There's no SPACE MARINE list. There's not even actually any particular chapter lists (The choice of titles are misleading in that case but come along for the ride ). Each list represents an archetype (Raven Guard Recon, Raptors Ambush, etc), an actual force brought in a particular campaign/scenario (Iron Hands, Codex), or are heavily themed and divergent combinations that work just plain differently (Space Wolves, Dark Angels).

This means that if we want to see EA lists but more organized around the principles in NetEpic formations, then go for it. The hardest part is balance and making a set of divergent lists built on a differing principles actually work with other lists that don't. This is where you don't need to do that. As long as they are internally balanced and balanced against a set of lists they are intended to be used with then you're kosher. A fantastic example of this is the Heresy lists (aka Epic 30k) as they are only intended to be used together (this is very similar to the Heresy books from FW, the legions are not balanced nor intended to be used for anything but interlegionary war).

I will point out the inverse is true as well. Nothing stopping anyone building army cards for 2nd edition for EA styled units/formations with appropriate stats. I've done (and continue to do) a huge amount of work making EA work within the Exodus Wars system. It's rather the same concept.

Now all that being said, your dream of the one and only rules that will in the darkness bind them will never happen. It's got nothing to do about not gamers not being able to agree (though there's that too ). It has to do with the fundamental differences of the type of game play experience that each gives. That's not a value judgment either, mind you. Sometimes I like a good vindaloo, other times some sushi is in order.

I'll also add that IMHO there's no way to mush those together (or I should say without getting the stillborn mutant offspring of Mules and Whales-that's how we got Apocalypse after all, I've seen the lab work). that will be the one and only Epic game format. That's not to say that there's nothing to be learned from each other (and in fact all games in general), Bissler with the Bissler-geddon alternating activation R&D being an example of EA=>NetE, and the discussion going on about Titan Plasma Generation optional rules which is heavily inspired from the other side.

Now that being said, run with it my man! You like some of this, some of that, and throw in some displaced factions from another universe into the mix? DO IT. Put it out there, play test it, evangelize it. It's a big universe and there's room for everyone

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Hi!

Well, certainly the lively topic.

I can only smile at the discussion, because after 17 years of doing things one thing always stands out.

That some what more than what is available.

I'm okay with this because I happen to be one of those whom would burn net epic to the ground and rebuild it from scratch. Oddly as it may seem from to come from the net epic coordinator, I am not into "tradition".

Of course, I have learned to read the fan base quite well over those years can realize there are many whom just like it the way it is". Heck there are those whom say we have gone to far!

Now, before I continue, let me give my standard disclaim and also restate my promise.

Net epic as constituted by the last great revision (version 5.0) will remain unchanged. Its current incarnation (aside from minor error corrections) will also remain unchanged. So feel free to ignore anything beyond what you have now, since anything extra will be "its own thing".

Now that this point has been made, I will make my own.

It is clear that there is a nucleus of people desiring to create or design for:

1. A hybrid game that perhaps picks favorable mechanics from all versions of epic into one.

2. A comprehensive balanced points cost system

3. A flexible unit construction system

These are not new desires, but perhaps there are enough people to push it to fruition.

Currently Bissler and I are test Net Epic Evolution. Which simply put is the same net epic with combined activations thrown in. While the integration of activations works well, it is still at its core net epic based on second edition space marine. Thus not suitable for the three parameters listed above. Thus its its own thing and will be done as a side project.

The point being, another "side project" CAN be done. Of course I must first state one of net epic's maxims...

...put your money where your mouth is......

As they say talk is cheap. I can put my effort behind such a project and make sure it comes to fruition as a net epic gold like book, but I cannot do it alone. Net epic has a lot of history, but unfortunately it has a long history of leaving primarch all alone pushing stuff forward.

Such projects take a long time to do. Mainly because if you want something done right you take your time on it. But also because we all have jobs and real life responsibilities and after all this is just a game we enjoy in spare time. But it also means realistic deadlines and adherence to them must be laid down. Otherwise we go no where.

The bottom line is I propose to design a game from scratch. Mechanics, points formula, unit structure, etc. Organize it and publish a book. The whole nine yards.

All that is needed is a core of people that have the commitment to see it through.

We will do it on the forums, so everyone can participate. I can even ask Cybershadow for its own subforum.

I have the experience to coordinate this and push it. I've already designed an epic flavored game from scratch (heresy). So I realize what is involves and how to organize it. But such an endeavor as this cannot done alone.

So there it is. For years I have heard from many, "lets do a unified points system", "lets do a flexible unit construction system" "wouldn't it be cool to combine the best aspects of all epic systems into one game".

Time for talk is over. Time to put your money where your mouth is. All I can promise is that I have your back. I just need someone to have mine.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules