OK. I wanted to give my impressions of the base rules and maybe make some suggestions to make the game more accessible to new people and the thing that most stood out to me was not so much the actual content, but how it was organized. Many things in the book seemed to be in odd locations or just randomly isolated from the rest of the text. I hope this doesn't come across as overly critical, that is not my intention.

First and foremost, the book needs a turn overview section up front. Reading through the rules, they make numerous references to, for example, the first fire phase of the turn but it is half way into the book before you have any idea what that is or how it fits in with the rest of the turn, and by the time you get there, you have forgotten all the things that referenced it earlier because you had no context. There should very much be a page or two in the beginning that outlines the different phases of the turn and briefly explains what happens in them.

Almost as important, the book needs to define some terms up front. Particularly "Detachment", "Stand" and/or "Base", "Unit" and "Model". Personally, I would rather the book avoided using the terms "unit" and "model" altogether so as to avoid confusion for 40K players, but if that is not a popular idea then they need to be clearly defined and used consistently. The book sometimes uses model to mean a stand and sometimes it means the individual figures on the stand. Likewise, unit is sometimes a stand, and sometimes a detachment. Also, the rules for coherency should probably be part of the definition of Detachment. I can understand why they were put in with movement, but I think they fit better as part of what makes a detachment relevant.

There are 3 different kinds of box out text in the book; Special Rules, Special Abilities and Optional Rules. Would it be possible to move all the Special Ability ones to their own section toward the back of the book, like 40K's Universal Special Rules section? It would make it a lot easier to reference them when needed and would do a lot to unclutter the main text. I also think that they should be collected in a separate document along with the summary page in the back of the book so that people can print it out as a play aid.

The Special Rules boxes though, I have looked though all 12 of these boxes in the rules and I am not clear on why they are separated out from the main rules at all. They all seem to really just be part of the core rules or are modifiers to a special ability that is described elsewhere. I have read in several places Space Marine 2nd described as a very simple core game with lots of special abilities that add all the flavor, but separating out these rules under a "Special Rules" heading, from my perspective, seems like calling some rules special just for the sake of calling them special. For example, transports have their own section (in the rules for the movement phase, even though those rules deal with more than just movement) but for some reason there is a Special Rule box in the orders phase about transports and orders. That is an important rule, but why isn't it simply integrated into the basic transport rules? Another example, on page 19 under the "Enemy Response" section it talks about snap firing. What that whole section basically says is "read the snap fire rules in the box to the right". why aren't those rules simply printed in that section instead of being a separate box? If it were me, I would take the rules from all 12 of those "Special Rules" boxes and integrate them into the main text. It may make the core rules a bit longer, but I really think they would flow a lot better and be easier for people to read and assimilate.

Just some questions about optional rules. I have read on hear that there is some discussion about doing a 2nd book that is filled with optional and variant rules (the variant turn activation and titan plasma rules being discussed lately, alternate titan damage tables, etc...) if that happens, will all these optional rules boxes be moved into that book, or will they stay in the main book? Related to that, are any of the optional rules so common and popular that they should be considered no longer optional?

Tunnelers, Floaters, Fliers, Terrain, Transports and so on all have their own little subsections in the rules for the Movement Phase. I would like to suggest that those sections should be moved to later in the book as they all deal not only with how those things move, but also deal with issues other than movement.

_________________
Thanks,
Troy


Once Upon a Midnight Dreary....

I was thinking about the optional rules myself last night, and thought that it would be best if they are either properly incorporated into the rules or pulled from the book completely. We just want one book that tells you how to play the game, all the optional stuff can lead to confusion (especially when it comes to things like fliers).
Nothing optional in the main book, it should just tell you how to play the game plain and simple.

Matt

I'm in the process of rewriting NetEpic Gold for my new activation rules so the post is very timely indeed. While I am following the rules without problem, I am a veteran of 20+ years so that's hardly surprising.

As far as I can recall the original Space Marine 2 rules were in a similar order to these. Because Net Epic is based on SM2, I can only assume that the rewriting of the rules has followed the same basic order as the originals.

NetEpic is straightforward in terms of the basic rules, but clearly this could be communicated better in the early stages of the rules. The problem is that there are a lot of special rules which mostly have arisen out of problems encountered in general play.

I find Appendix B on page 50 of the rulebook very helpful as I occasionally have to remind myself the specifics of what a particular ability actually does. As someone new to the game, Appendix A on page 48 will probably be very helpful as well to you.

So far as units and detachments go, please check out the glossary on page 58, hopefully the definitions there will be helpful to you. Because of the scope of... stuff available in Epic, it is hard to know what to call er, urm... things! The component parts of an army are made up of Companies, Support Units and Special Cards, which in turn consist of detachments of vehicles/infantry/walkers, etc but also individual Captains, Titans and Praetorians. All of these things tend to get covered by the term "unit" because when you are writing the rules, it would be misleading to refer to them all as detachments, etc. and "unit" seems to be the best term that encompasses all of the different thingmebobs!

I seem to recall 1st edition rulesets having "basic" and "advanced" rules. There could be an argument for a return to the same. Basic rules could include what the orders mean and how they apply in their simplest terms in the game. Hopefully this would help a new player make sense of how the game is played at an early stage. Advanced rules could then flesh out the detail that you'll need to cover all of the situations that will come up in the game!

I'm planning on filming a few tutorials which I think would help people new to the game - and existing players understand quickly how the activation rules change the traditional experience of playing NetEpic. Your post has convinced me that this is essential, especially if we want to attract new players to the system. My biggest problem is that these might make the game look so simple it's almost silly!

Thoughts?

EDIT: Driven by your post FL, I knocked together a basic ruleset for my system. Hopefully people will find it different but still Net Epic at heart. I'd welcome any comments you (or anyone else) have to say about it.

You can find the rules here: viewtopic.php?f=146&t=26063

_________________
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

Hi!

I agree with ForgottenLore's basic premise. The organization needs and overhaul from top t bottom. Trim down the fat, relocate some things and make it easier to reference.

The few play test games I did I found it very annoying to look for stuff. It should be consolidated and cheat sheets made for the common stuff.

One more thing to do.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

I'm really glad to hear you say that. I was actually kinda worried writing that post. I was deathly afraid I would be coming across like "Hi, I know you guys have been playing this game for 20 years and have gone through 5 revisions of it so far and I have never played it before in my life, here is a bunch of stuff that you need to change." I didn't want that.

As for actually reorganizing the book, I would be happy to help. I took a bunch of notes of things while I was proofreading it and if there is one thing I am genuinely good at, its organizing stuff. Just et me know what I can do.

_________________
Thanks,
Troy


Once Upon a Midnight Dreary....

I'm so glad to see someone has posted these concerns and put them so eloquently.

I started my Warhammer 40k gaming with Space Marine II. I have since gone over to Epic Armageddon which is great but not quite a fun as the originals.

I have since found that the fans have kept the Epic torch going and I thank you for that. But I'm having all the problems ForgottenLore is facing. I hope a rules revision does its best to correct this.

Thanks and keep up the great work.

_________________
A huge picture achieve of some of my Epic collection
http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=150960
Epic Titan Legions colours and Banners
http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=152991

I am going to come out strongly in favor of ending the use of the term "unit" in NetEpic. As stated above, it has no clear meaning and is confusing even to me. (I've been playing since just before 2nd edition was released.) IMHO things should work something like this:

When referring to any single troop that has more than one constituent figure mounted on a single base, use the term "Squad". This would primarily refer to those troops of the Infantry pinning class, but could be used for Cavalry, Light Artillery, and possibly even Walkers. Many people use the term "Stand" for this, but that term has never felt right to me. Squad would also help 40K players relate to the game, at least for Infantry.

When referring to any single troop of Vehicle pinning class or higher (IE including Heavy Artillery, Super Heavy, Knight, Titan), use the term "model". This could also be used for Walker class troops, as they are only ever a single figure on a base. In other words, any troop that consists of only one single physical, well, model would be called "model".

When referring to a formation of troops, use the term "formation", possibly with "Company", "Support", or "Special" if needed. The term "detachment" may be used when discussing how the different parts of a company work, and may also be used interchangeably with formation when discussing Support Formations.

Just to be clear, when I use the word "troop" above, I am referring to a single instance of a discrete battlefield entity that is described by an entry of stats in the chart at the back of an Army list pdf.
__________________________

I think that the concept of moving all of the Special Ability, Optional Rules, and (Flyer, Floater, Tunneler, Transport) to sections at or nearer the back would be a good idea. The beginning, say about first half, of the book should just be laying out how the game works and defining terms. The game should be playable, in a Basic sense, with just those rules. Orders, turn phases, movement, terrain, etc. The second half (or so) should be, as put above, "Advanced" rules including a section for Flyers, Floaters, Transports, & Tunnelers; a section for basic optional rules (those currently in the Core Rules); and a section that describes all of the Core Special Abilities in detail (the current boxes & appendix B). Many of the "Special Rules" boxes could be relocated to the back. Except for Terrain. Terrain and it's use should be in the Basic rules section, IMHO, probably in or near the section that describes setting up the playing area.

While we could move all of the optional rules out of the core book, I feel that they should stay as those are themselves somewhat core. Also, the systems being prepared for the Alternate Rules book are more complicated and involved (in general) than any of those in the Core currently.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

I don't think that we should use the term 'squad' at all. That's a 40K term that doesn't translate at all to Epic, except in a few cases. It certainly shouldn't be used to mean 'stand'. In SM2, infantry were always referred to as stands. That's, therefore, the term I think we should use. There's no ambiguity either in that term, since it has always been Epic specific.

'Model' and 'formation' make sense in the way in which you've described them, so there are no problems them from my perspective.

As for reorganising the book, the problem with that is certain special rules are more fundamental to playing even a basic game than others. For example, transports are available for even many basic infantry formations, so putting those at the back of the book doesn't seem sensible to me. I think that the order is probably okay as it is to be honest, it's just a matter of getting used to it.

_________________

Hi!

I agree with this and was thinking of changing gold to reflect that, but dedicded against it. I will do it for platinum though.

I want to use the words:

"Element": indicating a single model

"formation": a group of elements.

There are company formations, support formations and special formations, made of company elements, support elements and special elements.

Regardless of the final choice of words, the word "unit" is so ambiguous that it has been very confusing since the dawn of net epic.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Element is far better than squad. Squad makes me think of multiple.

_________________
A huge picture achieve of some of my Epic collection
http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=150960
Epic Titan Legions colours and Banners
http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=152991

Hi!

That was my thought too. An element (singular) basically emphasizes one model with the plural meaning more than one model. The word formation would just be a grouping of models (elements).

After nearly 18 years of running net epic, the word "unit" really needs to go. It's just too confusing.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

I can live with "element".

I personally use "Squad" for a stand of infantry as when I got into 40K (2nd edition) a squad was (generally) five troopers. As a stand of Infantry in Epic is (again, generally) five troopers, it just makes sense to me. However, I do understand that most people don't think that way, so I won't press that issue.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Agree that Traditionally it was 5 to a squad, but that is long gone and can range from 3 to 30 models in a squad these days.
Unless anyone can think of something cooler, element is a nice clean way of describing a single game piece, be it a stand of men, single vehicle or titan.

Squad is better but element makes more sense so vote for it

_________________
Shapeways store: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/tinywares

Blogging about 6-15mm wargaming: http://www.lead-space.net

I don't understand why we don't just use 'stand' for infantry. That was the term from SM2 after all. For everything else, just use model.

_________________