Blip, that is quite a nice idea, but may not be practical and would certainly be a major departure from the rules as they stand now.

Currently firers are suppressed relative to the target formation they are shooting at, which is often not the closest. What you are suggesting turns the concept of suppression on its head by remembering which formations have fired at the "AA" formation, and then using this to determine the directions it is suppressed from. Indeed where several formations fire against a single target, this may well be from a number of very different directions making that determination even harder.

What you are suggesting would therefore be both more complex and harder to write a rule for, may not necessarily have a major effect (still using the same number of BMs after all), and may actually have the undesirable effect of supressing AA more given that a/c are much more manoeuvrable and thus more able to come in from a permanently suppressed direction.

No - that's not what i'm suggesting rule wise (though that is kinda the "fluffy description of what is going on.)

I'm just saying the suppression (or not) of the flak unit (ie the BMs they have) is (more-often-than-not) because of ground fire, not because of fire from the AC they are targeting. This is unlike firing at targets on the ground who are presumed to be returning un-targeted "suppression" fire continuously.

Basically i'm suggesting one of two alternative systems to work out the "back" of the unit for suppression which would make as much sense and avoid the need for a "dynamic" AC tracking suppression system (and loads of potential arguments) :

A. The edge furthest from the opponent's table edge - ie. where AC are coming from/going to.

or*

B. The closest enemy unit (assuming they present the most significant threat.)

[*For the avoidance of confusion i mean one or other.]

PS - There is an argument for alternatively using the incoming direction of the targeted AC IF they are directly targeting the flack unit for Ground Attack or Assault - though i am aiming for KISS so probably best to avoid confusing the matter.

I stand to be corrected as it was a long time ago, but... I was around when NetEpic was first being developed. I didn't really get involved (as I came into Epic at 3rd edition and actually liked it), but I do have vague memories of those early days. I would say that the community was smaller, and the game developed by quite a small and dedicated group of people. That is what I think it would take to do it again - the open access and open ended development style that list development uses would be difficult to make for rules, People can be very dogmatic about rules, and at the moment they are the one thing binding everyone together.

I think it's fair to say that the NetEA CAP-a-CAP ruling causes some controversy as it is - talk of lists no longer being comparable for balance between gaming groups etc.

And still, NetEpic is arguably nowhere near as popular as EpicA. That's probably not a fair comparison, but EpicA was very popular before it was even finished - simply because it was "official". Of course they are not the same game so can't be directly compared. And as I say, the further from GW EpicA goes after it is abandoned, the less it will matter that it is "official". So we could well see it happen if people are sufficiently motivated to do it.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list