OK so last night a few of us tried out both the above. Our initial thoughts were the Netepic was an easier ruleset to get into initially. The movement phases etc just seemed easier. However the armies are way more ridgid in their structure than EA and dont allow for as much customisation or choice as EA.

That said, after a while the EA rules started to grow on us as we felt it was more fluid and tactical than Netepic. It didnt put so much emphasis on the units and character abilities, but EA did prove the role of a well balanced army better.

In the end Netepic/SM(version 2) felt very much like 40K but on a grander scale. EA just felt like a different game that had evolved from 40K. If that makes sense??

_________________
Walk softly. And carry a big gun.

I think that's absolutely the way to look at it. NetEpic/SM is a bigger version of 40k (and can be a lot of fun), whereas NetEA is a distinct game. It has a great deal of tactical depth and really rewards the slightly higher learning curve. The thing I like best about NetEA is that the armies all play distinctly differently from one another – and are very relatable to the background produced for 40k.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

I would agree with that. I havent played any games of anything in years, and never played any Epic stuff at all. But the NetEpic/SM stuff felt very familiar, just like 40k.

I am still struggling a bit to grasp all the rules in EA, but I think thats due to lack of playing it. I find it easier to learn "on the job" as it were and I havent had that opportunity.

_________________
Walk softly. And carry a big gun.