[NetEpic ML] Re: Heresy stuff and stuff (Ohh, and some stuff too)

From: Peter Ramos <pramos_at_...>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:13:36 +0000

Hi!

Tzeentch wrote:

> > > How big are the flame and artillery templates?
> >
> > This we will discuss in depth later. I was thinking of using the standard
> 6cm
> > template for open sheaf barrages and a larger 10cm template for converging
> > barrages.
>
> K, that makes sense. Should mention that somewhere in the rules (an
> appendix maybe?). I'll whip up a Heresy only countersheet once we get it
> figured out. It was a pain in the ass to use SM order counters...

Will do.

> > > When do you do any psychic cards and wargear cards? (Good idea with
> wargear
> > > by the way. Psychic cards on the other hand might go a bit too much into
> > > detail. Allowing the tremendous bonusses in assaults and perhaps a
> generic
> > > psychic attack might be enough??)
> >
> > This will be done last. Don't worry about the psychic cards they will be
> as
> > simple as the wargear cards. Of course we'll share in the creating of
> them.
>
> Hey, I fought long and hard with Peter to have detailed psyker rules (in
> preparation for the Chaos list). :)
>

Heheh, I know it will be cool.

> > We will be adding Ken's suggestion of fighting multiple combat turns of
> close
> > combat until all units are dead or have fled. Thisa makes it unnecessary
> to
> > place it last. Plus the tyranids will get some skills that will greatly
> enhace
> > their survivability after close combat.
>
> Well, if you end a combat exposed then you get what you deserve. Only thing
> I can think of is an "exploitation" move for the winners where they can move
> a certain distance, perhaps their advance rate again to take cover and
> consolodate. That's what we are trained to do after taking a position after
> close combat. Units that exploit may move out of cohesion to seek cover but
> may not engage in another assault... could be abused though. Any ideas?
>

This is what i was thinking but only for some tyranids.

> > > I have an idea called "advantage". To represent that war is almost never
> > > fought on equal terms let both players roll 1d10. The one getting the
> LOWEST
> > > roll can multiply the roll by 2-5 (Dont know exactly) and get that many
> > > percent extra points to buy his army for. How ya like that? (This is not
>
> > > intended strictly for Heresy rule but rather an optional add-on for any
> > > point-based wargame)
> >
> > Nice optional rule.
>
> Don't see it being used though. After all how much fun its it if one guy has
> more points then you (other then to give you a reason to bitch if he wins?)
> and a max of 50 points will not give you much in Heresy. That's barely a
> support card in NetEpic.

True enough.

> > Another stupid omission on my part. Heavy tanks and knights are immune to
> > suppression.
>
> Well that does seem sorta obvious :)
>
> > > After talking to a few of my friends who are soldiers and after
> playtesting
> > > Heresy i strongly suggest that the "anti-armor fire" rule I suggested a
> > > while ago is used. The rule state that a unit armed purely with
> > > anti-infantry weapons may fire as an all-purpose weapon but at -2 to hit
> and
> > > only at short range.
> >
> > This is fine, although I'd add a penetration penalty rather than a to hit
> > penalty. Such as limited to one penetration die at -2 (cannot affect
> armors of 9
> > and 10).
>
> Err? I object, we went round and round with this before. I understand that
> SOME stands are assumed to also have some heavy weapons (Marines) but many
> others do NOT and I don't want to start seeing gretchin taking out
> superheavies even by incredible chance and luck. Or bolt pistols from a
> Commissar downing Falcon gravtanks. Make another Skill (gotta love em!)
> called Dual-Purpose or Support Weapons and only THEY can attack vehicles at
> a penalty.

Hehe, forgot our conversion on this point you maybe right.

> Peter, while you're updating the rules make sure you note that the
> landspeeder cannot do popup attacks. We assumed it could. Old Epic players
> will probably assume the same thing.

True, will do.

> Kenneth

Peter
Received on Sun Oct 31 1999 - 11:13:36 UTC