[NetEpic ML] 4.0 revision suggestions

From: Weasel Fierce <septimus__at_...>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 06:48:46 PST

NetEpic revision ideas:

Since revision time is due soon (suppose the outcome will be NetEpic version
4.0?) I got a few things to say about the things that I would prefer to see:
When is the big revision thing gonna start? We might as well start it now
since decisions take time to make, and the more people the longer time.

Let's hear some oppinions and perhaps even some votes.

Infantry armour saves:
I really think the saving throws of infantry stands need revisioning. I'd
like to see marines with 5+ saving throws and a 6+ save to lighter troops
that are still tougher than IG infantry (Like eldar aspects). I know this
will be fiercely opposed so don't mailbomb the list with complaints. Also,
some of the saves are strange, for example the eldar dark reapers got a save
comparable to terminator armour. In 40K they have (and also has had) a save
a 3+ on 1d6. Why do NetEpic make them so extremely hard. If keeping in line
with NetEpic's current saves they shouldn't get a save at all.

Heavy units:
One thing which is bad is that devastator squads and similar units can move
and still fire their heavy weapons. They should get some kind of penalty,
propably by being limited to shooting only bolters (Like in Adeptus
Titanicus). However, it really depends on the timescale of a NetEpic battle.
If a turn represents about 20 minutes then a penalty is certainly in order,
if representing 1 or more hours then it might not be as appropriate. I don't
know.

It certainly adds additional bother and would require revision of army lists

Tank bolters:
The bolters of tanks are EXTREMELY poor. While they should not be comparable
to infantry bolters (for the reasons mentioned in Incoming 1) they should
still be a weapon, not just some add-on with no realistic effect unless you
got 10 of the damn things.
It is worth remembering that these weapons are often linked bolters or
individual heavy bolters.
I'd say that their range should be increased to 25 cm. or they should hit on
5+. 25 cm. is propably the best solution

Long range:
Peter (I think) once stated a suggestion that shots at over half range would
count as long range shots and suffer a -1 penalty to hit.
This will penalize the boring shooting armies a bit but perhaps it will
render support fire too ineffective?
I'd vote FOR this rule however since closely fought battles are always more
exciting than shooting matches
The bad thing is that standard infantry with 50 cm. weapons will be quite
ineffective. But if everything else suffer the penalties as well, the result
should still be balanced. It will give template based weapons a real edge
though.

Unit revision:
Some units seem out of hand. Especially the eldar exarchs. These guys can
move 40 cm and fire twice at 75 cm. range with a -2 modifier to saves. Oh,
and they hit on 3+ (4+ with snap fire). WHY??? Not even second edition 40K
makes them this hard!! (And thats saying something!)
They should certainly be revised in some way (even though they are special
units and cost 100 points each.)


Close combat:
I think separate rules should be made for ramming vehicels and overrunning
infantry. This is how tanks fight in close combat after all, they don't
fight with sword and pistol like the infantry.
Adeptus Titanicus will be a usefull starting point for the rules for such
combat

Also, the resolution of large close combats should be dealt with in some
way. Currently the rules are kinda loose on this point.

Deployment rules:
Since NetEpic has a kind of basic game with objectives and sudden death
victory point limit, why not have a set of standard deployment rules

Flyers and titans:
We should decide upon which set of flyer rules should be used and be the
official one, the same goes for the titan rules.
If the alternative rules are better then make them the official ones. We
should be vary of changing power levels too much. If a different rules set
makes units tougher or weaker, this will have to be reflected in point cost
and this gives us problems if two players decide to play and turn up having
used different point values.

Allies:
Actual rules for how to include allied troops in an army should be included
in the core rules

Anti-infantry / anti-armour:
Adeptus Titanicus dealt with the fact that some weapons are more effective
against certain targets. This could be reflected by giving each weapon two
save modifiers. One versus infantry and one versus tanks. If keeping the
current level of NetEpic saves this would propably mean that poor
anti-personnel weapons like lascannon would get a +1 modifier or something.
This increases complexity but also realism.

Complexity:
One thing that needs to be decided upon is the complexity of NetEpic vesion
4.0
Will we be aiming at making this game a very detailed and realistic system
which takes a lot of time and might not be very accessible to beginners, or
a simple and fast system which leaves out detail which veteran gamers will
consider paramount.
It is difficult to find a place between these extremes. Please note that
simplicity does not have to reduce the tactical experience and challenge.
Simple games like epic 40K can still be tremendously strategic since there
are fewer rules and loopholes.

New units:
I think we should symbolize the new year by adding something new to each
army. One of the few things that are bad about GW is that time does not
pass. Even the coming of a new edition doesn't change anything. The time is
still the same and nothing in the universe has changed. I think that some
things should change with time. The addition of a new unit, titan weapon or
something similar would be a great way to show the progress of time and the
evolution that even the imperium sustains.
The passing of one year in real life could be the equivalent of 500 years in
the game world. Thus, time would slowly pass and the game would evolve and
grow.
Already this year has seen the appearance of the Ogres and a long time back
we saw the (re)appearance of the Slann and the deadly necrons.
Change is good (at least according to chaos players)
If we decide to remove or seriously change any existing units this could be
explained in the background history.
Any comments on this?

Another NetEpic project that I have in mind:

NetEpic skirmish:
A skirmish version of NetEpic. Containing more detailed rules and focusing
entirely on infantry and tanks, this would be a detailed system for fighting
small NetEpic battles.


______________________________________________________
Received on Thu Nov 18 1999 - 14:48:46 UTC