[NetEpic ML] R: 4.0 revision suggestions

From: stefano andreoni <ltremari_at_...>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:20:42 +0100

Hi,
>
> 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.

I agree with the reintroduction of armor save as in the past adeptus
titanicus rules, this should make infantry more resilient and create a real
difference between various armies; now orks and IG are stronger as marines
ecc.
The real problem is that more datas, rolls acc. make the game longer, also
this could reduce the number of units involved, as in the old space marines,
and, personally, I like to play with many units on the ground because I
think that this should be the epic version of 40k.


> 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.

I agree because in many occasion I saw large groups of heavy weapons
dominate the battles and in many case they are too effective.
I liked space marines where every stand had a data for each weapon they
carried (i.e. bolter+missile launcher); for timescale I think that a 30
minutes turn should be reasonable for time scale and in any case because I
think that the real difference between a first fire unit and an advance fire
unit is the number of shots they do in a turn, and in the first case it fire
more, so I think that a moving unit must be penalized at least when fire
heavy weapons.
>
> 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

I agree because generally infantry are cost effective then vehicules and I
often saw peoples field only infantry/titan/pretorian armies and only field
special vehicules as artillery.
>
> 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.

In this case I desagree because this could penalize shooting armies and give
a real advantage to assaulting armies, I would like a strict differentation
between anti armor and anti infantry heavy weapons.
>
> 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.)

There are a lot of case of units that must be revised, but I think that
exarchs are strong, but with 400 pts. you can buy a pretorian that is more
effective etc.
>
> 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

As in the past space marines we could only introduce a ram factor and
resolve a normal close combat when a vehicule contact someone during
movement, this should be easy to do.
>
> Also, the resolution of large close combats should be dealt with in some
> way. Currently the rules are kinda loose on this point.

I opt to see the initiative winner to choose the engagements order.
>
> 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

Generally I use tho set up one card at time and this work well, but in some
case some armies are penalized because they have less cards then their
enemies and in some cases this could be decisive for the final result..
>
> 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.

I like the new air rules and I introduced them in my recent games, the same
think should be said for titans, but I don't have a titan cost table so I
can't use them. Concerning titan I hope to see a wide revison of their
weapons, in particular for the hated warp missile that a 125 pts is too good
and too effective.
>
> Allies:
> Actual rules for how to include allied troops in an army should be
included
> in the core rules

I don't like allies because I think that their presence compensate the
weakness in a particular breanch every armies have.
>
> 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.

As above.
>
> Complexity:
> One thing that needs to be decided upon is the complexity of NetEpic
vesion

I often play napoleonic on 15 mm. scale and luckly I have a large table and
I can leave the pieces on it for mouths (a normal napoleonic battle take 3
mouths with 2000+ minitures on the table), but generally people must play in
one session and the problem of complexity arise.
I like complex games because I like to see the real condiction where battles
were fought, but I also think that this will penalize many gamers.
The solution could be to do two set of rules.


> 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.

This is true because sometime I spend more time reading rules (ASL is an
example) then playng and usually the games start to be a quibble of rules
then a strategic/tactical game.
>
> 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

This could be important, but I prefere to make a solid rule book, then start
to think about units, more units we introduce with their special rules, more
unbalanced the game could be.

> 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?

I like to see good rules that works, I consider background an help but not a
necessity to follow.
>
> 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.

Same as the old space marines you mean?

Stefano Andreoni
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
Received on Thu Nov 18 1999 - 16:20:42 UTC