[NetEpic ML] Re: 4.0 revision suggestions

From: Tzeentch <tzeentch666_at_...>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:03:41 -0800

> 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
> comparable to terminator armour. In 40K they have (and also has had) a
> a 3+ on 1d6. Why do NetEpic make them so extremely hard. If keeping in
> with NetEpic's current saves they shouldn't get a save at all.

Easiest way would be to note that INFANTRY saves are different from VEHICLE
saves. That way infantry vs infantry would have saves but if they got hit by
vehicle weapons...SPLOOSH! As an optional plugin to keep down the number of
stats you could say infantry hit by vehicle weapons can save...but at twice
the normal target number. The vast majority of troops could be over
6..essentially making them mushed hamburger.. Termis and such could have 3+
infantry saves which would mean they would still save on 6+. To balance
things and make them more "NetEpic" like infantry ignore vehicle weapon save
modifiers (its harder to hit a grunt with a 120mm cannon then you might
think!) unless otherwise SPECIFICALLY noted.

> Heavy units:
> One thing which is bad is that devastator squads and similar units can
> 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
> If a turn represents about 20 minutes then a penalty is certainly in
> if representing 1 or more hours then it might not be as appropriate. I
> know.

Not worth it in my mind. A differentiation between vehicle and infantry
weapons should do the trick. Or simply state that a Heavy Weapons attack
dice are halved if on Advance orders...though frankly it's not worth it

> It certainly adds additional bother and would require revision of army
> Tank bolters:
> The bolters of tanks are EXTREMELY poor. While they should not be
> 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
> 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
> 5+. 25 cm. is propably the best solution

I agree they just blow. With a simple vehicle/infantry weapons
differentiation this could be easily fixed and not make bolters the tank
killers of choice they could otherwise turn into.

> Long range:
> Peter (I think) once stated a suggestion that shots at over half range
> 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?

Err. This one little change would totally change the game in favor of the
Orks, Tyranids and Chaos. Not worth the hassle of redoing all the balance

> 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.)

Many units should be simplified or redone I agree.

> 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

I made NetEpic compatible vesions of the ramming rules for Epic Ogre
Miniatures along with a bazillion other special rules you could use. Check
out the Incomings. It does require we make Size Classes for vehicles (though
its so simple and makes a lot of sense I would like to see it be a core

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

I don't see a huge problem with it <shrug>

> 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

That would be nice to see! :)

> 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
> and this gives us problems if two players decide to play and turn up
> used different point values.

I like the revised Flyer rules for NetEpic though I have not played them..

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

Eep, personally I think this "allied troops" business should be HIGHLY

> 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
> This increases complexity but also realism.

No real added complexity. Just a note whether its a vehicle or infantry
weapon. Covered above. No special modifiers or separate weapon stats a la
Adeptus Titanicus. If it comes to that then we know we have failed...

> Complexity:
> One thing that needs to be decided upon is the complexity of NetEpic
> 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,
> a simple and fast system which leaves out detail which veteran gamers will
> consider paramount.

Hmm. Ok I have a few gripes with Epic/NetEpic on this. There is already WAY
too much complexity to the rules. Here are some suggestions I HIGHLY
recommend for the future of the game:

1) Standard templates - yes that's right just a handful of templates for all
the weapons. No special damn doomweaver templates, no wierd shaped flamer
2) NO DAMN SPECIAL DICE - yup, if we could I'd even get rid of the scatter
dice. As it stands we need to ditch the Titan templates and their special
dice. We need to have a "scatter template" for those without scatter dice.
3) Reduce the special rules- If a system requires an entire page of special
rules it get's thrown out and we find a simpler way of doing things. This
means a lot of Ork stuff needs to be looked at.
4) Reduce the numbers of unit types- Or at least make some units worth
taking. We have like 6 types of dreads..and they all suck. Heresy makes
Dreads cool (in my playtests Dreads ROCK if grouped with normal Marines) so
why not NetEpic? If we can't make them worth getting bye bye, off they go to
the optional units book.
5) Ditch or rewrite funky rules: An example of this is the freakin Eldar
Wave Serpent. Anyone who's played a rules lawyer has faced this things
wrath, it's even more annoying the the SM/TL era Shokk Attack Gunz! It has a
shield...that's it. No shooting it off or funky stuff. Shokk atack
gunz..unless someone can truthfully say that their effects really add
anything to the game make them a normal gun, maybe with ONE or two special
conditions. We don't have to eviscerate the "funky feel" of the races, just
make it a lot saner and less prone to breaking under rules interactions
(which we have seen a lot of even in the "fixed" NetEpic 3rd Edition.
6) Simplify the special conditions and rules. We can steal some ideas from
Heresy by making common special rules skills. This will save a lot of space
so we don't have to rewite the rules for infiltration for the billionth

> 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
> 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
> something similar would be a great way to show the progress of time and
> evolution that even the imperium sustains.

I think a new edition of the game would be better then tacking on even more
stuff. :)

> The passing of one year in real life could be the equivalent of 500 years
> 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
> 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
> explained in the background history.
> Any comments on this?

We had a badass "history" being worked on for the period that ended the Dark
Age of Technology..covered the introduction of the Ogres and the Final War
that led to humanities collapse. Still have that stuff around here...

> 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
> small NetEpic battles.

I've kinda restarted my Legionnaire skirmish system, and I'll be using
Heresy as a model to revise the trickier aspects...in particular it will
have a much more detailed Morale model a la Stargrunt.

Received on Thu Nov 18 1999 - 19:03:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:47 UTC