[NetEpic ML] Re: R: 4.0 revision suggestions

From: Peter Ramos <pramos_at_...>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:59:45 +0000



stefano andreoni wrote:

> > 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.

This was hotly debated in the original discussions, the problem was if you give
armor to infantry what difference does a infantry unit with a 4+ save have from
a rhino with 4+ save. One smart suggestion was to have hard and soft armor types
as well as weapons capable of hitting hard/soft targets. This may be the way to

> > 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.

One thing we DEFINATELY have to clear up is the concept of scale in netepic. We
shall vote and decide on them then apply them to the rest of the rules.

> > 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.

True, again a difference between them should be stated.

> > 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.

Amen brother! This is perhaps one of the concepts I am most dissatisfied on all
epic versions. We need to define the effect on targets weapons have, this will
extend into the armor issues.

I think, as far as teh ideas go we are shifting to the original adeptus
titanicus game, which is great, but as we go down that path I'll point out what
not to emulate from that system since I have ample experience with it.

> > 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.

Even with netepic we realized many units were still broken, perhaps with the
revision they will change. My experience with background is limited to the rogue
trader days, so the input of people familiar with 40k today is important in this

> > 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.

hehe, you can tell Weasel likes AT a LOT!!! I do agree with many of their rules

> > 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.

Or adapt the current rules in a way that order of resolution is not important, I
have several vaiant ideas on this I'll through out and we'll see what we can
come up with.

> > 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.

Johans alternate system is superior in every way and shuld become the defacto
default rules for flyers. As for the titan cost table thats in the tech guard
book I think, all the hullsa and weapon costs. But I agree a lot must be
changed, the vortex and weapons like these should be redefined no "gotcha your
dead' weapons", they can be powerful but not that powerful. One thing about the
old AT rules was weapons had a availability factor and that governed if one was
available for battle, it was used mainly for the missiles.>

> > 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.

Amen again! I HATE HATE HATE the use of allies its just another way to get the
best out there and cover deficiencies. Pure armies should be the norm with
allies ONLY if both players agree beforehand.

> > 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.

You sure you're not my long lost brother or something? We think very much alike.
Complexity and detail are my cup of tee, simple rules are just not challenging
enough. The idea you put forth has been esposed by Ken on several occasions and
I think perhaps two sets of rules, strip downed and deluxe would be good to do.

> > 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.

I have found that complexity can be added by detail that come out of the core
rules, that is perks or abilities that are expressed in the terms of the basic
rules, that way you have simple rules but a shell of detail that adds complexity
without violating the core rules. This is the working principal of Heresy and it
seems to work up to now.

> > 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.

I agree, basic books first then add-ons that can be used or left out according
to taste.

In the far future I would also espouse us making soime space combat rules. Then
again battlefleet gothic should be out of print by then and be open territory
for us.

Received on Thu Nov 18 1999 - 13:59:45 UTC

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