[NetEpic ML] Re: 4.0 revision suggestions

From: Weasel Fierce <septimus__at_...>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 23:24:05 PST

> > 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.
>
>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.

this sounds really reasonable.


>
> > 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 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.
>

>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
>issues.


Perhaps, I havent plattested this but just considered 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.)
>
>Many units should be simplified or redone I agree.

Simplification is a sure thing!! Too many units have idiotic special rules
which could be resolved otherwise

>
> > 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
>rule).

I know, the rule was cool enough


>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
>templates.
>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.

I dont mind the dice that much as long as the game rules describe ach 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.

Sure!!!

> > New units:


>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.
>
>Ken

Damn me but i have never read the stargrunt rules....my local gaming store
cant order it and Id really like to see it

______________________________________________________
Received on Fri Nov 19 1999 - 07:24:05 UTC