Hello, here's my opinion!
>
> 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 believe that Games Workshop was trying to simplify the earlier
rules.
They gave only toughest units saving throws. This makes the game
bloodier,
and more fun I think. But I like your idea! Some units need to be a
little
more armored. Marine troopers should be a little more special. I
mean, in the
whole Imperium, there's only supposed to be a million of them.
> 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
>
I think the time scale is probably around 20-60 min. I disagree with
the
idea of a penalty. Devestator squads carry one heavy weapon, think of
them as
a Bazooka Squad. What's the problem?
One thing I really dislike, however, is Heavy Weapon Guardians. It's
my
feeling that they make the Eldar more generic. Each army has it's own
strenghts and weaknesses. It's own distinctive feel. Guardians are
reserve troops, not regular army. I say, "Give them the AXE!"
> 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
>
What are the stats in 40K? How does a rhino's bolters compare to a
squad of
troops in 40K. I agree that rhino bolters are just about worthless,
but
maybe, in an epic scale, they are almost worthless.
> 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.
>
Please, please, don't do this! There are enough modifiers. Has
anyone
ever played Starfleet battles? Starfleet was a great game, turned
worthless
by to many rules. It got so bad, they had to come out with a Doomsday
edition.
> 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.)
>
Eldar Heavy Guardians are out of hand. Exarchs seem OK to me, they
cost
400pts and use a special card.
> 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.
>
I think the close combat rules are fine but need some examples for
better
understanding.
> 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
>
Yes!
> 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 very much agree.
> Allies:
> Actual rules for how to include allied troops in an army should be included
> in the core rules
>
Yes, lets avoid the Imperial CHEESE!
> 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.
>
I agree STRONGLY, with Ken's idea, lets keep it simple:
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.
> 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.
>
The rules should stay simple, the battles should not.
That's why I love Epic!
> 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?
>
I think we need to streamline the rules, let's incorporate the
alternate
stuff, or get rid of it. If we add any more units, let's remember to
keep
the flavor of the different armies. If you want a generic army, take
the
Imperial Guard, Marine, Tech Guard, Squats allied CHEESE army.
> 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.
>
>
Thanks, that's my opinion, Dave.
______________________________________________________
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Increase your sales during the Holiday Season-Get a FREE ShopNow.com
> Premier Merchant Listing with your discounted purchase of the Virtual
> Gift Basket Listing. http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1752
>
> -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=netepic&m=1
Received on Fri Nov 19 1999 - 08:36:21 UTC