[NetEpic ML] Re: 4.0 revision suggestions

From: Ian McDowall <imcdowall_at_...>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 16:31:34 +0000

Hi Guys,
long time no contribute - Real Life (tm) taking over.

First - locale = Cambridge England (another Brit!).

Tzeentch 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.
> 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+.

I like it - infantry saves vs laser cannons and tank-killers suck in general.

> 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.

Yes, but at the current time if you fired on infantry with a 120mm cannon I
would assume that you would fire HE or some other area effect round. If you
lobbed APDS, HEAT or some other AT round you wouldn't have a cat in h..lls
chance of hitting anything. In this case infantry saves might make sense (like,
a flak jacket might work against a frag round) but the weapon's save mod would
be different (does a bigger gun have a lower to-hit because of a bigger blast or
a higher save mod?).
It might be that some weapons (like laser cannons) might be ineffective against
infantry or maybe it switches to a 'sweep' mode to try to cut down a lot of men.

In total, I think that the current approach where infantry and vehicle attacks
are handled the same way is 'unrealistic' but we may not want to change the game
system that much.

> snip...

> > 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?
> 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.

A shame as range variations would add some subtlety in certain situations - but
again, maybe this is just regarded as a fundamental feature of the game system.
I agree that it would mess up game balance.

> > Unit revision:


> Many units should be simplified or redone I agree.

Yes, I have a problem with some units. This is probably because I am not a
great GW fan and so I haven't seen models for all the troops. So some troops
just don't make sense to me. This applies to a lot of the Chaos vehicles and a
lot of the Eldar. There are also a lot of troops with (what seem to me like)
random variations. However, I guess that simplifying everything too far would
lose the character of the game for those who do know (and love?) the different
troops types.

> snip..

> > Allies:
> > Actual rules for how to include allied troops in an army should be
> included
> > in the core rules
> Eep, personally I think this "allied troops" business should be HIGHLY
> restricted.

Yep, having been an ancient period player some years ago (and I still dabble
occasionally) I can see a great risk here. Power players can pick and choose
the best parts of each army and the carefully balanced armies with known weak
points suddenly become invincible. The only exception I would see would be an
Imperial army with a IG core and Marine or TG detachments but it might be
simpler to ignore even these for the sake of consistency.

> > 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.
> 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...

comments above - I would prefer some way of differentiating anti vehicle from
anti infantry fire although 'soft' vehicles like bikes might count as infantry.

> 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.

Yes - strongly agree.

> 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.

Yes please. I like the orks but I cannot stand some of the rules for them.

> 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.

Yes, as above. I play solo and I cannot be bothered to even try to understand
these rules.

> 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
> time.



Ian McDowall
Received on Sat Nov 20 1999 - 16:31:34 UTC

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