[NetEpic ML] Re: 4.0 revision suggestions

From: Weasel Fierce <septimus__at_...>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 04:32:42 PST

>
> 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!"
>

Yeah, they seem like an add-on and the amazing dark reapers give all the
infantry support that is needed

>
> > 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.
>

As 2 bolters. The standard 5man squad got 3 bolters, 1 pistol and a special
or heavy weapon

> 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.

Never tried it, i must admit. However, shooting is ONLY modified for cover.


> > 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!

IMPERIAL??!! *splutters with outrage* imperial cheese??!!! *shoots you with
my bolter* :)

>
>
> > 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.
>
>


______________________________________________________
Received on Sun Nov 21 1999 - 12:32:42 UTC