i second those thoughts
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Evans <brian.a.evans_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 12:28 AM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: 4.0 revision suggestions
> see below.......
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Weasel Fierce <septimus__at_...>
> To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 9:48 AM
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] 4.0 revision suggestions
>
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> If you give infantry an armor saving throw, will you need to change all
the
> armor values for vehicles? Or will you create a case where infantry are
> more resilient to weapon's fire than say a Rhino?
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> There already exists a negative........The enemy can eleminate your
> Devestators in the first fire phase, before the Devestators can shoot.
You
> also will not get a chance to fire at anyone who charges you if on Advance
> orders.
>
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> A single bolter should have a very difficult time eliminating a 5 man
squad.
> Remember that an infantry stand has 5 bolters shooting (4 bolters plus a
> Heavy Weapon most likely), a tank in 40K only has 2 bolters or a single
> storm bolter. The tank's bolter has a much reduced amount of fire-power
> than the infantry's 5 weapons coupled with a limited firing arc.
>
> > 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.
>
> This will strongly affect game balance, this would be a huge change.
>
>
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> Keep it simple, a vehicle's CAF does an adequate job of simulating a
tank's
> anti-personel weapon's fire, vulnerability to close-in infantry attacks,
and
> just plain running attackers down. I do not think we need a separate
stat.
> or rule to cover vehicles in close combat.
>
> > 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 always thought that Epic simulated the effects of firing your weapons
> multiple times in a turn as opposed to just a single shot with say a
> LasCannon.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Keep the rules simple. Keep the units simple. I have always thought of
> Epic as being a very broad picture of the battle. Small variations in
armor
> or weaponry should not have a strong influence on the game. If we try to
> differentiate between very minor differences in equipment we will have to
> make 'special rules' for almost every unit or have to expand the stat.
line
> greatly.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet your Match! CLICK HERE to go to One & Only Internet Personals
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1705
>
>
> -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=netepic&m=1
>
>
>
Received on Sun Nov 21 1999 - 21:45:35 UTC