[NetEpic ML] Re: NetEpic revision....LOOOOONG but read it and vote

From: Lorenzo Canapicchi <canapi_at_...>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:28:39 +0100

Weasel Fierce wrote:
> Infantry armour saves:
> How should infantry saves be handled?
 A: Keep the current system

> Heavy units:
> Should units with heavy weapons be penalized for firing on advance orders?
 A: No

> Snapfire:
> I am not especially unhappy about the current rules for snapfire, but
> thought that a few alternatives wouldn't hurt.
 A: Keep current rules

> Tank snapfire versus infantry:
> It seems okay that tanks are allowed to snapfire their bolters at charging
> infantry, but it is kinda ineffective.
 A: Keep current system

> Tank bolters:
> Should bolters, shuriken catapults and other add-on tank weapons be
> improved?
 A: No

> Long range:
> It seems that noone is really interested in introducing a modifier for long
> range shots so this is propably not worth voting about
> Tank assaults:
> How should tanks fight assault combat?
 B: Vehicles make overruns and rams instead of fighting regular close

> Infantry assaults versus tanks:
 A: Keep current close combat rules

> Close combat modifiers:
> Should modifiers be added to close combat dice rolls?
 A: No modifiers, keep current system

> Close combat saves:
 A: No saving throws should be possible in close combat

> Deployment rules:
> My suggestion for deployment rules would be to take it in turns to deploy a
> FULL company with all support. When all companies are deployed, you deploy
> special cards one at a time and finally you deploy infiltrators one at a
> time. Units with some sort of camouflage rule should propably get a bonus
> here as well.
> Any thoughts on this?
> Perhaps each unit could be assigned a deployment value depending on
> mobility, stealth and similar things. Units with high deployment are
> deployed last.

My opinion is to Keep things simple :o)

> Objectives:
> Perhaps different objectives could be introduced. An old issue of White
> Dwarf introduced various interesting objectives.
> How about this?
> Of course it would be optional.


> Flyers and titans:
 D: Other

I don't like so much actual flyer rules, maybe the old one 82nd edition)
with something different.
 A: Old titan rules

> Hip-shooting:
> In AT/SM units had the ability to fire weapons while charging although at a
> -1 to-hit penalty.
> Epic 40K and 40K3 also allows this kind of hip-shooting. Is this something
> that NetEpic 4.0 is going to use?
> (Fast unit mean bikes etc., light weapons mean bolters and smaller)
 A: Charging units cannot shoot

> Templates:
> Should templates be standardized?
 A: Keep current templates

> Special dice:
> Should any special dice be used, or should we make attempts to remove the
> weird dice from the game( gets hard with scatter dice)?
 A: Current dice

> Strategy cards / effects:
> Should we have some sort of strategy effects that will make things a bit
> more random?
> This could, represent ambushes, sudden bravery, barrages, forced marches and
> similar stuff and would be a great way to enhance the character of each
> race.
 A: No cards / effects

> Transport units:
> Under the current system destruction of transports are really deadly for the
> infantry being carried.
 A: Keep current system (units are destroyed with no save possible)

> Riding on tanks:
> One thing I thought was cool in a WW2 game I read recently was the ability
> of infantry to ride on the hull of a tank. I also THINK I saw rules for this
> in Incoming but Im not sure. Should this be added to NetEpic or would it
> just be another silly rule?
 A: Infantry can't ride on tanks

Lorenzo Canapicchi
Personal Page:
Received on Mon Nov 22 1999 - 15:28:39 UTC

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