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

From: Bernasconi Davide <Bernasconi_at_...>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:43:55 +0100

> Infantry armour saves: How should infantry saves be handled?
> A: Keep the current system
> B: Current system but better infantry saves
> C: Give each weapon two modifiers, one versus infantry and one versus
> This would propably be reflected best if infantry base saves are improved
> D: Infantry get a fixed save versus anti-personnel weapons and must save
> twice this value versus anti-tank weapons (Tzeentch's idea)
> E: As D but a modifier is applied against anti-tank weapons
> (about -2). So a marine stand with a 4+ save would save on a 6 against
anti-tank shots.
> The modifier could be increased to -4 against superheavy weapons
> (Volcano cannon etc.)
> F: Other


> Heavy units:
> Should units with heavy weapons be penalized for firing on advance
> A: No
> B: Limit to firing only bolters (AT style)
> C: Reduce attacks
> D: Reduce accuracy
> E: Other


> 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
> B: Detachments must pass morale test to snapfire.
> C: Individual models must pass morale test
> D: Roll morale test for each shot
> E: Other


> 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
> B: Keep current system but tanks do not suffer penalty to hit
> C: Other


> Tank bolters:
> Should bolters, shuriken catapults and other add-on tank weapons be
> A: No
> B: Increase range to 25 cm.
> C: Increase to-hit to 5+
> D: Other


> Long range:
> It seems that noone is really interested in introducing a modifier for
> range shots so this is propably not worth voting about
> Tank assaults:
> How should tanks fight assault combat?
> A: Current rules (no different from other units)
> B: Vehicles make overruns and rams instead of fighting regular close
> C: Tanks fire bolters and similar weapons against infantry in base
> (even if allready fired these weapons)
> D: Other


> Infantry assaults versus tanks:
> A: Keep current close combat rules
> B: Infantry roll to destroy tank depending on CAF (Perhaps rolling equal
> or less). Tanks fire bolters
> C: Infantry roll to destroy tank depending on anti-tank assault (new
> Tanks fire bolters
> D: Other


> Close combat modifiers:
> Should modifiers be added to close combat dice rolls?
> A: No modifiers, keep current system
> B: Modify for charging (+1)
> C: Modify for broken morale (-2)
> D: Modify for defenders postion (+1 if in cover or dug-in)
> E: Other modifiers?

B + D + C

> Close combat saves:
> A: No saving throws should be possible in close combat
> B: Units receive a saving throw with no modifier
> C: Saving throw with -1 penalty for every 3 points combat was lost by.
> D: Save with -1 per point combat was lost by.
> E: Save depending on enemy CAF or other stat
> F: Other


> 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.

I prefer to assign to each unit (where unit=cmp or det) a deployment value.
You sum all the values for a cmp and its support, this is the final
deployment value to be used.

> 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.

very nice, having different objectives with different victory points.

> Flyers and titans:
> What are people reactions and thoughts here?
> A: Keep old flyer rules
> B: Old rules but move flyer phase to after movement
> C: New flyer rules
> D: Other


> A: Old titan rules
> B: New titan rules from incoming
> C: Old rules but use random dice roll for determining locations instead of

> the weird aiming dice
> D: Other?


> Allies:
> This was also heavily objected against and doesn't really need voting.

No allies.

> Hip-shooting:
> In AT/SM units had the ability to fire weapons while charging although at
> -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
> B: All charging units may shoot at -1 to-hit if they do not engage in
close combat
> B1: As B but infantry do not suffer penalty
> B2: As B but fast units do not suffer penalty
> B3: As B but light weapons do not suffer penalty
> B4: As B but pistols do not suffer penalty
> C: Charging units may fire light weapons at -1 to-hit
> C1: As C but fast units do not suffer penalty
> C2: As C but tanks do not suffer penalty
> D: Charging infantry may fire at -1 to-hit. Tanks may not
> D1: As D but light weapons do not suffer penalty
> D2: As D but pistols do not suffer penalty
> E: Only fast units (bikes etc.) may fire while charging
> E1: As E but light weapons do not suffer penalty
> F: Only pistols may be fired by charging troops at -1 to-hit


> Templates:
> Should templates be standardized?
> A: Keep current templates
> B: Make standard templates instead of specific templates for virtually
> everything that uses a template
> C: Other (What others are there?)


> 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
> B: Remove dice


> Elites:
> Units rated as Elite should more benefits than increased ability to
> titans. Any thoughts of this?

Maybe some kind of one time bonus during a battle !?!?

> 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
> B: Roll randomly depending on game size
> C: Effects are bought with points and then rolled randomly
> D: Effects are bought with points. You get exactly what you pay for
> E: Effects are picked from a list depending in game size

B or C

> 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)
> B: Units receive a basic saving throw
> B1: As B but units are only hit on 4+
> C: Units with fixed saves receive a save
> C1: As C but units are only hit on 4+
> D: Units receive a 4+ save
> E: Other

D, with or without save modifier?

> 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
> rules for this in Incoming but Im not sure. Should this be added to
> or would it just be another silly rule?
> A: Infantry can't ride on tanks
> B: Infantry can ride on certain tanks (either defined by size or a unit
> C: Infantry can ride on any tank


> If you got anything else that you feel is important to the
> future of NetEpic please feel free to add it to this list.
> However at this point, try to keep it to the core rules and stuff.

Id' like to see some core rule for campaign.

Received on Mon Nov 22 1999 - 15:43:55 UTC

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