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

From: Andy Michaud <amichaud_at_...>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:06:26 +0000

> NetEpic revision ideas:
> 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 tanks.
> 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 at
> 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

The multiple saves idea is more realisitic, but the impact on game play would
change the feel of netepic I think.

> Heavy units:
> Should units with heavy weapons be penalized for firing on advance orders?
> 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
> improved?
> A: No
> B: Increase range to 25 cm.
> C: Increase to-hit to 5+
> D: Other

I think that bolters should be roughly equivilent to the bolters that marines
carry. This is more realisitc, however for game balance reasons I say they stay
as they are.

> 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?
> A: Current rules (no different from other units)
> B: Vehicles make overruns and rams instead of fighting regular close combat
> C: Tanks fire bolters and similar weapons against infantry in base contact
> (even if allready fired these weapons)
> D: Other

If you factor the bolters and other close assult weapons into the CAF, then the
curent system should work fine. It would also keep the game streamlined.

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

I thought those rules were already inplace...except the +1 for charging.

> 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

I believe that not every close combat ends in a destroyed or killed unit.
However, If you have to make a save with a -1 per point lost it makes it more
realistic especially with infantry vs. tanks.

> 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 like that idea...as long as every unit has a set value, like on a scale of
1-10 or something simple.

> 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.

sounds good.

> 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.
> 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
> 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

Sounds good.

> 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?)

A. I like the variety the different armies have with the varied templates and

> 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

A. Scatter dice are a fun part of the game and are pretty self explanitory. I
think we should keep them as they are.

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

After playing chaos and tyranid for so long the fun of having random little
cards to annoy your opponant with is beyond belief. I definately thing that we
should try to institute something like some sort of buying random strategy

> 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

I believe if you are riding in a transport and it gets smoked, your in a bad
spot, but there is a chance you will survive. I say if the unit has a save they
get to try and make it, and if they don't they save on a 6+.

> 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
> B: Infantry can ride on certain tanks (either defined by size or a unit
> skill)
> C: Infantry can ride on any tank

Thats what transports are for. Sounds interesting but it would be just more to
keep track of.

> I think riding should be restricted to only 1 stand per tank in any turn.
> The stand is "picked up" by the tank and dropped off at some point.
> If tanks are hit by snap fire while transporting infantry, the infantry
> stand will be hit on 4+ (automatically if the tank is destroyed) and must
> make a basic save to survive. If an area of effect weapon hit the tank the
> infantry stand is affected normally
> If you feel that riding should be added please vote for the following as
> well:
> Tank movement:
> A: Only advancing tanks can be used
> B: Tanks may be used as long as they don't fall back
> C: Any tank may be used regardless of orders
> D: Other

> Infantry movement:
> A: Infantry must have advance orders to ride
> B: Infantry must have charge orders to ride
> C: Infantry can have any orders except fall back
> D: Infantry must expend all movement to ride but can shoot normally
> E: Infantry must expend all movement to ride but can shoot in advance
> segment
> F: Infantry must expend all movement to ride and cannot shoot (unless hip
> shooting rules are decided upon)
> G: Other
> Tank fire:
> A: Tanks fire are not restricted by riding infantry
> B: Fire suffers a -1 penalty
> C: Tank may not fire bolters
> D: Tank may only fire bolters
> E: Tank may not fire if infantry is riding
> F: Other
> Point cost formula:
> The formula should perhaps be revised as well, and brought up to date.
> Currently it is designed to fit with GW's values but I think we should
> revise it and recalculate the army lists when we get around to it. Any
> thoughts?

Sounds good to me.

Andy Michaud
Received on Mon Nov 22 1999 - 09:06:26 UTC

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