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

From: Peter Ramos <pramos_at_...>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:56:37 +0000


Before I answer the questions below I'd like to point out that whatever the
changes we like to make are the current edition of netepic minus editing will
remain "locked in". In other words our labor these past years will remain for to
enjoy. Think of this revision as advancing netepic into the future so its okay
to make changes to it, perhaps even big changes. Having said that here is my
take on these points.

Weasel Fierce wrote:

> NetEpic revision ideas:
> If cool alternatives are presented to some of the things below we might have
> to revote.
> 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

F. other have the same armor saves system on a d6 for both infantry and and
vehicles but designate one as hard (vehicles) and soft (infantry), also define
weapons as capable of harming one armor type or another or both. that way you
can have marine troops with god saves but designated soft and thus vulnerable.
Weapons that can affect hard targets (like las cannons and such) hit and kill
soft armoed targets no save just like now. Certain infantry like termies cuold
get a low save but a hard target deisgnation (after all its very rare for a
termie to get it from bolter fire).

This has the added benefit that we need change little from the original rules
just add an "s" or "h" alongside armor saves and a similar tag to weapons. the
only major additons is infantry saves.

> 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

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

B, sounds good

> 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

C, increased hit probability and not range is the best solution, increased
ranged makes its offensive while a better to hit keeps the rhino for example in
the role as APC but better able to defend itself.

> 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

Theres no place for this in the current system, would need an overhaul to fit,
not worth it.

> 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

B, always thought they should overrun, fight immediately and if succesful
continue move ala AT.

> 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

D. In at vehicles had two CAF values one when they overran and one lower one for
when they were assaulted by infantry. With the simple additon of a split stat
for vehicles it simulates this well and with a minimum of fuss.

> 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?

E. No modifiers, but extra attackers should NOT get a full d6 roll, I always
thought it too much. two tactical IG stands on average easily take out a stand
of marines, in 40k ten IG would be decimated by five marines. I always thought
that secondary attackers and such should get a +2 or +3 per extra attacker, or
better still a bonus equal to half the secondary/tertiary/etc unit is, such that
more power troops that back up an attack give more bonuses than throwing
gretchin in. Un der the current rules any thing is good to throw in since
everything gives and extra d6.

> 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

Having played AT, you do NOT want saves in close combat, it takes FOREVER to
resolve. So A it is.

> 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 this because armies with poor organization like orcs deploy in big hunks
while better organized armies like marines deploy in comany size.

> 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.

As optinal sure.

> 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

Having extensively tested the new flyer rules by Johan I vote "C"

> 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?

having made the incoming rules and tested them of course I will vote B, hehe

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

A BIG NO from me again on this.

> 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

A resounding NO, to prone to abuse in my experience.

> 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?)

Having all the templates and them being avaialbe online at the epicentre its
easy for gamers old and new to use them so let them stay as is.

> 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

This is trickier, since most dice are NOT available an attempt to standarize in
this regard is a noteworthy effort we should look in to.

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

Unfortunately I cant come up with anything else thats balanced to add to them.

> 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

"A" the current epic structure wouldn't hold this well since there are too many
cards floating around as is.

> 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 sounds good.

> 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

A, lets leave that in WWII land for now.

> 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.

Thanks a lot for starting this off, since it will be sometime before I can lead
personally. Its a great start too!

Received on Mon Nov 22 1999 - 16:56:37 UTC

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