[NetEpic ML] votes on revisions

From: Ian McDowall <idm_at_...>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:03:31 +0000

sorry ken about using a non-approved email address but if I wait till I'm
home it won't get done.

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
Vote - option C because it is more realistic (will affect game balance BTW
as anti infantry specialist weapons will be more useful but I think that's
a good thing.).
I think options D and E are confusing so my second choice would be A.

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
Vote - option C to represent set-up time. We would need to designate HW

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
Vote - B or A - don't mess about at the level of each model or shot.

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
Vote - B to represent stable platform (?) but they should have only a
limited arc of fire. One drawback of AFVs against infantry was a more
limited range of view so if you can catch them from the side then they are
vulnerable. If we want to keep 360 degree fire for simplicity then give
them a penalty to represent the chance of them missing the infantry
sneaking up.

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
Vote - A or B as they represent only a single bolter not several bolters so
no to-hit improvement.

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
Vote - I like it but I'll buy the game balance argument and regard close
assualt as close range fire.

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
Vote A because it is complex enough anyway and I can't really see ramming

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
Vote A because the CAFs are adjusted for these purposes

However, I wouldn't let vehicles assault each other. Infantry vs vehicle
assaults make sense but vehicle vs vehicle assaults would probably be short
range firefights. maybe this is where ramming could come in ?

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?

Vote C and D because charging is dangerous when the enemy has guns.

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

Vote A because C and D are complex. I ;like being able to trash high-save
units if I can get close enough.

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.

Vote - Sounds interesting - worth trying.

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.

We also created some new ideas in old email discussions - if you cannot
find them I could ressurect them (again!)

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

Vote - I haven't played them much but people keep saying that the new flyer
rules are great - I will abstain until I know what I'm talking about.

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?
Vote - er I need to go back and read Incoming. I didn't like the old rules
for placing shots but I haven't read the new ones so I'll abstain again.

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

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
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

Vote A - don't think it's a good idea.

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?)

Vote A - very little point in large numbers of random 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
B: Remove dice

Vote - would like B but am happy enough with scatter dice.

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

Thoughts - their morale rating and shooting / fighting abilities are
already fixed. What else is there ? I think the term is misleading though.

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
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

Vote A - but if you put them in I can always ignore them. Maybe these
should be in the optional section.

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

Vote B1 because I would like to be able to bale out when hit.

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
C: Infantry can ride on any tank

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

Vote - cool I like the way you have described it. Note that perhaps extra
large vehicles can take more than one stand and some smaller vehicles
(bikes ?) can take none.

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

Vote - A - not charge speed.

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
F: Infantry must expend all movement to ride and cannot shoot (unless hip
shooting rules are decided upon)
G: Other

Vote C.

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

Vote E for simplicity.

What if the combined unit gets assaulted ? I guess for simplicity the
whole thing shoulod count with the grunts dismounting in assault.

Ian McDowall
Received on Mon Nov 22 1999 - 16:03:31 UTC

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