[NetEpic ML] Re: NetEpic revision....

From: Tzeentch <tzeentch666_at_...>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:29:06 -0800

As Peter already pointed out this is for a *NEW* version of NetEpic. One not
only for the current players but for the new players who

A) Will not have access to the level of minis we were used to (Epic is dead,
long live Epic).

B) Will not have the original boxed sets so may or may not have the
"gubbinz" like special hit dice and templates.

C) Are not used to anything except maybe the simplified 40K3 so won't even
know what half the units are anyways.

> Infantry armour saves:
> How should infantry saves be handled?
> D: Infantry get a fixed save versus anti-personnel weapons and must save
at
> twice this value versus anti-tank weapons (Tzeentch's idea)

D. Should be explained that the save can be modified by other antipersonnel
weapons, just not heavy weapons, though for simplicity if they are hit then
their save is doubled. If its beyond 6+ then they are splat!

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

No. That would be pretty lame as well as another rule/modifier that is not
really needed.

> 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

Any additional rolling would be unwise, especially since in this case the
dice would make things even MORE random.

> 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

If it's not broken then it does not need fixing..unless you are an engineer
in which case then you need to keep adding to it until it is...

> Tank bolters:
> Should bolters, shuriken catapults and other add-on tank weapons be
> improved?
> D: Other

D. Make them antipersonnel only with a better to-hit. That way you don't
have anti-tank bolters...

> 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

Ugh. No.

> Tank assaults:
> How should tanks fight assault combat?
> B: Vehicles make overruns and rams instead of fighting regular close
combat

Check out Incoming (I think #2) for my variation of the Adeptus
Titanicus/Ogre Miniatures overrun rules.

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

I like the Heresy system MUCH better but it's not a game-breaker.

> Close combat modifiers:
> Should modifiers be added to close combat dice rolls?
> B: Modify for charging (+1)
> C: Modify for broken morale (-2)
> D: Modify for defenders postion (+1 if in cover or dug-in)

B,C and D. Keep it to a small table.

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

Does not need to be changed, although the Heresy rules are better IMHO.

> 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.

Too fiddly. I'd just have a blind set up and everyone deploys everything
without looking at the enemies stuff. If that is not possible you have to
plot your units on a small map (even if you have to draw it). I never liked
the you-go then I-go system of deployment.

> 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.

That sounds great.

> Flyers and titans:
> What are people reactions and thoughts here?
> C: New flyer rules

We need more feedback before making this final if it is agreed on however.

> B: New titan rules from incoming

I like the new Titan rules and it gets rid of those damned templates and
special dice. The less special equipment crap the better.

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

NO ALLIES.

> Hip-shooting:

Uhm. Not only no but hell no :)

> Templates:
> Should templates be standardized?
> B: Make standard templates instead of specific templates for virtually
> everything that uses a template

I understand everyones reluctance to go to standardized templates but
frankly it's ridiculous to have as many templates as NetEpic does. Don't
even give me that "flavor" crap because it does not add anything but more
fiddly stuff to worry about.

One word "doomweavers". Nuff said about that. Can anyone REALLY say battles
were won or lost based on those little hexagonal pieces of cardboard? Ditch
all the wierdo special templates and pick a few that can be used for
everything.

> 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)?
> B: Remove dice

Keep scatter dice but ditch all the rest. No more random BP dice, no hit
location dice. Provide a template like AT did for random scatters so you
don't NEED the dice.

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

Give them an advantage against superheavies too. If not then who cares? If
it's not an effective rule then we should ditch it.

> 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

For the love of god no. The less random crap the better. It should not be
about getting the best card draw or random dice roll but skill.

> Transport units:
> Under the current system destruction of transports are really deadly for
the
> infantry being carried.
> C: Units with fixed saves receive a save

I'd like to see this, but it's not a major item.

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

I made rules for this as well (check the Epic Ogre Miniatures rules). I like
it, but the infantry get killed pretty easy..

> Tank movement:
> C: Any tank may be used regardless of orders

Hello, anyone ever watch WWII TV documentaries? You always see the grunts
catching a lift on tanks. The germans perfected it for their 'panzerblitz'
attacks.

> Infantry movement:
> G: Other

Should just be like the normal transport rules with regard to the troops and
and vehicle movement penalties.

> Tank fire:
> A: Tanks fire are not restricted by riding infantry

Hey, have to have SOME realism, they are not sitting on the bolters or
anything.

> 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?

Not my bag baby.

Kenneth
NetEpic Idea Rat
Received on Tue Nov 23 1999 - 01:29:06 UTC