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

From: Dave <warprat_at_...>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:40:06 -0800

> NetEpic revision ideas:
> Well, feedback has been received on my various points and I think it is time
> to have a little vote on what should be done.
> This is not decisive but it gives us a starting point.
> I think we should revise the core rules first and then deal with the
> individual army lists one at a time.
> Therefore I have not included any army list stuff in this list.
> Please make a vote everybody. When a suitably large number of votes have
> been made, the guy who takes charge of typing up the new rules (who is
> taking care of such things anyway?) can decide on what to do.
> It would be nice if ya wrote a bit about why you voted as you like, but
> don't feel forced to do so.
> Feel free to vote on several ideas if ya can't make up your mind
> 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
  D: A simple, yet elegant solution. Thankyou Tzeentch!

> 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
  A: Why are we even voting on this?

> 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
  A: Snapfire is great the way it is.

> 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: Wait untill you see the whites of thier eyes!

> 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: Bolters need to be defensive in nature. But should be a bit more
     Units with many bolters would need to be made a little more

> 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
  Nope, not interested.

> 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
  A: ,B sounds interesting. But I would need more specifics before I
could wote for it.
  As it is now, Deathrollers can make overruns on infantry.

> 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
  A: It's great the way it is!

> 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?
  A: Please, keep the number of modifiers to a low level!

> 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
  A: Quick and deadly, the best system I've seen yet.

> 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 have a number of ideas about this:

  The best system, in my humble opinion, is to use a divider to screen
  side from the other. This makes setup more objective oriented. There
  nothing more interesting than setting up your forces, then lifting the
  to see what the other side did. You tend to make a plan and stick
with it.

  The other system is to alternate the placement of units, one by one.
This is
  OK, but unit placement is more to counter, or take advantage of poor
placement by
  the other side. It is more countering, and less objective oriented.
Also, better
  led armies like the Marines and Eldar get no advantage against Orks
and Tryanids when
  setting up.

  I like the screen system best. No countering the other player. No
worry about Orks
  being smarter than Marines. And it's always a kick to see what the
other guy did!

  To tell you the truth, I'm more interested in how forces for armies
are picked.
  Do you setup the terrain and then pick forces that will exploit it?
  Or, do you choose an army and then set up the terrain to the best
advantage for
  that army?

> 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
  D: Haven't played with flyers yet, except Thunderhawks. Those I keep
  to one per company of marines, house rule. Don't have anything
  flyers, just can't afford to get them yet. How about a set a rules
  where flyers are an alternate rule that both sides must agree on.

> 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?
  D: I really like the Titan Templates. But I agree with all the
     listed in Incoming. The bigest problem is that armor thickness is
     a factor. Also, Warlords get the short end of the stick with poor
     placement. And of course, small titans are much to easy to miss.

     Battle Tech handles mech armor similar to the New Titan rules.
     It's a good system, but I would hate to lose the great flavor
     of the current Epic System. I like that infantry now have a much
     harder time swarming titans. I like the FEAR factor!

> 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
  A: Charging units do shoot, as does anybody fighting for thier life
     in close combat. This is already factored in.

> 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?)
  C: Keep the standard templates, convert the weird ones.

> 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: But try to convert to regular dice when possible. If the new titan
     rules are ratified, this won't be much of an issue.

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

> 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: Fine as an alternate rule, with both players agreement.

> 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
  A: Even in the WWII games I've played, riding infantry are killed when
     transport blows up. Also, I hope skimmer troops have some pretty
thick armor
     to absorb the shock when they hit the ground. Guardians in flight,
     delight aaawwwwwooooo, afternoon delight! (Sung to Skyrockets in
Flight) ;)
> 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: Ever play the computer game "Steel Panthers"? It's a WWII combat
     that uses riding a lot. It works in that game, but I think it
     not be added to Epic for a couple of reasons.
     Orks already use this system, thats why they carry more stands per
     than any other army. Look at the Games Workshop pictures, they're
     off everywhere!

     Can you imagine the poor Eldar? Guardians hanging on for dear
     Think of the popups, Great Harlequin, the CARNAGE!

> 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
  D: I think I've probably said too much already!

> 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
  G: I'm shutting up!

> 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
  F: Egads, it's hard not to giggle!

> 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?
  Fine, revise the formula. But get rid of Heavy Guardians and
  for Chaos. They take away from the full flavor of these armies and
  make them more generic. Just like allied armies do.

> 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.
> ______________________________________________________
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws.
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1701
> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
> -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/netepic/?m=1
Received on Tue Nov 23 1999 - 08:40:06 UTC

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