On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:40:06 -0800, Dave wrote:
> >
> > 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
> effective.
> Units with many bolters would need to be made a little more
> expensive.
>
>
> > 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
> each
> side from the other. This makes setup more objective oriented. There
> is
> nothing more interesting than setting up your forces, then lifting the
> screen
> 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
> against
> 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
> problems
> listed in Incoming. The bigest problem is that armor thickness is
> not
> a factor. Also, Warlords get the short end of the stick with poor
> reactor
> 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.
> >
> Yup.
>
>
> > 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
> the
> 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,
> afternoon
> 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
> game
> that uses riding a lot. It works in that game, but I think it
> should
> not be added to Epic for a couple of reasons.
>
> Orks already use this system, thats why they carry more stands per
> vehicle
> than any other army. Look at the Games Workshop pictures, they're
> hanging
> off everywhere!
>
> Can you imagine the poor Eldar? Guardians hanging on for dear
> life.
> 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
> Thunderhawks
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Looking for the hottest sports memorabilia or sporting goods
> specials? eBay has thousands of trading cards, sports autographs
> and collectibles.You never know what you might find at eBay!
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1143
>
>
> -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=netepic&m=1
>
>
Hi!
I don�t play epic since 4 years,but before was one of my best games.I�m
following this newsgroup since 4 months,and if I understood well you are
playing with the 2nd edition rules, but most of the revision that you want
to make (at least is what I think )are very similar to the first one.I
played both for a long time,and if the first one was more realistic (I� m
really missing the first terminator they were so strong!!) to play a huge
battle with it was really impossible.The second one has an Aim :to allow you
to fullfit the battlefield with a LOT of miniatures and to be still able to
play.
I think the best way is to make special rules for some unities ,but only to
have more fun.It�s true that you are fighting for the survival of the human
race �,but you must enjoy yourself ,and sometimes the battle is transformed
in a
law fight when the only way to win is knowing a rule that your opponent
doesn�t know.I think that the new rules that we are introduncing must be
only to balance the game and to help to solve new situations.
PS I will be back in Milano in january if someone is playing in that area I
would like to know him.
Marco
________________________________________________________________
Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at
http://voicemail.excite.com
Talk online at
http://voicechat.excite.com
Received on Tue Nov 23 1999 - 13:20:40 UTC