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

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:13:54 +0200

[snip]
>
> 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: Classify weapons as basic and heavy. Infantry would only get a save
against basic weapons unless they have fixed save. A system like this was
used in AT/SM1 but it was a bit more complex.

> 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
>

No. There already is a penalty of firing later (advance) or not at all
(charge).

> 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. There is nothing wrong with 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
>

A, and the bolters suffer no penalty since they are not snap fired:
"Vehicles with bolters may always use them on first fire against infantry
charges, even if they are given other orders".

> 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
>

B: Even though there are not as many of those as in an infantry stand I
can't see why the range drops under half of an infantry stand.

> 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
>
> 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 and D: We could assume that the CC is an abstraction of rams, overruns
etc. however, I propose that we change the rules for pinning and ties
instead, I can't see how infantry would stop a tank of any size from moving
or how a vehicle would stop another if a ramming attempt was unsuccesful. So
the system would be:

1) Resolve CC as normal and remove casualties.
2) If the scores are tied then one of the two possibilities would happen:
-Infantry vs Infantry: the stands remain in CC and fight again in the next
CC phase
-Infantry vs vehicle or vehicle vs vehicle: neither of the models is pinned
and may move away.

Rules for titans need no change.

I also propose that a vehicle/titan could make overrun attacks while moving
but lose a portion of its movement (say 5cm) in the process.

> 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: See above.

> 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. Needs no modifiers.
 
> 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. CC is deadly.
 
> 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.
>

Good idea, I like it.

> 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.
>

I have that WD and for once liked what GW did. However, the objectives need
a bit of streamlining IMO.
 
> 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
>

B. Maybe put the airstrike! rules as optional. I think those are a bit
complex.

> 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?
>

A. However, if a consensus of changing the rules is reached I vote for B.
 
> 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
>

F.

> 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?)
>

A. There are not THAT many templates around and I can't see how a
flamethrower and an artillery piece would use the same kind of template.
 
> 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
>

B? If we find a convenient way of getting rid of those dice you can only get
from GW mail order then I'm in for it.

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

Not yet

> 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
>

B, but should be thoroughly playtested.

> 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
>

B: most infantry stands have no save anyway and those who do ARE a bit
tougher. I can imagine terminators possibly surviving an exploding Land
Raider.
 
> 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: even though it is not entirely logical it would take away the advantage
of having transport vehicles and thus change the game balance.
 
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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?
>
Certainly. However, I personally am not much of a mathematician so I just
watch and see what you come up with. :)


[snip]

Jyrki Saari
Received on Tue Nov 23 1999 - 12:13:54 UTC