[NetEpic ML] R: Mail votes.......looong but do it

From: Bernasconi Davide <Bernasconi_at_...>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 16:46:37 +0100

> Here is the next bunch of stuff to vote on. This barrage is
> less concerned with current rules, and focuses mroe on alternative stuff
> that might (or might not) be needed.
> Not everything in this list is stuff that needs to be added, but
> I got an idea I added it to the list. Who knows, maybe one day it will
prove usefull anyway.

Here I am :-)))

> I hope as many people as possible will vote as this will help
> determine the future on NetEpic. This is your chance to get to shape the
> best wargame out there....so join up. Don't let those pathetic eldar
players decide
> everything... :) :)

Long live to marines ....... I'm not sure about my english but I think you
can understand the meaning :-)))

> Psykers:
> There's no denying that psykers are a potent part of any army in the
fortyfirst millenium so it is worth considering their effect
> on battles a little.
> A: Keep current NetEpic rules (psykers can pick a power to cast each turn
from a list of 3)
> B: System from Epic 40K (Psykers give a bonus in assault combat and little
> C: Psykers should have more detailed rules (Heresy f.x. where psykers
will have power points which they spend on casting powers. Powers are drawn
randomnly from a psychic deck)
> D: Other

C but I don't like to have them too much powerfull, each psyker (or type of)
should have a different deck.

> Firefights:
> Epic 40K uses the concept of firefights. If units are within 15 cm. of
each other in the assault phase (Before fighting close combat
> IIRC) they engage in firefights. Units losing a firefight suffer some
casualties but not a lot (1 unit in E40K) and are forced to fall back.
> If such a rule should be used we might give each unit a firefight rating
(Just a number tagged after it's CAF) which the model rolls in d6 if
engaging in a firefight. For each 6 rolled the enemy unit suffers a hit
which can be saved normally.
> (Firefight hits might even add bonuses to saves as they are rather
unlethal compared to the normal ranged combat). The unit which suffers the
largest amount of hits are forced back 10 cm.
> How about this?
> A: No firefights
> B: Use firefights as described here
> C: Other


> Morale:
> One of the biggest differences between game systems is how morale is
handled. Therefore it is worth considerating for NetEpic 4.0 as well.
> A: Current NetEpic morale rules
> B: Heresy style (units have morale levels and when failing a morale check
they drop a level. Perhaps more conditions for checks should be added to
make this change significant)
> C: Adeptus Titanicus morale rules (A unit only has to check morale when
their leader is dead, but then has to check each turn)
> D: Use a morale table with different results so units are not nescesarily
forced to fall back, they might be pinned down, badly shaken etc.
> E: Other

D, here we can use if a unit is elite or something else to change the result
of the table (or a have different tables)

> Suppression:
> NetEpic has no rules for the suppression of troops, Should this be added?
> A: No, keep current rules
> B: Use system akin to E40K (blast markers)
> C: Use system similar to Heresy (number of attacks compared to number of
> D: Reflect suppression by morale effects (See D above)
> E: Other

D, but I'm not sure

> Super heavy units:
> Alternate rules are available here.
> A: Keep current NetEpic rules (1 simple table to cover all super-heavies)
> B: Use detailed rules (1 table for each super-heavy
> C: In-between (each TYPE of super-heavy got a table. F.x. one for tanks,
walkers etc.)
> D: Assign super heavies a damage rating (slightly similar to titan rules
from Incoming)
> E: Super heavy units can ignore the first failed save. The second wastes
them (Adeptus Titanicus rule)
> F: Other

C, but also A

> Smoke / blind cover:
> In real life and 40K2 many units carry smoke grenades to lay down smoke
screens during battle. This could be incorporated in NetEpic
> for added realism and expanded tactical possibilities. It adds complexity
> A: No smoke screens
> B: Units with smoke / blind capacity can use their grenades to add a -1
to-hit penalty to themselves.
> B1: As B but unit may not charge
> B2: As B but unit may not shoot
> B3: As B but unit may not shoot and only move on advance orders
> C: Unit can place smoke template within 10 cm. (Has chance of scattering
1d3 cm.)
> D: Unit can place smoke template in base contact with minimum 2 models.
> E: Other

D , they can put the template also on themselves not only touching their

> Effects of smoke / blind screen templates (If used):
> A: -1 to-hit penalty
> B: -1 to-hit penalty for troops within 25 cm. of smoke. Troops further
away are unable to see through
> C: Troops cannot see through smoke clouds
> D: Other


> Assault resolution:
> Many games allow troops that win (or force troops that lose) to move,
either to retreat or to consolidate their position.
> This also opens up opportunities for NetEpic Please vote on more than one
if you feel like it
> A: No additional rules
> B: Winning models may move up to 5 cm. These units will not have any
effect on this turns close combat though
> C: If all enemies are destroyed the winning units may move up to 10 cm.
They will have no effect on this turns close combat though
> D: If a unit suffers more casualties than it causes, it must pass a
morale test. If failed the unit falls back as per normal rules
> E: As D but failing cause the unit to retreat only once. The unit is not
on fall back orders next turn
> F: As E but unit is only forced back 10 cm. Victors may advance up to 10
> G: All models on losing side are forced back 5 cm. and winners may
advance similar amount
> H: Other


> Crossfire:
> In 40K3 a unit falling back into an enemy unit are roasted. The same
happens in E40K.
> A: No crossfire rules in NetEpic
> B: Units falling back into an enemy unit are destroyed
> C: Units subject to crossfire (cos they fall back into an enemy) are hit
on 4+ and must make a saving throw
> D: Units subject to crossfire are destroyed on 4+
> E: Units subject to crossfire must take a saving throw to avoid
> F: Units subject to crossfire are the targets of a free round of shooting
from the unit causing the crossfire
> G: Other


> Regrouping:
> In Adeptus Titanicus infantry could regroup. This gave them a chance to
patch up their numbers by forming ad hoc squads out of
> survivors, treating the wounded etc. Vote on more than one if you feel
like it
> A: No regrouping
> B: Units on regroup orders recover lost models on 6+
> C: Units on regroup orders recover 1 model for every 2 the unit has lost.
Models not recovered are removed from the game and can no longer be
> D: As C but only 1 model is recovered.
> E: Regrouping units get a second chance to rally.
> F: Regrouping units may move up to half their movement
> G: Other


> Which models can regroup?:
> Only vote here if you want regrouping to be an option.
> A: Infantry only
> B: Infantry and cavalry only
> C: Infantry, cavalry and bikes only
> D: All non super heavy units
> E: Other

........., but in case C

> Digging in:
> When units dig in and later move, the dug in status is lost.
> This is all right and proper but I can't help think that units should be
able to eastablish more permanent positions.
> A: Keep current dig in rules
> B: Units digging in can place a number of trench or foxhole sections on
the board as nescesary to cover the unit. These sections remain on the
table after the unit moves.
> C: Units digging in must spend an additional turn to establish trenches.
> D: No digging in at all
> E: Other


> Stealth orders A.K.A. sneaking:
> It is not entirely inappropriate to think of units sneaking forward to
secure a position while generally attempting to avoid undue
> attention from enemy guns. Stealth should of course be limited to
infantry, most of the tyranid army and perhaps some cavalry units.
> A: No stealth
> B: Units on stealth orders may move a normal move and cannot shoot. They
get the benefits of -1 to-hit if fired at
> C: As B but instead of hit penalty, the unit may not be fired upon, at
distances greater than 25 cm.
> D: Other


> Combat phase order:
> Currently the combat phase places close combat before advance fire. While
this can make sense it also makes life difficult for assault
> units as they can rip their enemy apart and then get blown to bits. On
the other hand, assaulting a well-supported enemy is bound to hurt...
> A: Keep current turn sequence
> B: Fight close combat AFTER all shooting has been done
> C: Other (What alternatives could there be????)


> Movement phase order:
> There are two systems for determining the order in the movement phase
> A: Units can be moved in any order regardless of orders
> B: Old system where all units falling back move first. Then move units
charging and finally advancing units.
> C: Other


> Titan anti-personnel weapons:
> In the old days all titans mounted a heavy bolter in addition to their
other weapons. I always thought it made sense for titans to mount auxiliary
bolters and guns to fend off infantry assaults and stuff.
> However, this will surely make titans a lot stronger and more powerfull
and it
> really depends on your point of view. I know some people like Peter will
want titans to be
> tougher and they deserve it too.
> On the other hand, there are few things more satisfying than to see a
bunch of basic grunts wear down a titan and nail its ass!
> A: No more anti personnel stuff.
> B: Give each titan a single AP weapon (1-2 attacks hitting on 4+ or 5+.
Range about 50 cm. Allround fire arc or at least 180 to the front)
> C: Give titans a bunch of tank bolters (However these weapons might turn
out) with allround firing arc)
> D: Other


> Company missions:
> Some Incoming stuff mentioned titan missions. I think missions should
also be allowed for companies. Again, a mission should give VP but have a
consequence too. Volunteering to undertake an important mission and
botching is bound to hurt somewhere
> A: No missions
> B: Missions for titans only
> C: Missions for companies as well
> D: Missions as optional rule only. Both players has to agree upon the use
> E: Other

C and D

> Using tanks for cover: An optional rule from E40K (it was presented in a
Citadel Journal) allowed infantry to take cover behind tanks.
> This sounds reasonable but might prove too bothersome
> A: No taking cover behind tanks
> B: Infantry in contact with a tank and with the vehicle positioned
between them and the enemy are at -1 to-hit against enemy fire
> C: Infantry in cover behind a tank can transfer any hit to the tank on 4+
> D: If a tank being used for cover is charged, the infantry can "absorb"
the charge instead
> E: Other

B, only 1 stand for vehicle.

Already finished ..... only these ones .... :-)))


Received on Wed Nov 24 1999 - 15:46:37 UTC

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