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

From: Lorenzo Canapicchi <canapi_at_...>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 16:50:23 +0100

Weasel Fierce wrote:
> 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

> 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

> 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

> Suppression:
> NetEpic has no rules for the suppression of troops, Should this be added?
 B: Use system akin to E40K (blast markers)

> Super heavy units:
> Alternate rules are available here.
 B: Use detailed rules (1 table for each super-heavy

> 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 though.
 A: No smoke screens

> 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
> Crossfire:
> In 40K3 a unit falling back into an enemy unit are roasted. The same happens
> in E40K.
 G: Other
        They must check morale at the end of fire phase

> 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

> 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

> 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

> 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
        One should learn to well cover his units :o)

> 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

> 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!
> D: Other
        I like the 2nd edition rules if you want you can mount some weapons on
some titans, this should not be generalized.

> 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
 D: Missions as optional rule only. Both players has to agree upon the

> Transport orders:
> One thing I find a bit bothersome is that transports and the grunts inside
> are given different orders. While this certainly gives more freedom (a
> tactical marine unit could charge with their rhinos and then advance with
> bolters ablazing or charge out into assault combat) it still proves fiddly
> because the unit will have two order counters next to it. Distinquishing
> these can prove irritating.
> I don't know whether there is an alternative, or whether thngs are fine as
> they are. If anyone can think of something please tell.

mumble mumble, even veichles and infantry they come from the same
Usually we give different order for DIFFERENT detachment

> 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
> E: Other
        only cover if in LOS and from infantry/veichle fire.
Lorenzo Canapicchi
Personal Page:
Received on Wed Nov 24 1999 - 15:50:23 UTC

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