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

From: Jon Davison <jon_at_...>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 18:23:00 -0000

Hello All,

Here's my vote...

>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
>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
>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 - Allow infantry saves but only against "anti-personnel" weapons. This
way infantry still get a save vs the weaker weapons such as bolters etc, but
against the likes of volcano cannons. Weapons simply need to be classified
as AP
(Anti-Personnel) or AT (Anti-tank).

>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 - No. I view advance orders as cautious movement maximising covering
fire and terrain, similar to modern infantry tactics where a couple of guys
forwards whilst being covered by the rest of the team etc.

>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

E- Introducing "morale tests" simply introduces an additional layer of
dice rolling. It could be retained though for optional rules or special
circumstances i.e. wanting to fire at horrific targets charging firer
(Tyranids ? They scare me !) or poor quality troops such as raw recruits, or
an Imperial Guard Penal Company.

>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 - Infantry tend to have poor CAF values against the better tanks
("specialist" units excepted), and if you leave your tanks vulnerable
without infantry
support you deserve everything you get...

>Tank bolters:
>Should bolters, shuriken catapults and other add-on tank weapons be
>A: No
>B: Increase range to 25 cm.
>C: Increase to-hit to 5+
>D: Other

D - B and C. Why should a Rhino be penalised with a shorter range, and
worse to hit than the equivalent infantry stand i.e. Marines ? After all the
is the same, the firer is the same - probably with the benefit of extra

As it stands now Rhinos' are purely "extra armour" for the Marines, probably
quite what the Adeptus Mechanicus Design Shops had in mind I would imagine !

>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

B - Rams and overruns just like the good old days (original Space Marine).
Vehicles have 2 CAF values - standard and overrun. The first is used for
and being assaulted by infantry, the other for overruning infantry.
Incidently, units
such as Rough Riders, and maybe Bikes could use the same idea.

>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 - Also see above re rams / overruns.

>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?

B,C, and D seem OK.

>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 for speed. D to give superheavy units more survivability against
"disposable" infantry / jetbikes etc.

>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.

Seems reasonable, perhaps as an optional rule rather tham must ahve.

>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.

If optional, good idea.

>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

No comment (do not use flyers, except trusty Thunderhawk).

>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?

C although I've not tried the Incoming rules as yet.

>This was also heavily objected against and doesn't really need voting.

Agreed. Players can always agree local "house" rules anyway.

>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
>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. Otherwise it could be open to abuse. Besides a charge is
supposed to be a commitment to all-out movement, if units are
allowed to fire this spoils some of the tactical element as this
leaves no real penalty.

>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. Doesn't seem broke, so don't fix it.

>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. Except for perhaps the stupid Titan Up/Down/Left/Right dice.

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

Agreed. Perhaps increased CAF, morale, even to hit or weapons. Temper this
with limited availability and higher points cost.

>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
>similar stuff and would be a great way to enhance the character of each
>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. This again can be agreed by players locally for their own scenarios.

>Transport units:
>Under the current system destruction of transports are really deadly for
>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. Imagine being in a modern APC hit by an Anti-tank round. Even if one
or two of the transported infantry did survive they are unlikely to be in
of a fighting shape.

>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
>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
>C: Infantry can ride on any tank

B. Gives some additional use to the Rhino "flak jacket". Plus why should
the poor grunts walk everwhere whilst the Cavalry boys get to ride in

>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

Seems reasonable.

>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. Limit tanks to advance orders only (I wouldn't fancy being on a
charging tank !).

>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
>F: Infantry must expend all movement to ride and cannot shoot (unless hip
>shooting rules are decided upon)
>G: Other

C. After all, they only have to hang on !

>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

C. But infantry could also fire (depending on orders...) ?

>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

Anyone got a spare year ??

>If you got anything else that you feel is important to the future of
>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.
>-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
>-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/netepic/?m=1
Received on Wed Nov 24 1999 - 18:23:00 UTC

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