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

From: stefano andreoni <ltremari_at_...>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:53:47 +0100

Hi,


> 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
turn
> > from a list of 3)
> > B: System from Epic 40K (Psykers give a bonus in assault combat and
little
> > else)
> > 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

 A

> > 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

I can't answer because I don't know the mechanism.

> > 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

Make a morale table that differentiate, not only each race/army, but create
a real differentation between each type of troop in a army.

>
> I always have a beef on how useless morale is in ALL GW games, its placed
more
> as an aferthought than an acknowledgement of its battlefield role. While I
favor
> a better system, perhaps any no matter how simple would not fit well in
the
> current rules.
>
> > 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
> > models)
> > D: Reflect suppression by morale effects (See D above)
> > E: Other

A

> > 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

 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 though.
> > 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
>
> Should only be allowed on a barrage template level at a -1 penalty to hit
per
> template traversed.

Agree

> > 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

 A.

> > 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
cm.
> > G: All models on losing side are forced back 5 cm. and winners may
advance
> > similar amount
> > H: Other

A

> > 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
destruction
> > F: Units subject to crossfire are the targets of a free round of
shooting
> > from the unit causing the crossfire
> > G: Other

 A.

> > 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
> > recovered.
> > 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

 A.

> > 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
> >
> > 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

A

> > 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

A

> > 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????)

 A

> > 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

 A, I like FOW.

> > 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

 A.

> > 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
> > missions
> > E: Other

A

> > 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.

Two orders.

>
> > 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

 A
Received on Thu Nov 25 1999 - 08:53:47 UTC