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

From: Daniel Wiebell <dwiebell_at_...>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 19:08:03 PST

Howdy guys,

>Infantry armour saves:

I'm going to side with Peter's suggested solution, hard and soft targets and
weapons. Its what a very good WWII wargame on computer called Battleground
Ardennes uses to excellent effect, I also believe that is where Weasel
Fierce got his idea for infantry riding on tanks.

However, there would be weapons that this wouldn't work for, I can't imagine
a volcano cannon or heat lance (or other extremely large weapons classed as
anti-armour) failing to destroy an infantry squad. The weapon would simply
destroy the area around which it hit, taking the squad with them. Perhaps SH
weapons shouldn't be classed as either, since they can destroy pretty much
anything.

>Heavy units:
>Should units with heavy weapons be penalized for firing on advance orders?

NO!

>Snapfire:
>I am not especially unhappy about the current rules for snapfire, > but
>thought that a few alternatives wouldn't hurt.

Leave it alone.

>Tank snapfire versus infantry:

B. Keep current system but tanks do not suffer penalty to hit

>Tank bolters:
>Should bolters, shuriken catapults and other add-on tank weapons be
>improved?

Right now tank bolters are merely a point defense weapon against infantry.
If infantry charge you, you get a one in six chance per bolter of removing
the threat, if they fail you get a second chance in CC. If you increase
their to hit roll, infantry charging tanks have half the chance of
surviving. No, I would just go with a range increase. After all, heavy
bolters have more range than normal bolters, and in Epic, vehicle bolters
have less than one third the range.

>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

True.


>Tank assaults:
>How should tanks fight assault combat?

Leave it the way it is. Normal CC with first fire from bolters against
infantry.


>Infantry assaults versus tanks:

Its fine the way it is.


>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)

I like all of these. Also add on a +2 for being in a bunker or similar
defensive structure. I would also like to suggest that units classified as
elite should negate the defensive position bonuses. This would make elite
units somewhat more 'special'.


>Close combat saves:

Aargh! No change to this one!


>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?

The way my group has always done it, is to get a sheet of paper, do a rough
(very rough) drawing of the map, and then mark in where our units start.
When we are done we show the deployment to the other side and start placing
models on the table.


>Objectives:
>Perhaps different objectives could be introduced. An old issue of White
>Dwarf introduced various interesting objectives.

Hmmmm, interesting. I'd make them optional rules though.


>Flyers and titans:
>What are people reactions and thoughts here?

Flyers: I like the new ones better, ESPECIALLY moving the flyers phase to
AFTER movement.
Titans: Undecided. I haven't tested the new titan rules yet. They look good
however.


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

>Hip-shooting:

No way.


>Templates:
>Should templates be standardized?

I like option C. Keep the standard templates, convert the weird ones.


>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)?

Get rid of them. This will help new players.


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

See above.


>Strategy cards / effects:

Leave strategy cards back in 2nd ed 40k.

>Transport units:
>Under the current system destruction of transports are really deadly > for
>the infantry being carried.

I like D: Units receive a 4+ save.


>Riding on tanks:

Nah, its just too complicated and annoying for a miniatures game to
simulate.

>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?

Agree on all counts.

See ya

Dan

______________________________________________________
Received on Fri Nov 26 1999 - 03:08:03 UTC