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

From: Dave <warprat_at_...>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 23:03:11 -0800

Thanks, Weasel!

Even though I might not agree with all/any of your
suggestions, your doing a marvelous job.

Keep up the GREAT work!

Thanks again,

> 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)

C looked kind of interesting. I'd like it as an alternate rule.
Both players would have to agree.

> 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
  Epic 40k stinks! Thats why I play Net Epic.

> 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

  I've found that morale plays a very small part in the game.
  This is OK with me. Warhammer is a very heroic universe,
  and the armies fighting are the best each world has to give.

> Suppression:
> NetEpic has no rules for the suppression of troops, Should this be added?
> A: No, keep current rules.

> Super heavy units:
> Alternate rules are available here.
> A: Keep current NetEpic rules (1 simple table to cover all super-heavies)

The table works pretty good.

> 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

Smoke works great in low technology games like WWII. In modern warfare
smoke is not all that effective against units with thermal scopes.
Can you imagine Eldar being affected by something as simple as smoke,
I can't. This would also have a MAJOR affect on play ballance.
> Effects of smoke / blind screen templates (If used):
> A: -1 to-hit penalty

Why not make this an alternate rule, that could be experimented with?
Both players would need to agree.

> 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

The only addition I could support would be for winners in close
combat to be able to occupy the losers just vacated position.
> Crossfire:
> In 40K3 a unit falling back into an enemy unit are roasted. The same happens
> in E40K.
> A: No crossfire rules in NetEpic

Any unit on fallback is in a desperate situation anyway.
Isn't that punishment enough? But hey, make an alternate rule,
might be interesting, of course both players must agree.

> 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

 Trenching can be abused, pay for trenches if you want them.

> 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

Did the tyranid playes pay a bribe to have this question included?

> 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

I think this helps correct for lack of suppession, but keeps
the game more playable.

> 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

I really like this rule!

> 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.

Titans are very hard for infantry to attack now!
I think titans now have the level of protection they deserve.

> 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 use missions.

> 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.
I absolutly LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, this rule. Who ever thought it
up should be given an Imperial Medal!

> 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
> E: Other
Pehaps I am wrong, but in reading the current Net Epic rules,
I note that infantry can block line of sight to other infantry.
Vehicles can block line of sight to infantry and other vehicles.
Superheavies can block superheavies, vehicles, infantry.
Pretorians can block pretorians, superheavies, vehiches and infantry.

If an infantry stand is directly behind a tank, it seems to me that
line of sight would be blocked. If the infantry is not seen,
there can be no direct fire.

Is this correct?

> ______________________________________________________
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1702
> -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=netepic&m=1
Received on Fri Nov 26 1999 - 07:03:11 UTC

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