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

From: Brian Evans <brian.a.evans_at_...>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:48:03 -0500

See below.........

----- Original Message -----
From: Weasel Fierce <septimus__at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 10:12 AM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic revision....LOOOOONG but read it and vote

> NetEpic revision ideas:
> Feel free to vote on several ideas if ya can't make up your mind
> Infantry armour saves:
> How should infantry saves be handled?
A: Keep the current system

I don't think that we need any extra stats. Battles of this large of a
scale should be quick and deadly for the average trooper. Only the
execptional troops should have any save at all.

> Heavy units:
> Should units with heavy weapons be penalized for firing on advance orders?
A: No

No Way! You are already penalized by having to fire later in the turn and
not getting shots at people charging you.

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

Keep it simple

> Tank snapfire versus infantry:
> It seems okay that tanks are allowed to snapfire their bolters at charging
> infantry, but it is kinda ineffective.
C: Other

I am not too wild about letting tanks snap fire at infantry. If you want to
protect yourself from charges, put yourself on First Fire orders.

> Tank bolters:
> Should bolters, shuriken catapults and other add-on tank weapons be
> improved?
A: No

Keep 'em the same. The basic tank, only has 2 Bolters or a 1 Storm Bolter.
This should not be as powerful as 5 Marines firing their Bolters.

> Long range:

No change

> Tank assaults:
> How should tanks fight assault combat?
A: Current rules (no different from other units)

A tank's CAF already takes into consideration the effects of Ramming,
Anti-personnel weapons, agility, armor thickness, crew training, etc. The
current close combat rules already do a good job.

> Infantry assaults versus tanks:
A: Keep current close combat rules

No change please

> Close combat modifiers:
> Should modifiers be added to close combat dice rolls?

Only if the unit is on FallBack orders (-2 CAF).

> Close combat saves:
A: No saving throws should be possible in close combat

Keep close combat DEADLY!!

> Deployment rules:
> My suggestion for deployment rules would be to take it in turns to deploy
> 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?

Deploying whole Companies at a time sounds interesting. I prefer 'Blind'
deployment. I either plot my units on a map, or put up a screen between the
two sides.

> Objectives:
> 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.

Optional Only!

> 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

I am not too excited about the flyer rules. I would rather treat flyers
like Epic Space Marines/Titan Legions does. The flyers just represent units
with execptional speed, not fighter or bomber runs. I want to see my
ThunderHawks on the battlefield, not on some mysterious flyer chart.

> 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?

Which rules are you referring to? This question covers a lot of different
topics. I don't mind the new titan cost system. I highly object to the new
close combat protection Titans receive. Titans are already hard enough to
destroy in close combat, why can't infantry etc. attack titans? I like the
Titan damage charts and the up/down, left/right die.

> Hip-shooting:
> In AT/SM units had the ability to fire weapons while charging although at
> -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

NO SHOOTING ON CHARGE ORDERS!! Units that have powerful guns (Exarchs)
would be AWSOME if they could shoot AND charge.

> Templates:
> Should templates be standardized?
A: Keep current templates

Aren't about 90% of templates already represented by only two templates?
Most things use either the Large or Small barrage template. If you want to
use something that has a 'wierd' template, you should be expected to supply
it. (Gargant Ball, Gargant Steam, Flame)

> 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

I have no problem with the die used in Epic.

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

Why do we have a new classification for Elites? Are all Marines elite?
They sure have much better training and equipment than Imperial Guardsmen.
I don't see where having Elites brings anything special into the game.

> 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
> race.
A: No cards / effects

No extra cards! This just adds another level of complexity to the game.

> 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)

If a large anti-tank shell pierces the side of the transport you are riding
in, you are probably in rough shape anyway. A weapon destructive enough to
knock out a tank, should be able to rip apart the soft stuff in the inside.
Most anti tank weapons are really designed to kill the crew anyway.

> 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

Riding a tank into battle is a really, really bad idea for an infantryman.
1. You are way up high where enemy weapons can find you easily.
2. There is not much to hid behind, so once spotted, the enemy can just
sweep you off the tank with automatic weapons fire.
3. What kind of shock will the infantry receive when an anti-tank shell
slams into the tank you are riding on?
4. If the tank/taxi shoots its main weapon, the infantry will probably be
stunned for a half hour and have ruptured eardrums from the sound and shock
of a 120mm gun firing just a few feet from them.
5. If the tank has to make any evasive maneouvers, the infantry may be
scattered all over the battlefield. At the least they will be hanging on
for dear life.
6. I know of only one military force who actually used Infantry riding
tanks on the battlefield as military doctrine: WWII Russia. We all know
how much Russia values the lives of its citizens. The only time infantry
rides tanks, is when they are in the rear areas, and know they are safe from
enemy attacks. No sane infantryman would willingly ride a tank when the
bullets are flying!

> 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
> well:

No tank riding, only approved transports my be utilized!

> Infantry movement:

No tank riding, only approved transports my be utilized!

> Tank fire:

No tank riding, only approved transports my be utilized!

> 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?

One of the things I liked about Epic Space Marines was that buying troops
was a breeze. They provided Company and Detachment cards so that you had
nice bite-sized formations that were easy to utilize and maneouver.

The cards also rounded costs to the nearest 50 point increments. No more
trying to figure out what to do with that spare three (3) points, that you
have left over, like in WH40K and Fantasy.

I would be very conserned if you tried to make any large changes to this
system. It is elegant in its simplicity.

> ______________________________________________________
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws.
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1701
> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
> -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/netepic/?m=1
Received on Sat Nov 27 1999 - 07:48:03 UTC

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