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

From: Luca Lettieri <l.lettieri_at_...>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:20:55 +0100

On 22 Nov 99, at 7:12, Weasel Fierce wrote:

> NetEpic revision ideas:
> 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 tanks.
> 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 a
> 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

D. It gives the realism of C without having to revise every weapon in
the game. Having to readjust to the new infantry saves will be bad
enough, thank you. Besides, it's simpler and you won't have to
memorize two times the amount of "save-modifier" information.

> 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: definitely not. Of course this has something to do with time
scale, which is still undefined...

> 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
> B: Detachments must pass morale test to snapfire.
> C: Individual models must pass morale test
> D: Roll morale test for each shot
> E: Other

A. Works good enough.

> 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

B. Bolters are anti-personnel weapons, anyway; they're designed
to shoot at incoming infantry.

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

C. Makes them slightly more effective without turning them into
"long range" weapons.

> 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

Definitely NO. Another modifier... ack!

> 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

A. Works good enough as it is. B could be feasible depending on
actual implementation, but only for overruns. No ramming, please..
I really cannot picture tanks ramming each other.

> 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


> 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?

C and D. B, if accepted, should actually be a NEGATIVE modifier:
you're charging (thus presumably running toward) an enemy which
is aiming his guns at you.... we're not talking about a cavalry
charge, here.

> 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. Simple and deadly.

> 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.

Good idea, but skip the deployment value. Enough numbers as it

> 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, of course.

> 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

Never used new rules, cannot comment.

> 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?


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

NO. No, no, no and no.

> Hip-shooting:
> 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
> combat
> 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. What's this thing about giving advantages to charging units,

> Templates:
> 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?)

B is definitely a good idea.

> 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

B, except perhaps the scatter which is admittedly difficult to

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

Aren't their stats supposed to reflect this already?

> 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 and
> similar stuff and would be a great way to enhance the character of each
> race.
> 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. No more randomizers, please.

> Transport units:
> Under the current system destruction of transports are really deadly for the
> 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

B. Would work well with revised infantry saves.
> 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 this
> 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
> skill)
> C: Infantry can ride on any tank

A. While it would be more realistic to make riding possible, this
would have some heavy effect on balance (basically everyone
suddenly becomes much more mobile). Alternatively, B with heavy
limitations on the number of infantry stands.

Luca Lettieri
Received on Sun Nov 28 1999 - 11:20:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:48 UTC