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

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

On 24 Nov 99, at 7:00, 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

D: make up psychic powers and then make the players PAY for
them. Basically, you can build your custom psyker as you would
build a titan: pay the basic point cost depending on the stats (CAF,
psychic points etc) and then add the points for the powers you give
him. This, of course, requires some heavy bookkeping, as you
cannot represent available powers as you can represent available
weapons on a Titan.
Otherwise, A. But please, please DON'T do C. "Random" = "Evil",
in my wargame dictionary.
 
> 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

A. I always assumed close combat IS a firefight.

> 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

A. It works good enough as it is.

> 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. Killing your enemy with artillery is enough, without immobilising
it.

> 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, with B optional. Don't know D, however, so cannot comment on
that..

> 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

A. Just keeping track of which units have smoke grenades, which
are currently hidden etc it's a pain. It's not worth it.

> 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

G. It's simple and nice, and useful for getting objectives.
 
> 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. The penalty they have is enough, they will probably be toasted
anyway.

> 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. Do we really need MORE dice rolls?
 
> 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, please. Units sneaking on an open battlefield.. yeah sure.

> 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

B.

> 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

B. Makes sense. Needs the differentiated saving throws for
infantry/tanks, though; otherwise it adds too much.
 
> 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

D, if you really want them. Just use custom objectives: they make
more sense. Who cares which of your companies actually reaches
that hill, anyway?

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