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

From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:58:48 +1100

At 07:12 AM 11/22/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>NetEpic revision ideas:
>
>Well, feedback has been received on my various points and I think it is time
>to have a little vote on what should be done.
>This is not decisive but it gives us a starting point.
>I think we should revise the core rules first and then deal with the
>individual army lists one at a time.
>Therefore I have not included any army list stuff in this list.
>
>Please make a vote everybody. When a suitably large number of votes have
>been made, the guy who takes charge of typing up the new rules (who is
>taking care of such things anyway?) can decide on what to do.
>It would be nice if ya wrote a bit about why you voted as you like, but
>don't feel forced to do so.
>
>Feel free to vote on several ideas if ya can't make up your mind
>
>If cool alternatives are presented to some of the things below we might have
>to revote.
>
>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

Either A or C. Personally I prefer A as it MAY be more abstract, but it
keeps the simplicity I like about Epic.

>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. There need be no penalty beyond those there are already. Anything more
will make the system more complicated.

>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 or B.

>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

A or B.

>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

B. Definately B.

>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

Personally I'd like to see this implemented.

>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 or C.

>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

A or B. B sounds much better.

>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?

B, C and D. At least B. There should be a bigger bonus for charging someone.

>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 or B. Perhaps even allow only Tanks and other armour to save while
Infantry just die in droves?

>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.

The company thing wouldn't be too bad, but it would certainly disadvantage
certain armies like the Orks who need large formations or Klans and Support
while Marines would be able to better deploy as they tend to buy everything
in Companies and worry little about Support.

>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.

Sure. Sounds fine.

>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

We need better flyer rules.

>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?

I was pretty happy with the way Titans were dealt with in NetEpic.

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

I agree with Peter in That Allies are fine WITH PRIOR AGREEMENT or with
certain scenarios. Just saying "Marines and Eldar can ally" opens up too
big a can of worms.

>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?

No. No, no, no. If a unit charges it should not be allowed to shoot.

>(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
>
>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?)

The templates should be standardised. So all flamer weapons should use the
same template, barrages can come in small, normal and large types, etc..

>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

Keep the special dice types, but give numerical alternatives. Scatter dice
are still widely available from GW while Titan aiming dice and Artillery
dice can easily simulated using a normal D6.

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

I think they are fine as is.

>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

NO TRAGEDY CARDS!!!!! I really don't like the idea of them.

>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

I think B or D are fine.

>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

ORKS can ride on tanks only! Its an Orky thing ta do!

>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:
>
>Tank movement:
>A: Only advancing tanks can be used
>B: Tanks may be used as long as they don't fall back
>C: Any tank may be used regardless of orders
>D: Other
>
>Infantry movement:
>A: Infantry must have advance orders to ride
>B: Infantry must have charge orders to ride
>C: Infantry can have any orders except fall back
>D: Infantry must expend all movement to ride but can shoot normally
>E: Infantry must expend all movement to ride but can shoot in advance
>segment
>F: Infantry must expend all movement to ride and cannot shoot (unless hip
>shooting rules are decided upon)
>G: Other
>
>Tank fire:
>A: Tanks fire are not restricted by riding infantry
>B: Fire suffers a -1 penalty
>C: Tank may not fire bolters
>D: Tank may only fire bolters
>E: Tank may not fire if infantry is riding
>F: Other
>
>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?


-Kelvin....

============================================
         "Of course I'm paranoid!
       Everyone's trying to kill me."
============================================
Received on Mon Nov 29 1999 - 02:58:48 UTC