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

From: Brian Evans <brian.a.evans_at_...>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 01:39:43 -0500

See below......

----- Original Message -----
From: Weasel Fierce <septimus__at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 10:00 AM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Mail votes.......looong but do it

> More NetEpic revision ideas:
> The revision wars carry on with undiminished fury.
> I am counting up the votes and will present the final results to the group
> when the flow of incoming votes cease.
> 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)

I like having psykers in the game because they add a nice flavor to the game
and have a long history in the 40K/Epic universe. Having a couple of
options on the battlefield seems reasonable. Let's keep the psyker powers
fairly weak, we don't want this to become Fantasy. Just keep the psykers in
for flavor.

> Firefights:
> Epic 40K uses the concept of firefights. If units are within 15 cm. of
> other in the assault phase (Before fighting close combat IIRC) they engage
> in firefights. Units losing a firefight suffer some casualties but not a
> (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
> (Firefight hits might even add bonuses to saves as they are rather
> 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

Close combat is Epic's version of a fire fight. Close combat entails both
knife work and close range shooting.

> 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

Keep it simple. This is a big battle with many units. I do not want to
have to keep track of which units are at what level of morale and then have
to figure out what each level of morale does to my individual units.

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

Blast markers just clutter up the battlefield and bog down game play. Let's
assume during the course of a turn, most units are trying to find cover,
return fire, and maneuver.

> Super heavy units:
> Alternate rules are available here.
A: Keep current NetEpic rules (1 simple table to cover all super-heavies)
E: Super heavy units can ignore the first failed save. The second wastes
them (Adeptus Titanicus rule)
F: Other

I wouldn't mind either A or E, but I prefer option F. Epic Space
Marine/Titan Legions rule = fail a save you die. Super Heavies are not
Titans, they are just over-grown tanks. Titans are much more able to
sustain damage and continue functioning since they have separate
compartments that can be damaged and not necessarily destroy the whole

The main problem I have with A & E are that we now have to create a set of
markers or something to indicate which Super Heavies are damaged, what the
effects of that damage are, and remember to apply them during the battle.
This could turn cumbersome.

> 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

No smoke! This is what killed WH40K 2nd edition for me. After the second
turn, my opponents would have 8-15 separate templates that they would have
to track in the end phase (smoke grenades, blind grenades, plasma grenades,
plasma missiles, rad grenades, blight grenades, pulsa rockets, etc). It was
horrible, I would have to wait 15 minutes to 1/2 hour just for them to move
a few templates around, remove some, or apply special effects to them.

> Effects of smoke / blind screen templates (If used):
D: Other

No smoke!

> Assault resolution:
> Many games allow troops that win (or force troops that lose) to move,
> 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
B: Winning models may move up to 5 cm. These units will not have any effect
on this turns close combat though

I thought that Epic Space Marines/Titan Legions already had a rule that when
a model destroys another model in close combat, it is allowed a 5cm move? I
thought that this was a nice reward for killing the enemy, while keeping the
extra movement small enough that it was not unbalancing. Let's keep it to
the actual model that delivers the killing blow. This should leave some
troops unpinned so advance fire will have some effects on the models that
are now 'caught out in the open.'

> Crossfire:
> In 40K3 a unit falling back into an enemy unit are roasted. The same
> in E40K.
A: No crossfire rules in NetEpic

No crossfire please. The close combat is already deadly enough. Having
deadly close combat is nice, but I think that crossfire would make it a
little too powerful component of the game.

> 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
G: Other

What do you mean by 'regrouping?' Epic Space Marines/Titan Legions already
has rules covering Rallying.

How would regrouping differ from rallying?
Would this be like the Ork mob-up rule for 40K?
Would this affect victory points? I can already see someone regrouping a
broken ShadowSword Company with some Rhinos. Now you can't claim victory
points for my ShadowSword Company because they have regrouped with the
Rhinos and now are not broken.

I think that the scale of Epic is too large to worry about forming ad hoc

> Which models can regroup?:
> Only vote here if you want regrouping to be an option.
E: Other

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.
D: No digging in at all

Aren't infantrymen already trained to dig foxholes etc. as a normal part of
their squad tactics? I always assumed that my guys were doing that sort of
thing already. If you want trenches, foxholes or fortifications buy them,
the game already has rules for purchasing these things. You shouldn't get
them for free.

> 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

Only units that already have 'special' infiltration rules should be allowed
to sneak around. Eldar Rangers/Scouts already have a similar rule. This is
what makes them unique. Why steal their glory?

> 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 like the tit-for-tat that comes with having the Advance fire phase come
after the Close combat phase. If you are foolish enough to charge a unit
that has lots of friends nearby on advance orders, you deserve what you get.

> 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

Some movement is mandatory (fallback orders), this should happen before the
movement phase has begun. Since you don't have any choice about where they
move, let's get this out of the way first. After that, anyone can go in any
order they want.

> Titan anti-personnel weapons:
> In the old days all titans mounted a heavy bolter in addition to their
> weapons. I always thought it made sense for titans to mount auxiliary
> bolters and guns to fend off infantry assaults and stuff. However, this
> 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
> tougher and they deserve it too.
> On the other hand, there are few things more satisfying than to see a
> of basic grunts wear down a titan and nail its ass!
> A: No more anti personnel stuff.

Titans were almost impossible to destroy in close combat in Epic Space
Marines/Titan Legions. The NetEpic rules makes Titans almost invulnerable
to infantry/tanks in close combat. Why do they need any extra/free
anti-infantry weapons? If you are afraid of infantry attacks purchase some
Vulcan Mega Bolters, Jumbo Sized Flamer weapon (forgot name), any of the
numerous Titan Close combat weapons. Titans are quite capable of handling
them selves in close combat already. The NetEpic rules have made them even
stronger in close combat.

> 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
> is bound to hurt somewhere
A: No missions

No special missions please.

> 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.

If I remember my Epic Space Marine/Titan Legions rules correctly: Any unit
that is transported has to place its detachment/company card next to its
transport's card in order to make it clear which unit is transporting which.
The transport's order chit should be placed next to the transport models on
the battlefield. The unit being transported has its order chit placed next
to its detachment/company card. The unit being transported needs to have
its models placed on its detachment/company card.

> 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

Tanks already block LOS to infantry units. No reason to make a special rule
concerning this.

> Please make multiple votes if ya like more than one option
> Weasel
> ______________________________________________________
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Wed Dec 01 1999 - 06:39:43 UTC

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