[NetEpic ML] Re: Its on!!!

From: Thomas Lawson <kurmark_at_...>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:03:26 -0600

Responding late because of major computer malfunctions.

> Tzeentch's (and Peters) idea was pretty well liked by making infantry
> unable to save versus anti-tank weapons.
> So, a tactical stand (Soft unit. 4+ save) gets hit by a bolter attack
(soft
> attack -0 save) and saves on 4+. Later it gets hit by a lascannon (hard
> attack -1 save) and is wasted. When firing at hard targets i'd still allow
> soft weapons to affect them but with no save modifier, or even a positive
> modifier (Save always fails on 2 unless unit already got 1+ save).
> Otherwise, tactical infantry will surely fall away and e replaced by huge
> amounts of heavy weapon troops. This is not exactly what we want (I hope)

Seems reasonable. If my players aked to play a game like this I would
certainly give it a try.

> About two thirds wanted tanks to be able to snapfire their bolters without
> penalties. I don't see this as becoming a big problem?

This also seems reasonable.

> Tank bolters:
> Should bolters, shuriken catapults and other add-on tank weapons be
> improved?

No problems with them so far. Willing to try hits on a 5+

> Close combat modifiers:
>
> 6 votes to keep current system, 6 votes to give a charge bonus, 9 votes to
> modify for morale and 8 to modify for position.
> Other things included peters wish to have secondary attacks reduced and
> another wanted a +2 modifier for bunkers.
> This bonus should be ignored by elite units

I would certainly vote for a terrain bonus as it would make terrain
utilizing tactics more worthwhile. This is a significant element that Epic
has been lacking for quite some time. I would like a shift that would make
tanks more powerful against infantry in open terrain and infantry better
against tanks in thick terrain such as rubble and woods.

> Flyers and titans:
> The majority of people want the new flyer rules. I don't know for sure how
> well they are playtested..anyone?
> The new titan rules also received a lot of positive votes. Now they just
> needs final playtesting and stuff.

Hmm, I didn't get this message (computer down for past weeks), is there a
list somewhere of the change ideas? I tried the early flyer rules and had a
few small problems but they were addressed in a manner I felt satisfactory.
I usually aim for battles without flyers at all because they generally add
more complexity for too little gain in game funand quickness.

> Templates:
> 9 voted for keeping current templates while 5 wanted templates to be
> standardized.

Which templates?

> Transport units:
> A: Keep current system (units are destroyed with no save possible) 4 votes
> B: Units receive a basic saving throw, 3 votes
> B1: As B but units are only hit on 4+, 2 votes
> C: Units with fixed saves receive a save, 1 vote
> C1: As C but units are only hit on 4+, 0 votes
> D: Units receive a 4+ save, 4 votes
> E: Other

I say all units get a basic save on a 5+ or 6+. This way units like the
Plaguetower still have a transport advantage. Something in a rhino or
landraider should have less survivability than something in a superheavy.

> Riding on tanks:
> 8 people voted against this and 6 voted for it.
> Id say this is close enough to have a little chat about it.

I really like it and it should appropriately tie in with the transport saves
as above. Allow open tops or riders to make a basic save.

> Psykers:
> The big majority wanted psyker sto work as they do now

Never use them anyway.

> Super heavy units:
> Alternate rules are available here.
> A: Keep current NetEpic rules (1 simple table to cover all super-heavies),
7
> votes
> B: Use detailed rules (1 table for each super-heavy, 2 votes
> C: In-between (each TYPE of super-heavy got a table. F.x. one for tanks,
> walkers etc.), 2 votes
> D: Assign super heavies a damage rating (slightly similar to titan rules
> from Incoming), 3 votes

I go with A all the way.

> Digging in:
> 6 votes for diggin in leaving permanent effects, 6 votes against.

Keep it simple, I say no.

> Titan anti-personnel weapons:
> 4 votes agsint, 6 for a heavy bolter and 4 for bolters.
> The titans are gonna get something but exactly what is left to decide.

I always wanted them to save on 2d6's anyway just like the Imperator. If I
had to vote for a defence system I would generally just make it hard to
attack the thing in the first place. Assaulting a giant walker is
drastically harder than assaulting a tracked or wheeled vehicle. How about
making tanks and titans un-assailable when moving past a certain speed, say
faster than the attacking infantry unit can move?
Received on Mon Dec 06 1999 - 00:03:26 UTC