Hi!
I like that addition, veteran/elite units should be able to fight in a more or less independent fashion. Either extending their radius as to command or making them independent would be good.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: rune.karlsen6_at_...
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:24 AM
Subject: Sv: [NetEpic ML] Net Epic 5.0 ideas
Hi,
I like this idea. All armies should have a CR of some
sort, and all commanders should matter. If you lose a
commander, there should be repercussions. This is in
effect a structure much like chaos uses per today.
I suggest that all the "regulars" be a part of the
CR, while "elite or veteran" units are more independent,
and are either able to be outside the normal CR, or
have their own designated commander. This wouldn't necessarily
be a command unit, but just a normal unit which has
been designated as their commander (like a lieutenant or
something).
You also call it a command structure, which leads me to think
of HQ cards with bodyguards, comms officers and the like.
Just my 2 Nkr.
Rune
>
> Fra: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
> Dato: 2002/03/26 Tue PM 01:11:01 CET
> Til: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Emne: [NetEpic ML] Net Epic 5.0 ideas
>
> Hi!
>
> The discussions on AA and limiting numbers of them got me thinking about an idea Emiliano (antichrist666it) gave me regarding a new structure for army cards.
>
> Emiliano has been a very busy little beaver and is basically writting a template for 5.0 all by himself, including a lot of new units and ideas. While we will change and discuss a lot of things it will save us time come time to actually do the revision.
>
> The following is what he suggested with some changes from myself.
>
> We still use the same armycard structure but the cards are different:
>
> Command- this is the "core" you build your army around. So instead of starting with a company card you stand with the command structure.
>
> Regulars (or line or other suitable name)- these are the meat and drink of any army and will be by far the most common troops available. What number of regular troop companies can be added we can either leave open-ended or set a maximum limit. Units like SM tacticals, IG tacticals, guardians and ork boys fall in this category.
>
> Veterans (or elite whichever sounds better)- these are specialist, much more uncommon units. I would suggest that they be limited to one or two cards PER command. Units like terminators, aspect warriors and such would fall in this category.
>
> Specialized units or equipment (for lack of a better name, Emiliano called these "rare" cards)- these are units that are a rarity on the battlefield due to difficulty of construction or lack or availability. You can attach one such company card PER command. Units like AA, deathstrikes, pulsa rokkits and other "wierd" weapons fall in this category as well as titans
>
> Advantages
> 1.You eliminate the problem of over abundance of "specialist" units, since you would need to a very large command base to have a lot of these units.
> 2. It uses the same army card format everyone is familar with
> 3. Places emphasis on a command structure to build an army
>
> Disadvantages
> 1. It introuduces the need for a command radius for all armies. For some it is not a problem, but we would still need to make rules for them.
> 2. What constitutes a command "company" and what units need to be made. Although its a fun endevour, it still means a lot of work to do correctly.
> 3. Re-categorization of all units into the new scheme.
>
> Comments?
>
> Peter
>
>
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi!
The discussions on AA and limiting numbers of them got me thinking about an idea Emiliano (antichrist666it) gave me regarding a new structure for army cards.
Emiliano has been a very busy little beaver and is basically writting a template for 5.0 all by himself, including a lot of new units and ideas. While we will change and discuss a lot of things it will save us time come time to actually do the revision.
The following is what he suggested with some changes from myself.
We still use the same armycard structure but the cards are different:
Command- this is the "core" you build your army around. So instead of starting with a company card you stand with the command structure.
Regulars (or line or other suitable name)- these are the meat and drink of any army and will be by far the most common troops available. What number of regular troop companies can be added we can either leave open-ended or set a maximum limit. Units like SM tacticals, IG tacticals, guardians and ork boys fall in this category.
Veterans (or elite whichever sounds better)- these are specialist, much more uncommon units. I would suggest that they be limited to one or two cards PER command. Units like terminators, aspect warriors and such would fall in this category.
Specialized units or equipment (for lack of a better name, Emiliano called these "rare" cards)- these are units that are a rarity on the battlefield due to difficulty of construction or lack or availability. You can attach one such company card PER command. Units like AA, deathstrikes, pulsa rokkits and other "wierd" weapons fall in this category as well as titans
Advantages
1.You eliminate the problem of over abundance of "specialist" units, since you would need to a very large command base to have a lot of these units.
2. It uses the same army card format everyone is familar with
3. Places emphasis on a command structure to build an army
Disadvantages
1. It introuduces the need for a command radius for all armies. For some it is not a problem, but we would still need to make rules for them.
2. What constitutes a command "company" and what units need to be made. Although its a fun endevour, it still means a lot of work to do correctly.
3. Re-categorization of all units into the new scheme.
Comments?
Peter
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Received on Tue Mar 26 2002 - 12:35:32 UTC