Hi!
I agree its to much to change the existing structure for 5.0, especially with no playtest data, but It may be thrown out there as an alternate system so it may acumulate use and more reliable input can be obtained. We did that with flier rules in 3.0 and was invaluable in deciding which would be permanent in 4.0/4.1.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Danckworth" <ce.de_at_...>
To: "Peter Ramos" <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Net Epic 5.0 ideas
> Hello Peter,
>
> Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 1:11:01 PM, you wrote:
>
>
>
> hi,
>
> in my opinion there is no need to restructure it like that...
> i think, the 4.1 structure can be good enough to prevent player using only
> the hardest troops without balance.
> looks a bit 40k like - and is a bit a loss of the old-epic -feeling if
> the changes would be made like that...
> in 4.1 there are still restrictions - for example darkangels who
> cannot use a veteran company, tech-guards who only can take knights,
> etc.
> what would make sense is a thought to develop which handles out the
> problem of over abudance of "specialists" WITHIN the known structure -
> otherwise its too complicated and changes the whole thing too much.
> c-ya
> christian
> PR> Hi!
>
> PR> 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.
>
> PR> 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
> PR> it will save us time come time to actually do the revision.
>
> PR> The following is what he suggested with some changes from myself.
>
> PR> We still use the same armycard structure but the cards are different:
>
> PR> Command- this is the "core" you build your army around. So instead of starting with a company card you stand with the command structure.
>
> PR> 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
> PR> either leave open-ended or set a maximum limit. Units like SM tacticals, IG tacticals, guardians and ork boys fall in this category.
>
> PR> 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
> PR> warriors and such would fall in this category.
>
> PR> 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
> PR> 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
>
> PR> Advantages
> PR> 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.
> PR> 2. It uses the same army card format everyone is familar with
> PR> 3. Places emphasis on a command structure to build an army
>
> PR> Disadvantages
> PR> 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.
> PR> 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.
> PR> 3. Re-categorization of all units into the new scheme.
>
> PR> Comments?
>
> PR> Peter
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Christian mailto:ce.de_at_...
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 26 2002 - 12:41:49 UTC