Re: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] Core Rules [LONG]

From: Zerloon <zerloon_at_...>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:33:38 +0200

At 09.21 12/04/2002 -0400, you wrote:
REVISION

>"THE GAME
>Net Epic is a game of futuristic combat between two roughly equivalent
>forces. Two armies each commanded by a single player usually fight
>battles. The game is flexible enough to allow for multiple players and
>contains rules for a variety of forces."
>
>I would suggest to say: Net Epic is a variant of GW's popular Space
>Marine/Titan Legions game that depicts futuristic combat between two
>equivalent forces. Each player is put into command of a single army and
>pits that army's strengths and weaknesses against an opponent and his
>forces. The games structure is flexible enough to allow for multiple
>players to be involved.

I agree with change


>Free Cards
>Some races offer various army cards for free. See the specific army
>booklets for the details on these. You can only take one Free Card (Ork
>Freebooterz, Gretchin, Madboyz, Eldar Avatar and Craft World Cards or
>any future optional cards) per Clan or Company fielded. Gretchin and
>Madboyz cards count against the 5 Support Cards limit, and the others
>are considered as Special Cards."
>
>No changes here.

A question: if one can he MUST take the free card? And if the free card
take a Special slot isn't too restrictive?


>"Points Values in Purchasing Armies
>As you will see in the following chapters, when re-evaluating the points
>values of some of the existing units and assigning values to new ones,
>we have used increments of 25 points as opposed to the 50 point
>increments of the old Epic systems. Moreover, the titan weapon costs in
>the Version 1.0 of Net Epic had been given with 5-point increments.
>These made reaching a rounding figure more difficult when constructing
>your armies. Therefore there will be no penalties now if one player’s
>army turns out 25 points above the predetermined army points limit."
>
>I've never been happy with the introduction of 25 point increments. I
>like the old 50 point scheme since it yielded a cleaner result and the
>above problem did not occur. I'd like to return to that if people agree.
>To adjust the points would be easy as we would just round everything
>upwards to the higher 50's bracket. For example a unit worth 225, would
>be worth 250, etc. This would not impact much since it happens to
>everything so it affects all units and armies equally.

I'm not agree with you, I prefer the 25 points since is a temptation too
great to "maximise" a unit without cost change.

>"1. Place Terrain - Lay out your battle surface. Identify the
>borders of the battle zone and place terrain. Players can place terrain
>in a mutually agreed upon fashion and make use of the random terrain
>generation tables.
>2. Place Objectives - Before placing units, up to 8 Objective
>Markers are placed. For smaller battles, 2,000 points or less, it is
>advisable to place 6 or fewer Objective Markers. The players alternate
>placing Objective Markers until all have been placed. Objective Markers
>may not be placed any closer than 25 cm to any other Objective Marker or
>from the edge of the battlefield.
>3. Determine Sides - Both players roll a D6. The player rolling
>the highest has the choice of which side to set up on. Re-roll any ties.
>4. Setup Units - Armies are placed at least 80 cm away from each
>other. This will determine how far from your table edge you may place
>your forces."
>
>I think this is the time to introduce alternate "objectives" to make the
>game more interesting and promote other battles beyond the usual
>set-piece battle. Epic 40k has some good ideas in this regard. Note
>these rules would be "advanced" as well as optional.

Advanced rules about alternative obket sounds very good!!

>"Capturing Objectives
>Controlling battlefield objectives earns 5 VP’s per objective under your
>control during the end phase. To claim an objective you need to have a
>non-fleeing model (a unit not on fallback orders) within 15 cm of the
>Objective Marker and the model must be closer to the objective than any
>opposing model. If models from both armies are equally distant from the
>objective, it is considered ‘Contested’ and neither player receives
>Victory Points for the objective. Models engaged in close combat
>(“pinned”) do not count for holding objectives. You are not required to
>keep a model within 15 cm of an objective in order to hold it from turn
>to turn, once captured the objective remains under control of the
>capturing player until an opposing non-fleeing model moves to within 15
>cm of the objective."
>
>I'd propose as a basic rule or an advance one, that objectives ONLY be
>awarded if a player has eradicated all enemy units with 15cm of the
>objective. This, of course, increases the lethality involved taking
>objective since it is no longer "the closest" who takes the objective,
>but he who destroyed ALL units within 15cm of an objective. This
>accounts for different tactics and game play. Opinions?

I agree with you, but this shoul be a basic rules. Is much more realistic
that until an objective is firmy in the hand of a player he don't get the
points


>"II. Movement Phase
>Players alternate moving detachments as determined by initiative and
>orders. A player may elect to move one detachment per move, but which
>detachment moves must be stated before moving any units and cannot be
>changed afterwards. The opposing player then moves one detachment with
>movement alternating between opponents until all units has had the
>opportunity to move. Which models can move is dependent upon the orders
>given."
>
>NO change.

  A little note: an units in first fire could be "moved" declaring that
he's don't move?


>"III. Combat Phase
>All firing and melee combat is performed in alternating fashion, similar
>to the movement phase, one unit at a time according to initiative."
>
>Change to: Firing is also handled in alternating fashion according to
>initiative except that the units order will determine who fires first.
ok


"Special Rule: Command Units

>I thought the best way to give HQ's their ability and also stem such
>behavior was to change the rule so that HQ's can "move at their ADVANCE
>rate and first fire". It gives them great flexibility, but limits cheesy
>ploys.
>
>In any event the original statement needs to include that HQ's that move
>CAN NOT snap fire and the statement " Also, command units have the
>privilege to move in any segment of the movement phase (charge or
>advance)" needs to be removed since it refers to rules that no longer
>exist (the movement phase is no longer divided into phases).

Totally agree with the advanced and First fire rule, also agree with added
note (I don't know that they can't snap fire...)

>"The sequence of play can be summarized as:
>1. Orders
>2. Initiative
>3. Movement
>a) Fallback and other Compulsory Moves - alternating by detachment
>b) Other moves - alternating by detachment
>4. Combat
>a) First Fire Shooting - alternating by detachment
>b) Close combat - alternating by detachment
>c) Advance Fire Shooting - alternating by detachment
>5. End Phase"
>
>No change.

I'll add a psichic phase in the first fire, just for convenience of when a
psicher can use it's power.


>"Units that contain creatures that regenerate or are otherwise not
>immediately destroyed and removed when they are hit and fail their save
>(if they have one) continue to observe coherency with these models since
>they are NOT considered eliminated until the End Phase and any rolls
>needed are taken and failed."
>
>This needs to be stressed more, its an important rule that sometimes is
>ignored. This is the Achilles heel of regenerating units. You cannot
>leave a regenerating unit behind since its not eliminated. It restricts
>movement of the unit.

I'll add also rule for shooting at such "down" units.


>"Models embarked and the model transporting them may be given different
>orders from each other, even for models that are listed as a single
>detachment. This means a commander may give Advance Orders to the
>transport while giving Charge Orders to the troops on board. Even after
>they are disembarked, models may still be given separate orders, but
>models, which are a single detachment, must try to remain in unit
>coherency distance. Some order combinations, such as giving embarked
>troops First Fire orders, may preclude disembarking. Under no
>circumstances may embarked models fire from within transports. In
>simpler terms, giving embarked troops First Fire orders is useless since
>they cannot disembark or fire."
>
>What do people think about this order? Is it still worthy?

Yes, I think it is worthy.


>"Models carried by transports that are destroyed by incoming fire are
>allowed a “bail out” save. Roll a d6 for each model in the transport.
>For every roll of 4+ one model is saved and is placed besides the
>destroyed vehicle. The weapon save modifier modifies this save. This
>means that a weapon that hits and destroys the transport also modifies
>the “bail out” save. In cases where the modifier is very high (weapons
>with a modifier of –3 or greater) the model gets no save. Units with
>fixed saves receive a bail out roll as described above but weapon
>modifiers will not modify such a units save beyond its fixed save."
>
>No change.

Add the rule for "bail out" from thruster!!!!!



> "Disembarking from Transport Thrusters
>Troops disembarking from transport thrusters (such as a Thunderhawk) do
>so in the movement phase according to orders. Note that they can
>disembark even if the actual transport itself is engaged in close
>combat."
>
>Delete "according to orders". Movement phase has no segments.
>
>Also, I'd like to include if units have flight packs or jump packs, they
>should receive a save as per the rules above. All other troops die.
>
>I addition flier transports should not be required to land if they have
>troops with jump/flight packs.

Okay, but I'll add that the flieer could be shooted, since it must slow to
let them disembark

>"Special Rule: Flyers, Floaters and AA units
> Orders"
>
>Note: I recommend that fliers in general be considered "advanced" rules.
>Opinions?

I agree, fliers add complexity, since it should be advanced.



>"Flyers receive and use the same orders as for all units in Net Epic.
>The orders however have slightly different meaning:"
>
>"First Fire- This order may only given to flyers capable of transporting
>troops. This permits the flyer to fly in an evasive pattern as it flies
>to the drop zone. Incoming fire receives a –1 penalty to hit a flyer
>with this order. The flyer on first fire orders may land and deploy its
>troops. It remains on the ground until the next turn where it can be
>given orders normally. Flyers may also use their weapons once they land
>(those that are permitted to do so)."
>
>I also proposed some time ago that this order be used as to simulate
>escorting a unit on advance orders. The only thing the escorting unit
>can do is protect it from dogfights since they have to be engaged first.
>Opinions?

I agree with the added rule.


>"Flyer attacks are against the topmost part of vehicles. This armor is
>thinner than frontal armor and it is considered as thick as side armor.
>This gives flyer attacks an additional –1 bonus to the save modifier of
>their weapons (a flyer weapon with a –1 modifier now becomes –2). This
>bonus applies only to vehicles, not infantry, titans, knights or units
>with “all round” armor. Target designation and resolution is as per
>standard rule."
>
>We would need to add it applies to super heavies too, they should be
>vulnerable to airstikes. Opinions?

Yes, the SH should suffer the same penalty.

>"Units designated as anti-aircraft units can fire at flyers effectively.
>These units may “snap fire” at flyers in the movement phase as snap fire
>without the –1 “snap fire” to hit penalty."
>
>If accepted we will add categories to AA weapons:
>
>Static: expensive, long range, low firepower but high impact, cannot
>target ground units in the same turn as air units.
>
>Mobile: Cheap, short range, high firepower, low impact, can target air
>and ground normally.
>
>Opinions?

I think there are not the need to add category, the AA can be defined by
they're stats, according to the army. (for Example, Ork AA are unreliable
but fire a lot, SM is static but effective, Eldar are mobile ecc. ecc.)


>"Besides anti-aircraft units only floaters and infantry may fire at
>flyers. However infantry can only fire at flyers if they are the target
>of the attack and then only with a –2 penalty to hit."
>
>No change.

Isn't clear if flyer CAN fire at other flyer.


>"Only flyers may engage other flyers in close combat. Resolution is as
>per standard close combat rules."
>
>We need to include fliers are not pinned by anything, even other fliers.
>Fliers engaged in dogfights on advance orders can still complete their
>attack runs even if engaged.

I agree


>1. "Snap Fire may only be performed by units on First Fire orders.
>2. Snap Fire may interrupt an opponent’s unit movement at any point
>during the unit’s movement. Players are not allowed to Snap Fire at
>stationary targets.
>3. Snap Fire imposes a -1 penalty to hit. Units classed as AA do
>not incur this penalty.
>4. You may not interrupt another player’s Snap Fire (since these
>troops are stationary you can not fire at them in the first place).
>5. Units cannot Snap Fire and make a pop-up attack. The unit must
>already have LOS in order to make use of Snap Fire.
>6. Command units that Snap Fire are not allowed to move during the
>same turn, nor are Command units allowed to snap fire after they have
>moved.
>7. Artillery units may not Snap Fire. This also extends to
>Titan/Praetorian weapons that are armed with barrage/artillery weapons
>(other non-artillery/barrage weapons on a Titan/Praetorian may Snap
>Fire)."
>
>We need to add that units with robotic minds (or spirit stones) do not
>fire at a penalty.

I'll add a full list of ALL units that ignore snp fire penalty


>Peter

Zerloon
Received on Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:33:38 UTC