RE: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] Core rules: summary

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:41:18 -0400

Hi!

-----Original Message-----
From: peter cornwell [mailto:petecorn_at_...]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 10:50 AM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] Core rules: summary

Hi!

I know the discussion has moved on but I've been busy.

About alternate objectives - I agree that the twelve proposed in the WD
article are way
too many (I don't know what they were thinking). For small games at
least I
agree that 4
is a better number. With eight the game can become too much of a dash
for
objectives.
You end up getting too many VP's early in the game and the games end
just
when they're
getting good. I remember one E40k guy saying he hated Netepic because he
never played a game that lasted more than 2 turns - maybe this is why.
For big games I like having more objectives though, it encourages the
battle
to spread a bit
and not just become a mindless slug-fest as all the units huddle around
a
couple of spots.
How about having some sort of simple table that alters the number of
objectives according
to the number of VP's needed to win? This would keep the ratio of
objective
VP's constant.
Infact, doesn't 3rd ed do this?

That's a very good idea, I thought on something like that for a long
time. Darius used something similar where he reduced the amount of VP's
for a game.

I can see a table where 1 counter per 1000-1500 points played should be
placed. This increases the game length from 2 turns average to around 4.

How about this?

Also if your going to include these at all I think removing the Bombard
objective would be a good idea.
I think it favours players with building destroying weapons, and then
they
get easy victory points
just for sitting on their arses and blasting the objective. just my
opinion
though.

I agree.

Also I regret to say I didn't spend much time trying to re-word the
objective descriptions from
WD, so could that raise copyright issues? I can re -write them.

Yes, please re-write them in your own words. We always do that for net
epic.

Also - which ever way the poll works out, maybe the option that doesn't
get
picked could become
another type of alternate objective counter.

<grin> That's been our way since the beginning. If a secondary opinion
gets a good amount of votes we include that ass alternate.

I agree that scenarios are probably better than randomly picked
objective
counters, but they can still be
a starting point to create your own scenarios.

Yes. Scenarios are MUCH better. I will leave them as advance and
optional but would strongly recommend their use.

Peter
Received on Sun Apr 21 2002 - 18:41:18 UTC