[NetEpic ML] Re: Its on!!!

From: Warprat <warprat_at_...>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:57:27 -0800

Hello Group!

I have a question for Peter or any of the other officers of this group.

How will new rules be ratified by Netepic? Simple majority,
2/3 majority, unanimous (fat chance)?

Which rules will be voted on, only those proposed by Weasel, or can
anybody suggest rules to vote on?

My preferance would be an initial period, where anyone could suggest a
favorite change, followed by period of input, then a pre-vote.
After the pre-vote, exact verbage could be hammered out, perhaps with
more voting for various variations on a rule. Then, the final vote.
My preferance would be for the 2/3 vote ratification.

I hope I'm not being an idiot in writing this, but I like to be honest,
even at the risk of looking stupid.

Warprat




>
> Hi dear NetEpic lads (and lasses?)
>
> The votes have come to a relative end and here ya got the results:
>
> I suppose this will give us a good starting point for the development of
> NetEpic 4.0 (Glory!)
>
> Infantry armour saves:
>
> 12 votes for alternative system and only 2 votes to keep the original one.
> This looks like an easy one.
> 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)
>
> Heavy units:
>
> Only very few wanted heavy weapon infantry to suffer penalties on advance
> orders, so lets forget that one.
>
> Snapfire:
>
> Nothing will change here
>
> Tank snapfire versus infantry:
>
> About two thirds wanted tanks to be able to snapfire their bolters without
> penalties. I don't see this as becoming a big problem?
>
> Tank bolters:
> Should bolters, shuriken catapults and other add-on tank weapons be
> improved?
>
> 3 votes to retain current bolters, 4 to increase range and 8 to make them
> hit on 5+.
>
> If hitting on 5+ should they still avoid the modifier when snapfiring? Or
> will this make them too hard? When combined with better saves it might be
> allright.
>
> Tank assaults:
>
> 8 votes to keep current assaults and 7 votes to use overrun and ram system.
> Seems pretty tied up with this one.
> Some guy mentioned that tanks should not be able to engage each other in
> close combat at all.
>
> Infantry assaults versus tanks:
> No big things here, current rules will be kept.
>
> 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
>
> Close combat saves:
>
> General (but not total) agreement that no saving throws should be possible
> in melee.
>
> Deployment rules:
> My idea with deployment values received general "this is interesting"
> comments. Is this something we should go further into?
> I think it would be rather characterfull
>
> Flyers and titans:
> The majority of people want the new flyer rules. I don't know for sure how
> well they are playtested´┐Ż.anyone?
> The new titan rules also received a lot of positive votes. Now they just
> needs final playtesting and stuff.
>
> Hip-shooting:
>
> The big majority of people did not want charging units to be able to shoot.
> Therefore no changes will occur here.
>
> Templates:
> 9 voted for keeping current templates while 5 wanted templates to be
> standardized.
>
> Special dice:
> Exactly the same here.
>
> Elites:
> Elites were also suggested to get a bonus when charging superheavy units,
> and passing the first morale check automatically.
>
> Strategy cards / effects:
> Agreed against.
>
> 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
> It seems that people want better survival (and thus more use) with
> transports. If units get to roll their save (Using the new system with soft
> and hard troops) it might solve it. Or what does people think?
>
> 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.
>
> Psykers:
> The big majority wanted psyker sto work as they do now
>
> Firefights:
> Things were pretty clear, NetEpic 4.0 (Glory!) will never have a firefight
> rule!!
>
> Morale:
> 4 wanted a morale table of sorts, 7 wanted current rules and 1 wanted morale
> vels like Heresy.
> I suppose this will leave us with the current rules system.
>
> Suppression:
> About half the votes went to having a suppression system but the big problem
> is: Can this be done simply, beautifully and functionally????????????
>
> 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
>
> The votes are pretty spread out here, this will call for discussion.
>
> Smoke / blind cover:
>
> 5 votes were against smoke screens, 7 were for them.
> I'd say this requires discussion too.
>
> Assault resolution:
> The majority of people voted for some sort of movement after assault combat.
> How simple or complicated this will be is a matter for discssion but a
> simple yet interesting system would be the best.
>
> Crossfire:
> 6 votes against and 5 for. This calls for discussion.
>
> Regrouping:
> Regrouping were voted against by the maj0rity.
>
> Digging in:
> 6 votes for diggin in leaving permanent effects, 6 votes against.
>
> Stealth orders A.K.A. sneaking:
> Slightly more votes against than for. But i'd say this calls for discussion
> too.
>
> Combat phase order:
> The advance fire segment remains firmly entrenched AFTER the combat phase
>
> Movement phase order:
> Equal votes for the old epic system and the new more liberal one. Certainly
> a discussion point
>
> 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'd say we launch the discussion about infantry saves right away:
>
> What do people feel, especially about Peter and Tzeentchs system???
>
> Weasel
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Introducing the new Rocket eBook: an electronic reader that fits 10
> books in one hand. Beam one up. At just $239 it packs: $25 bn.com gift;
> Dominion War series; I,Q; Voyager:Captain Proton and The Lives of Dax.
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1906
>
> -- Create a poll/survey for your group!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=netepic&m=1
Received on Sun Dec 12 1999 - 20:57:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:48 UTC