Hi!
That's a valid point. First 4.1 will STILL remain available it WILL NOT
disappear. So those who prefer that one can still download and get that
version. IT won't disappear until that's far of day version 6.0 comes
out. We try to always keep to versions going, the new one and the
previous one.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: darius spano [mailto:dmanspano_at_...]
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 8:52 AM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Poll interpretations
When the finalized version of 5.0 comes out are they
going to include a section all by itself of the
changes the group came up with? I really enjoy Net
Epic 4.0 (current version) but don't incorporate all
the updates in it. For example, the changes to the
"Fog of War" and initial movement of Charges first and
then Advances, I play both ways in order or as any
unit with move orders can be activated regardless if
Charge or Advance. It depends who I play with. One guy
plays IG and sees that it works well the old way and
another plays Eldar and likes the new way. Personally
I prefer the original method.
My point is that I want to be able to identify all the
new rules easily. Some of the results from the polls I
don't agree with and the people I game with would like
to say "hey this is cool this isn't and so on". We
basically play 4.0 with added house rules from the
upgrades of the newer version.
I think the emails will break a record again. I can't
keep up, 30-50 emails a day.
Whew!!
Darius
--- Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Well, this is where it's all put together and the
> guidelines are used:
>
> I Redundant Units
>
> CHOICES AND RESULTS
> - Current ruling- a duplicate unit may be purchased
> for every 3000
> points. , 17 votes, 54.84%
> - Proposed change- a duplicated unit may be
> purchased IF all other units
> of that type have been purchased (referring to other
> redundant units)
> and an additional 3000 points of support
> (non-redundant units) are also
> purchased, 9 votes, 29.03%
> - Redundant units will not be allowed, 5 votes,
> 16.13%
> - Other: please e-mail me with other suggestion, 0
> votes, 0.00%
>
>
> The poll is divided into two groups:
>
> One is allowing them (regardless of wording) which
> accrued a combined
> total of nearly 84%.
>
> The other is not allowing then with only 16%.
>
> Clearly people want to purchase "extra" units of
> these types.
>
> As to what alternative is chosen the current ruling
> is the strongly
> favored one since out of a total of 26 votes for
> some type of redundant
> purchasing it gathered 17 (65.38%), so it stays as
> the official rule.
>
> Result: Current ruling stays.
>
>
> II Objectives
>
> Keep existing rule- close unit to the objective
> marker within 15cm
> claims the objective. Units in close combat and
> units on fallback orders
> cannot claim objectives. Two opposing units that are
> equally distant of
> the objective counter leave the objective contested.
> 15 votes, 46.88%
> -
> Proposed change- an objective can only be claim if
> all enemy units
> within 15cm are eliminated. Units on fallback orders
> or in close combat
> do not claim objectives as above. 17 votes, 53.12%
>
>
> While alternative two gathered more votes it failed
> to conclusively beat
> the current core rule. Although the wording change
> is small, the impact
> of the rule is VERY large, almost making it a new
> rule.
>
> Therefore the original ruling will remain, BUT the
> newer rule ill appear
> besides it as an alternate rule. Players can choose
> which to use.
>
> Result: Current rule and alternate rule will be
> included, players
> choose.
>
> III Transported units
>
> - Keep current rule- it costs the unit to be
> embarked or the transport a
> proportional amount of its movement to embark or
> disembark from a
> transport., 11 votes, 34.38%
> - Proposed change- it costs the transport and the
> transported unit 5cm
> of its movement to embark/disembark. That is 5cm in
> embark and 5cm to
> disembark., 21 votes, 65.62%
>
>
> This one is pretty clear; most like the proposed
> rule. Some may wish to
> split hairs and say it isn't really two thirds (66%)
> but, for me
> fractions of a percent don't count I round up
> anyway. Keep in mind the
> proposed change HAS been tested, although mostly as
> a Heresy rule. It
> does impact the rules, there will be more mobility,
> but overall I see no
> great detrimental effects and it's much "easier" and
> Less fiddly than
> the original one. Of course use what you will but
> for core purposes its
> pretty clear which way the wind blows.
>
> Result: Proposed change is now the official rule
>
>
> IV. Elite units
>
> CHOICES AND RESULTS
> - The elite re-roll will be once per GAME, 18 votes,
> 81.82%
> - The elite re-roll is once per TURN, 4 votes,
> 18.18%
>
>
> Pretty clear also. One re-roll per game. Period.
>
> I have seen the comments and concerns on this, but
> keep in mind that we
> need to strictly specify what units are elite. As
> far as I am concerned
> HQ units CANNOT be elite as well. They are
> commanders and have special
> rules already. For game balance purposes you can't
> have both. HQ units
> will behave as HQ and elites as elites. I understand
> that some HQ may
> very well be "elite" in character", but they
> surrender this when they
> choose to "command". This will eliminate a lot of
> the "cheese" people
> may worry about. This STILL leaves a huge list of
> potential elites for
> every army. If a point cost is deemed necessary to
> account for the skill
> then it SHOULD be instituted.
>
>
> Result: re-roll once per GAME.
>
> V Knight saves
>
> - Knights should use the simplified (basic) damage
> table (the one in the
> basic rules for super heavies)., 4 votes, 17.39%
> - Knights should have detailed damage tables just
> like super heavies
> do., 3 votes, 13.04%
> - No damage tables of any kind, armor is "all
> around"., 10 votes, 43.48%
>
> - No damage tables of any kind, armor penalties for
> side and rear shots
> apply., 6 votes, 26.09%
>
> There are two groups:
>
> Those who want damage tables- 30%
>
> Those who don't- 70%
>
> The don'ts have it.
>
> Within the "don't" category giving an all-around
> save is favored. It's a
> slight rule change, hardly earth-shattering. Simple
> majority suffices.
>
> Result: No damage tables, all around save for
> knights
>
>
> VI. HQ unit orders
>
> - Keep rule as is- unit may move on charge orders
> and fire on first fire
> orders, 12 votes, 40.00%
> - Proposed change- unit may move on charge orders,
> but fire in the
> advance phase. Units that move on advance may fire
> in the first fire
> phase., 18 votes, 60.00%
>
> Majority, but not enough to push out the existing
> core rule. For now we
> keep both, core and alternate, let the players
> decide and re-evaluate at
> a later date.
>
> Result: Current rule and proposed change will both
> appear, players
> decide which to use.
>
> VII. Dividing fire
>
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
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 Sat May 11 2002 - 19:00:35 UTC