[NetEpic ML] Re: bughunt

From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:12:33 +1100

At 08:59 AM 12/16/99 +0000, you wrote:
>found some bugs:
>(They really ought to be corrected)
>In the various army lists, the summaries are not very clear about which
>units are command units. Also, the choice of what is a command unit seems
>rather strange, for examble both the commissar and the farseer are NOT
>command units though they certainly should be so.

This is something that should definately be fixed. I believe that both
used to be command units in the old SM/TL rules, why did they not translate

>Why do squat thunderers get a CAF of +1 and the regular warriors (Who were
>WS 4 in 40K) have +0????

Thunderers had the +1 in SM/TL and so it was carried over. The reasoning
was that the Thunderers are the elder warriors of the Squats, and so
experienced in all forms of combat, especially Close Combat. Thus they got
the +1 while the Warriors (lots of troopers with Lasguns with the
occasional Heavy Bolter) were youger, less experienced and so not as good
in Close Combat.

>On the command falcon (Eldar army) the lascannon is a turret weapon, it is
>not on the regular falcon?????

Because the Command Falcon was used to represent the newer Falcon model
while the regular Falcon is represented normally by the older Falcon model
(which had a fixed forward Lascannon). I really, really, really think this
is one thing that needs to be remedied in the revision of NetEpic. I think
the Falcon and all its variants should be eliminated and we have only one
(MAYBE two) Falcon. Standardise it and say the various designs are simply
differing Craftworld styles and ages of designs. All this Falcon, Command
Falcon and Peregrine is just a pain and, in the words of our local Eldar
player "..what a waste iof time, they're ALL Falcons anyway, they just look

>The summary of the hellhound says it hit on 5+, the description says 4+?

I'd say it should be a 4+. Its a nasty little flamer on that tank.

>The rules for the big spooky tyranid things mention morale checks for broken
>units in close combat? What is this, it isnt in the main rules.

It probably should be. In SM/TL any broken units that are engaged in Close
Comabt not only suffer a -2 CAF but must check for morale. If they fail,
they rout and are removed. I guess it just got left out of the core rules
for NetEpic.

>Shouldn't swooping hawks count as having jump packs???



         "Of course I'm paranoid!
       Everyone's trying to kill me."
Received on Thu Dec 16 1999 - 22:12:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:49 UTC