RE: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] weapons

From: Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_...>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:38:55 -0400

>9 "Autocannon"
>
>I think it was suggested that this have a 0 save modifer, 2 attack dice,
>range of 75cm, hits on a 5+

Then we need some new weapon names. The existing autocannon ranges go from
25 to 100, 5 of them range 50. Saves are either 0 or -1 and most hits are
5+, but there are three 4+'s.


>7 "Battlecannon"
>
>These should all be 75cm, 1 attack dice, 4+ to hit, -2 save modifer.

Similarly, four of these are range 50 and three are range 75. All saves are
-2 except one that's -4, and the To-Hits range from 5+ to 3+.


A comprehensive weapons list (like you've done in Heresy) would make things
easier on me, but I predict massive amounts of wrangling if I try to add a
weapons list to Net Epic. Here's an idea: I come up with a comprehensive
weapon list - actually I've already got one, I just need to organize it a
bit differently. I publish it to the list. Then we argue about which of my
weapons a unit has based on the unit's existing stats.

Problem: This would change the name of the weapon carried by probably half
the units.

Problem: A lot of my names would have no connection to the W40K universe.
The vast majority of the unit stats would remain exactly the same, but the
names would change. This will irritate and/or confuse people - a bad thing
when trying to promote a game.

Alternative: We leave things as they are and argue about specific unit
stats. *This* battlecannon hits on a 4+ and has a -2 TSM, while *that* one
hits on a 3+ and have a -1 TSM.

I don't mind putting the list together, but if the general feeling is 'it's
not worth the bother' then I'm not gonn put in the effort. I have a
feeling that if I try, we're gonna be moving Net Epic more towards Heresy
than keeping with the 'large-scale W40K' feel we've got now.
-Yar
Received on Wed May 29 2002 - 20:38:55 UTC