Hi!
That’s a good thought.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Farr� Benet [mailto:cibernyam_at_...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 6:36 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] weapons
As for ork weapons, I'll leave them just as they are. I don't think the
"normal" word is appearing in any ork dictionary. Probably most imperial
weapons are built in an adeptus Mechanicus factory with some sort of
chain production. But there are no two ork vehicles equal. So I wouldn't
mind about that. Just state "Ork lascannon" or "Ork battlecannon" and
everybody knows it may be any size/shape (or conservation state).
Albert
----- Original Message -----
From: Jarreas <mailto:jarreas_at_...> Underwood
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:38 PM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] weapons
>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
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059081:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http:/ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1022711637
%3eM=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705059081:HM/A=100023
9/R=1>
<
http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705059081:HM/A=1000239/rand=529552835>
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
Received on Wed May 29 2002 - 23:27:26 UTC