Agree on this!!
There are too much changes going on here! I think that people should playtest these proposed changes before any polls are made. I cant really see the need for all this changes, and I know that my gaming group will only use few, if any of the 5.0 rules. It is really too much too fast! When we change too much too fast, people become reluctant to use any changes at all. Even those that should be used.
I suggest that the new prices are made into separate armylists so people can use them if they want. We who wants to stick with the old point system should be allowed to.
Also happy with 4.0
Eivind
>
> Fra: darius spano <dmanspano_at_...>
> Dato: 2002/05/31 Fri PM 01:08:44 CEST
> Til: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Emne: Re: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] AP vs AT
>
> Hello,
> With all the proposed changes to the rules and new
> units, Net Epic 5.0 is going to look nothing at all
> like 4.0. Change is a good a thing but it seems to me
> that the rush to change drastically is too fast. New
> units and rules getting voted on that haven't been
> play tested yet are given optional or even core
> status. Reworking of points for units. It is all
> becoming too much. Personally I would rather see rules
> for playing a campaign scenario and battle ideas not
> the choice for AT/AP or should we standardize the
> weapons and give either a -1 or a -3 TSM. It looks
> like the game I have been playing for 10 years will
> change so much that I won't recognize it.
>
> Your answer to the AP/AT question is simply this: If
> it has no TSM modifier it is AP and if it does it is
> AT. You can stipulate a rule that armored vehicle
> units can only be affected by weapons with a -1 TSM or
> they gain a +1 to their Armor Save from weapons with a
> 0 TSM. We already do this with titans and void
> shields. As for barrages, some of them are powerful
> enough to damage vehicles and thus have both AP/AT
> ability.
>
> Happy with 4.0
> Darius
> --- Weasel Fierce <weasel_fierce_at_...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >I've been trying to come up with a way to
> > differentiate Anti-Personnel and
> > >Anti-Tank weapons, without changing any game
> > mechanics. How about this:
> > >
> > >Call it AP: Weapons with a 0 or -1 TSM
> > >
> > >Call it AT: Weapons with -3 or more TSM
> > >
> >
> > Im not sure I would like to see every -2 gun changed
> > to -1 or -3.
> >
> > Land raiders with -3 tsm ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Weasel
> >
> >
> > How many lives will be taken today?
> > How many times will we just look away?
> >
> > Pennywise - One voice
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print
> > your photos:
> > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.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 Fri May 31 2002 - 12:07:08 UTC