----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Issue #1
Infantry saves
A. Leave as is
B. Change
--- A. Leave as is --
Issue #2
Titans
A. leave as is
B. change
-- B. change --
Issue #3
Close combat
A. leave as is
B. change
-- B. change --
These are the votes of the Icelandic jury.
Best regards
Stefan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Ramos [mailto:pramos2_at_...]
Sent: 17. desember 1999 00:29
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Let the Revision begin!!
Hi guys!
As most net epic old hands know once I get free time I start my usual
barrage of posts. Again I thank "Weasel" for starting this off.
Ground rules
1. Everything is voted on before its passing, majority vote of 2/3 is needed
to pass a specific entry
2. Core rule revisions will be tackled first
3. Army lists with unit by unit analysis of stats and rules
4. Alternate rules
The first couple of issues will be of course the latest hottest topics on
the list:
Infantry saves and titans
No the vote that follows is to assess need for a change, not what the change
is. I need consensus as far as this before we start making up rules. It
seems that the opinions may have fluctuated since the last vote.
Issue #1
Infantry saves
A. Leave as is
B. Change
My personal take. I have heard all the opinons on this and currently I am
swaying to leave as is. Reasons: no system no matter how simple has
unforseeable changes since it affects a whole host of other rules. Also I
feel that infantry SHOULD be easily elimimated as the rules currently are. I
played AT extensivley and I remember how long and horrid it was to have a
game with infamtry saves. The increase in realism really kills playability.
Also I think we should revise the WEAPONS not the infantry saves, since some
weapons or are too weak of too effective. What are the infantries strengths?
free movement in dense terrain and buildings and increased ability to
assault vehicles. With these in mind I vote "A".
Issue #2
Titans
A. leave as is
B. change
My take is that they need a change, but not a drastic one. As a matter of
fact the best idea I have heard is to increase the possibility of repair of
shields. This simple change would be very profound. Also I would fiddle with
the actual saves per location. Note giving titans a save on 2d6 sounds
simple but it may be too powerful. The average weapon save modifier is -2
making most weapons hardly effective. Changing armor saves is simpler and
more balanced, sites like the reactor and such can have an armor of "0" (as
some suggested) and so forth, while weapon mounts still have crummy saves.
As far as the power of shields, be cautious. An y change here may have big
effects. For smaller titans I'd leave as is, but for warlords and bigger
ones maybe shields that require -2 weapons is the way to go, after all these
can shunt more energy to their shields. Well the exact changes we can hammer
out later, my vote is "B"
Issue #3
Close combat
A. leave as is
B. change
My vote is "B", but not as far as the general mechanic with we should keep,
but as far as the interaction of infantry with vehicles and titans. I think
vehicls should have high CAF when they charge and low ones when caught in a
charge, in short words the old AT overun system was simple and easy to
adapt. As far as with titans I'm not sure but I am disatisfied with the
current state of affairs.
These are but a few to get the ball rolling, please submit more issues if
necessary and comment on the ones listed.
Peter
_____
<
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1751>
click here <
http://clickhere.egroups.com/img/001751/hbe_lights_1108.gif>
Click here!
eGroups.com Home:
http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic
<
http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic>
www.egroups.com <
http://www.egroups.com> - Simplifying group communications
Received on Fri Dec 17 1999 - 09:22:37 UTC
