Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Core rules Deep Reading (long)

From: Zerloon <zerloon_at_...>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:55:35 +0100

At 20.18 19/03/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>1) Correct: you can pick A) any two Standard lists, or B) put 75% of your
>points into a Codex list (and the associated Standard list) and up to 25%
>into any other Standard list.
>
>The alliance of Space Wolves and Ultramarines is quite possible: The Space
>Wolves list is composed of the unique Space Wolves list plus the Space
>Marine standard list, and the Ultramarines are composed of the Standard
>list. This is situation B) above.
>
>You are correct that the Space Wolves cannot ally with the White Scars -
>both have unique units available. Ther is no reason why you couldn't run
>Space Wolves and call some of your units "White Scars" - you just wouldn't
>have access to the White Scars unique units.

I don't understand that in the 75% there are even the associated Standard
list, peraphs should be written clearer.
Frankly speaking I don't understand why Space Wolf and White Scars cannot
ally, the fact that they have unique abilities should be balanced from
they're unique disavantage... I think that Codex list are not better than
Generic, so I see no reason for letting alliance between Standard and Codex
and forbidden two Codex. And anyway I think that every Chapter is a Codex
List, there are no such things as "generic" marines you belong to a Chapter
or you're not Marines.


>2A) Both "Snap Fire" and "Fire on the Fly" are shooting activations in the
>movement phase - they've been around since version 3 and I'm not sure what
>your objection is here.

I don't talk about Snap Fire or Fire on the fly, I talk about revealing a
First Fire order in the movement phase, I think that unless is a snap fire
you cannot declare a FF as "movement" order.


>2B) Transports and carried units on with the same orders are still two
>activations.

Ok, maybe can let units in the same detachment to share the same order
counter to show a better coordination?

>3) I'm in the process of more-or-less going back to the flier/floater
>differentiation. I've been trying to integrate the two and, despite my
>earlier arguements, have failed. I'll be posting a few pages sometime next
>week.

Ok

>4) A Knight has a much higher mobility and smaller target profile than a
>titan, and a praetorian requires much more stable ground to move on than a
>regular vehicle - the Abrams tearing up the autobahn in Europe comes to
>mind. When I made the pinning table I took mobility, armor and weaponry
>into account. That's why cavalry and walkers are in the same catagory -
>walkers have the firepower and armor to ignore a lessar opponent, while
>cavalry has the mobility to leave in a hurry.

Excuse me, but if as tou said a Knaight have an higher mobility than a
titan why knight are in the same table of veichles that is worse?


>Personally, I'm in favor of removing the Praetorian label entirely - if
>it's bigger than a superheavy, it's a titan. But that's me and probably
>won't happen.

Disagree, Praetorian have special rule and are somthing different from Titan...


>5) Light artillery is a gun with a crew around it. Heavy artillery is an
>armored vehicle with a gun in it. That's why the CAF of light artillery is
>so low, and heavy artillery has an armor save.
>
>As for the lascannon snap-firing, the answer is "What's firing it?" Worry
>less about the name of the weapon and more about what type of unit it is -
>identically named weapons often have vastly different stats, and snap fire
>is one of those differences.

You're right, but the sentence "artillery may not snap fire" leave no
doubt, if I'm reading the rules for first time I'm came to conclusion that
every artillery may not snap fire, so even Tarantula. Eldar Lascannon etc. etc.

>6, 7 & 8) Good points. I've edited the rules.

I live to serve!! ^___^

>9) Regeneration and the Medic ability work on anything that leaves a
>corpse - things like vortex bombs don't leave anything behind, but a
>psychic scream does.

Right, so a vortex (Ethereal) leave no corpse and allow no regeneration, a
psychic scream (physical?) leave a corpse and so allow regeneration, so or
specify for every power if leave a corpse or not, or simply state that
Ethereal power/hit/weapon leave no corpse and so cannot be regenerated,
Physical power/hit/weapon leave a corpse and let regenerate.


>10) Origionally, Space Marine II had the Tyranid Hirodule & Heirophant
>broods - that was it. Outside Net Epic there has never been any other
>battle group. Net Epic 3 has the Phantom Titan Battle Group (3 Phantoms)
>but it's absent in both 4 and 4.1 - anyone know why it was dropped?

Wrong, the other battle group were printed on White Dwarf, this my first
revision or I'll note this much time before!!


>I wouldn't mind seeing battle groups go away again, though. It's a point
>of much debate and probably deserves a poll.

Battlegroup are very charactheful, at least for me, but I dislike that it
are Company... peraphs special for 5k or more battle?


>11) Good points. The math both supports and denigrates your suggestion,
>though, as it would make titans immune to all but the highest CAF units.
>Not a bad thing, but against genre. Perhaps we can make titans "never
>outnumbered" by things smaller than vehicles (pinning class 3)?

I'll say never outnumbered by things smaler than knight...

>As for the anti-infantry rolls, I'd prefer "half the troops have to make
>an armor save" over "one in six just dies." But you're right - we need a poll.

Go for it!!

>As for jump troops and skimmers picking a location, again a poll.

I love democracy!!


>12) Keep in mind that we separated the Command ability (charge move and
>First Fire shoot) from the HQ ability (targeting protection). Praetorians
>are Command, but not HQ. And I changed the movement sentence to "doesn't
>double their move on Charge" - that doesn't put a flat movement onto all
>Praetorians.

In the 5.F there are the old sentence, if you have changed already better.


>13) Again, keep in mind that Close Combat is not only hand-to-hand
>fighting, but also involves grenades, satchel charges, plasma pistols and
>other very deadly weapons. That's why there's no armor save from losing -
>you've taken far too much damage for armor to help you now.
>
>I applied the same theory to infantry assaulting a building - they have
>the time to plant charges on the major support braces, target supporting
>walls with heavy weapons and so on. I decided this was reasonable.
>
>Look at the numbers: Grunt infantry trying to take down a standard house =
>armor save of 4+ at a penalty of 0 (infantry CAF) = a 1-in-12 chance of
>doing a point of damage (out of two total). Time consuming but do-able.
>Terminators assaulting a wood-and-plaster cottage = armor save of 6+ with
>a -6 penalty (Terminator CAF) = that cottage is rubble unless it rolls a
>"12". Sounds right.
>
>Oh, and Howling Banshees special attack only works on targets with no
>armor save - all buildings have 'em, so it's more "EEEEEEK FALL DOWN
>DAMMIT! I SAID FALL DOWN!" *grin* Still, remember that it's a high-tech
>energy pistol and the sword can cut plas-steel like butter - you think it
>can't do a number on a wall?

40k weapons can certainly doing a numer on a wall, but without the
necessary time and precaution the building will collapse in a random
direction, and debris should kill everyone in a range... I don't think
infantry and others cannot destroy building placing bombs or others, I
think they have no time to doing so... and escape alive!!



>And thanks for the complement - it's nice to know that my work is appreciated.

Nothing to thanks, this what I can do with my spare time LONG LIVE NETEPIC!!

>-Yar

Zerloon
Received on Sat Mar 22 2003 - 00:55:35 UTC