Agreed, I am not sure that the NetEPIC rules framework can handle this.
Tom Webb
Webmaster of the EPICentre
http://www.netepic.org - Home of Netepic, EPIC:
Armageddon, VOID and Heresy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 11:20 PM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Re: The close combat issue.
> Hi!
>
> Explained in words, yes, it gets long. I imagine the "execution" and it
> seems "simple". Of course, simplicity is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> To be frank, I gave up on trying adding certain things like suppression
> of more decisive close combat some time ago. Mainly because I think the
> core mechanics are not robust enough to handle it. Keep in mind all that
> netepic has changed and it has accommodated it all, which is amazing,
> but some things require too big a change. Now you can understand why
> Heresy II was designed, sometimes you need to start from scratch to
> include certain game concepts.
>
> IMO, what I really would like to add to epic is a "pushback" rule for
> close combat. Problem is there are many variables to factor in "one
> roll" that make it difficult. Using morale may be good, but morale
> values are too "extreme" (marines) are too crappy (IG,orks) and you find
> that armies with good morale would be too good. The other problem is
> number which requires all sorts of formulas/counting/modifiers to make
> it work. I figure we know what we want and what variables to include,
> but it's difficult to come up with something "simple".
>
> I think Eivind is right, some things are better left alone.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AntiChrist [mailto:seimejote_at_...]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 12:39 PM
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: The close combat issue.
>
> Isn't that _more_ complicated? :P
>
> --- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_c...> wrote:
> > Alternate idea for close combat
> >
> > Close combat will remain the same up until the point the first turn
> of
> > close combat ends. At this point all unpinned surviving models will
> roll!
> > for morale (once per the detachment involved). Those that make the
> roll
> > can make a 5cm move and re-engage in close combat and fight ONE
> turn and
> > ONE turn ONLY or additional close combat. Bonuses from outnumbering
> in
> > the previous turn do not "carry over" to this "extra" turn of close
> > combat. Once this additional turn is done each SIDE (meaning each
> > opposing player) rolls 2d6 and will add or subtract the following:
> >
> > +1 for every casualty inflicted on the opponent in close combat
> > +1 if you out number your opponent by less than 2 to 1
> > +2 if you outnumber you opponent between 2 to 1, but less than 3 to
> 1,
> > add +1 for every interval the ratio increases (+3 if outnumbers more
> > than 3 to 1, but less than 4 to 1, etc.).
> > +1 for every elite detachment on your side
> > -1 if opponent has units that cause fear.
> > -1 opponent in cover (any terrain feature that confers a -1 penalty
> to
> > firing)
> > -2 opponent in building (and you are not, if both in terrain feature
> > then NO bonus).
> > -3 opponent in fortification
> >
> > The loser of roll retreats all his forces from close combat a
> number of
> > cm's equal to his modified roll, or if preferred a flat 10cm.
> >
> > We'll commence poking holes through this, since I know I must have
> > forgotten something.
> >
> > Peter
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Tue May 20 2003 - 12:33:08 UTC