Hi!
Albert is correct. Even with the simplest of ideas, you must se what
changes it does on the rules as a whole. For example, if you give a
certain ability to move around in close combat, then you must change
certain power like rampage, chaos powers that permit extra moves and
close combat, the juggers ability, etc. This is where most ideas
breakdown, the integration with the rest of the rules.
Out of curiosity, has anyone read or tried Heresy II? Most of the things
you are trying to include are already in it, in fact it's that same
"desire" to include mechanics that netepic didn't have is what spark
Heresy to be born. Sorry if I sound like a commercial mentioning Heresy
so frequently, but I think if you want certain game concepts like
suppression, impact of morale on combat ability and actual command and
control you should take a look at it in our files section (those at the
Epicentre are outdated).
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Farr� Benet [mailto:cibernyam_at_...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:34 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: The close combat issue.
Agreed too. This change will in turn affect many more things (morale,
army
exceptions, abilities, pinning class,...), the fixing of everything
would be
worse than the problem solved.
Albert
----- Original Message -----
From: "NetEpic Webmaster" <webmaster_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: The close combat issue.
> 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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 - 16:43:18 UTC