Hello, I'm the nit-picker from Hell, so here are my
comments for your wrath and flames...
- I don't like the "fun" stuff (cover, humorous
comments over each race description) in the
introduction. It's not that I lack sense of humor,
it's just that I don't feel their presence appropriate
in a neat rulebook, nor do they reflect the feel of
the 41st millenium. A nice picture of an ongoing Epic
battle with painted models would be just fine as a
cover - and some races' descriptions are made in a
"fun" tone definitely out of place.
- Multiple Combat Method II: Altough it's interesting
from a theoretical point of view, I don't see the
point here. Even if it's someone's pet house rule,
which is understandable, it is certainly more
complicated. If it yields the same results than method
I, then it's useless and should not be mentioned. If
it yields different results, it's still not a good
idea because some armies will behave better in close
combat depending if method I or II is used, resulting
in annoying arguments. At least it should be moved to
an annex or something.
- Special ability: Stupidity (p.12): Speaks of
Rampaging creatures from tyranids to me. The stupidity
rules are quite different from the one affecting the
trolls in the original edition (trolls had to roll a
d6 for their orders: 1-2 advance, 3+ charge). Will the
trolls be updated to name their "lack of
understanding" in a different way, or are they now
affected by this new interpretation of a "rampaging"
stupididy?
- Movement Phase (p. 14): there is nothing about
engaging models in close-combat through a charge. It
was long known that an attacker must try to engage as
many ennemy models than possible, i.e. not ganging up
5 stands again a single ennemy stand if others are
laying around in order to make at least a casualty. If
this rule, which made sense IMHO, has been removed,
then it should be stated somewhere that there is no
constraint whatsoever into engaging ennemy stands. But
I think the most simple rule of engagement is "a
charging unit must attempt to engage as many ennemy
stands/models from the charged unit as possible". A
unit that reach an ennemy must try to engage whatever
is within reach of the ennemy unit. If the attacker
outnumbers the defender, then extra models can be used
either 1) to engage additional ennemy units, one at a
time and following the same rule, or 2) outnumber the
defender. (include schema example)
- Assault: can you assault an ennemy you don't see at
the start of your movement ? Can you assault an ennemy
even no fellow unit sees? Example: unit hiding behind
a building ; or trying to assault Eldar scouts that
are more than 25 cm away. If there is some
restrictions to firing, it's strange there are none
for assault, but it can be understandable for the sake
of simplicity.
- Overrun (p. 14): what happens if a titan attemps to
walks over some infantry if the optional rule is not
chosen? The same way there is a pinning rule for
shooting, a pinning rule for movement should be
written. A titan shouldn't have to stop its move when
colliding with some infantry stands or vehicles, but
if the optional rule is not chosen, and even if the
optional rule is chosen but there is only one class
difference in size, nobody knows what happens exactly.
Should the movement stop ? Should lesser units be
moved away, even if not under the final position of
the large unit ? Should, according to engagement
rules, the lesser units moved 1cm away from the large
one ? Can't the titan enter the Zone of Control of the
infantry unless it's in charge orders ?
- Assault, Overrun and Movement Phase (p. 14): Same
question apply for a "large unit" (Titan, but others
apply) charging an infantry detachment. Imagine the
worst case scenario - infantry is deployed in a
column. So one stand is close to the Titan, the next
stand is 6 cm away from the first, and so on. If the
Titan is willing to engage the infantry detachment,
should the titan stop when encountering the first
infantry stand ? It is possible for it to somehow
engage more than one infantry stand, by "pushing" and
"herding" them ? How ?
- Is it possible to engage in Close-Combat with an
opponent in a building when you are not in a building
yourself ? When you are not allowed, because of your
size class, to enter a building ? The same could be
asked for any unit at the edge of impassable terrain
for the assaulting unit.
- Vehicles with bolters (p. 24): I don't like this
special treatment, because each race has its local
bolter variants, called spore cysts, shuriken
catapults, and so on - basically, every 6+/15cm/TSM-
weapon profile mounted on a vehicle-class or monster
should follow that rule. Unless I am mistaken, the
keyword should be "point-defense weapons" or something
instead of bolters, and each army list can have a
specific name for them (aka bolters, shuriken
catapults, etc.). This argument may sound pointless,
because other races with such defense point systems
are already command units, like spore cysts on a
Dominatrix. But the distinction is important
nonetheless because if you follow the optional rule
for command units decreasing their first fire ability,
this limitation should have no effect on point-defense
weapons they carry. Also, some of those point-defense
weapons are not mounted on command units.
- Superheavy vehicles (p.31): The wording of "damaged"
could be clearer. It's not clear if two damage result
are the same than a single destroyed or not. Also,
there is no indication whether the model should be
left on the table or not.
I'd change the effect descriptions:
1: "No Effect. The vehicle is shaken and suffer minor
damages but this has no effect on gameplay."
2-3: "Damaged. The superheavy vehicle suffers a -1
penalty on its to-hit rolls when firing ranged
weapons. If the vehicle suffers a new damaged result
when it is already damaged, it is destroyed as per 4-6
below."
4-6: "Destroyed. The superheavy vehicle is destroyed,
remove the model from play."
- Bail-out roll (p.32): what happens when a
transported unit has a save better than the 4+ roll?
Extreme example: Is it possible that an entire company
of vindicators (sv 2+) transported in a Capitol
Imperialis, which is destroyed with a -3TSM weapon, is
also wiped out (Bailing out roll of 8)?
- Basing is specified for each unit type, but I don't
feel comfortable with the "knight" definition. Do you
really plan to have Imperial and Eldar knights based
on square stands ? Old-style Carnifex don't fit into
that classification too. It seems to me that knights
can be mounted on round bases.
- Titan Battlegroup: which race has access to which
titan battlegroup should not be covered in the core
rules, but in the appropriate army list (though the
definition of what a titan battle group is, has its
right place in core rules). Moreover, among the races
that have access to Titan Battlegroup, the Tyranids
are not listed, although they are one of the few
armies that have a "legitimate" (i.e. the appropriate
army card) for a battlegroup.
That's all I have for now. Please forgive the harsh
tone this mail may sound like, as you do a great job.
But as we reach version 5.0 of NetEpic I wanted not to
be a lurker anymore and involve into making this
ruleset an example of crystal-clear rules. I think we
can make it, tying up loose ends here and there. Bear
in mind also that some of the questions raised above
can be solved with a bit of common sense, but I still
think that a clear rulebook should cover those issues
nonetheless. So, keep up the good work and take this
post with a pinch of salt ;o)
Also, as soon as my website will be up and running,
I'll maintain a list of "loose ends" (as I name them)
as I find some one by one.
Best regards,
Kotrin
=====
Stephane "The Guy Without A Nickname" Montabert
"It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Eric Wujcik
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Received on Mon Feb 09 2004 - 08:18:04 UTC