Re: [NetEpic ML] Comments over 5.0 rulebook

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:34:48 -0400

Hi!

Stephane Montabert wrote:

>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.
>
I remind everyone these are "editing copies". Which means they are NOT
the final product. The "funny" pictures and comments are some things
thrown in there for the amusement of the people involved in the editing
process (mainly Jar and me). We dont have time to "refine" these interim
copies so you see them as we do as the work gets done. The important
part is to find rule inconsistencies or errors. The final stage will be
presentation in which we'll worry about layout pictures etc.

>- 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.
>
Thats why it will be listed in the final draft as an "alternate" method.
We try to give options. Some dont like one method others prefer another.
Instead of restricting the player you can choose which is best for you.
The same will be done with flier rules and a whole host of rules and
mechanics where multiple "methods" have been expressed over the years.

>- 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?
>
This is mostly a semantic problem. It is an easy task to switch the
current definition name to "rampage" and define "stupidity". The
important thing is that its pointed out. Which you already have. Thanks!

>- 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)
>
Ahh, you hit about a VERY sticky issue regarding close combat and I warn
you there are MANY points of view on this. In principal, I agree with
you interpreation, but it has been cast down in discussions in years
past. I wont go into the ins and outs now (I'll let the discussion get
going before I do), but there are pros and cons involved in the
implementation of that particular interpretation.

Then again the topic hasn't been touched in a few years and perhaps
people feel differently now.

As always I need members to speak up!

>- 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.
>
A valid and excellent point. In my experience it has been a source of
many arguments at the gaming table. I am inclined that a similar
restriction should apply to assault.

What say others?

>- 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 ?
>
Another can of worms (you're on a roll Stephen ;-) ). The only rule i
have seen that addresses this is the original AT 1st edition rule of
"stomping". As a titan moves, obviously he can be pinned by anything of
at least titan sized or even break his stride unless its something of
super heavy/knight . Anything less gets "crushed" as it moves (which may
be represented by a simple D6 roll). If its a unit of superheavy/knight
or higher pinning class then it "blocks" movement. Thus the titan must
either move around it or engage it in close combat.

Its the simplest rule I've seen in any epic version. Perhaps we should
revisit it?

>- 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 ?
>
See above.

>- 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.
>
Good point. There are modelling issues that are difficult to define
since people have a wide variety of terrain which they must agree
beforehand if they can be assaulted or not. I think we need to make very
clear that if the model cannot MOVE into a terrain normally, he CAN NOT
assault something in that terrain. Thus no more knights or greater
demons assualting troops in buildings (which I hate), so I think this is
a necessary addition.

>- 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.
>
This applies to ALL equivalents regardless of name of weapons. The point
is taken though. It should be a standard definition as many others that
have been added.

>- 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."
>
Agreed. One should not assume everyone who plays netepic is coversant in
its game terms or what they mean. Clarifications, while seemingly
redunant to those of us "in the know" are of great help to those
learning to 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)?
>
There must be an ommision here. If the unit has a better save it should
use it.

>- 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.
>
Hmmm? I wonder if thats a mistake. I agree round bases, if for nothing
other than MINE are on round bases, hehehe :-) .

>- 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.
>
Omission I suspect. Tyranids should have battlegroups. Although remember
they are optional.

>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)
>
Why so apologetic? As I recall Jar and I have been BEGGING everyone to
read the drafts and comment. You have done so and brought quite a few
EXTREMELY good points and observations. So you have done your duty
netepic citizen, carry on! :-)

>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.
>
Please do. I remind everyone that this version is SPECIAL. Why? This
version is shaping up to be the best looking and most "coherent" of all
versions. It will be the first version with diagrams, standard
definitions and pictures. Also remember that net epic gold (a full
fledge full color and ilustrated version) will stem from it.

Its absolutely VITAL we find, dissect and modify all errors and
ambiguities. Jar and myself are too close to the editing process to
catch many of these points. Mainly because we're focused on the
organization and layout, but also because we know in our minds what we
mean and as most authors do "fill in the blanks" where information is
lacking.

Thats where all of YOU come in. You'll read it as a gamers, you'll poke
holes in it, find inconsistencies and things that need to be made more
clear. Thats one service we need and one only YOU can provide.

So use Stephen's and Deda's posts as "templates" on what we need as far
as input.

We need all the help you can give us!

Peter
Received on Mon Feb 09 2004 - 22:34:48 UTC