Re: [NetEpic ML] Comments over 5.0 rulebook

From: Stephane Montabert <kotrin_at_...>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:07:11 -0000

> I remind everyone these are "editing copies".
> Which means they are NOT the final product.

Agreed. I understand the humorous tone then.

> >- Multiple Combat Method II:
> Thats why it will be listed in the final draft as an "alternate"
> method. We try to give options. (...)

I also agree completely. The only issue there, extending to every
optional rule I guess, is: should they be crammed within core rules
or moved in a specific chapter? But this question is certainly more
related to editing and layout rather than to the rule itself.

Spreading optional rules in their relative chapters allows each
chapter to cover its topic extensively. On the other hand, the
reading can become annoying if someone decides not to use them - as
they are optional by definition. Moving all optional rules in a
dedicated part allow a better understanding of core rules, but
requires to read back and forth the related chapter if someone uses
some of them and if they intermingled with core rules.

Both methods have their good and bad points ; the former favors the
experienced gamer at the expense of the beginner, the latter does the
opposite. That's why I am naturally inclined towards the second
option. Being clear to new players is IMHO of fundamental
importance ; being useful to experienced ones is secondary, since
they are ready to make little efforts.

Back to Multiple Combat Method, I definitely think that one rule
should be written as the standard one and the other as an optional
one, which may not be the case at present (I don't remember).

> >- Movement Phase (p. 14): there is nothing about
> >engaging models in close-combat through a charge.

> >- Assault: can you assault an ennemy you don't see at
> >the start of your movement ?
> >- Overrun (p. 14): what happens if a titan attemps to
> >walks over some infantry if the optional rule is not
> >chosen?

> >- Assault, Overrun and Movement Phase (p. 14): Same
> >question apply for a "large unit" (Titan, but others
> >apply) charging an infantry detachment.

Well, it seems I've opened more can of worms than I could feed a
tyranid swarm with :o)
I will try to express my views on those issuse in a separate place.
I've changed my mind on some, but some discussions will be needed to
have both sides expressing their opinion.

> Tyranids should have battlegroups. Although
> remember they are optional.

That's something I don't understand. Battlegroups DO exist in Space
Marine, at least for Ork Gargants and Tyranids Bio-Titans, not sure
about other races. I'm quite sure Chaos and Squat have nothing in
this regard. If I remember correctly Eldar and IG battle groups have
been introduced with Titan legions ?

I though NetEpic would not make official units optionals, although I
agree it may be necessary for balance reasons (Ordinatus, anyone?).

If the purpose is to give Battlegroups to every race (with perhaps
the exception of Chaos and Squats) as an optional rule, then the rule
should be optional for EXTRA availability of battle group, ie. for
races that did not normally had access to them - Eldars, IG.

In short, I think not all races should be made equal according to
Titan battle groups and their "optional" keyword. But I'm open to
discussion.

> >That's all I have for now. Please forgive the harsh
> >tone this mail may sound like, as you do a great job.
> 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! :-)

Well, thanks a lot for your welcoming reply. Since my mail raised
problems and critics, I did not want to hurt anyone's feelings nor
their work over the years. NetEpic has gone through many revisions
and there is more work involved in than I could imagine or do myself.

Hence, I see it with respect and take care not to appear arrogant in
telling everything is not perfect - in my humble gamer's point of
view.

I decided to involve in 6mm games BECAUSE of NetEpic, and bough my
first Epic models circa 2002 through e-Bay. I find this ruleset
superior to GW publications in nearly every aspect, and that's why I
want this gaming environment to stay alive and kickin'.

I have plently of Epic ressources, ideas, galleries to build, I've
proposed to bring pictures online, etc. but as usual time is lacking.
A lot of NetEpic homework to do, but I'll do it for sure. Is there
any deadline for 5.0 rulebook revisions ?

Cheers,

 Stephane
Received on Tue Feb 10 2004 - 11:07:11 UTC