[NetEpic ML] Re: Rules Questions for Everyone!

From: Andy Michaud <amichaud_at_...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 22:32:32 +0000

Warprat wrote:

> Thanks to Kelvin, Quester, Andy, and Peter for helping me better
> understand the great NetEpic Rules!

No Problem...you have done your fair share of answering questions too :)

> I have some further questions and a couple of comments.
> Drop Pods:
> Q)What effect do Drop Pods have on buildings? Can you land on them?
> A)No effect, drop pod destroyed.
> I can understand Pods not being able to land in rivers and marshes, but
> why can't the Pods land on the tops of buildings, or land in forests, or
> difficult terrain. The pod does not move, only lands. Why can tracked
> vehicles move in these kinds of terrain but not Pods landing.

The following are just my opinion on why the rules are like they are. That is
a good point, however when a pod lands on a building it probably crashes
through the top floor and down into the building somewhere, the odds of it
landing right side up and not being burried in the rubble in creates are so
small that it is easier to just say that by the time the troops inside are
able to get out, if ever, the battle has been finished. As for the forest,
the trees could possibly tip or damage the pods. If they could land in
forests it would make the pods more powerful which would affect game
balance. Also you could have the problem of dropping pods on units you are
unable to see. But I do agree that the pods could have a possibility (1-3 or
destroyed) of landing in the forest, but that would entail new rules.

> Buildings:
> Q1) Can buildings be targeted if there are no visable enemy in them?
> Q2) Can empty buidings be targeted?
> Q3) Do buildings need to save at -4, when hit by the Gargant Gutbuster
> Ball, as models do? Is a building considered a model?
> (A1)Yes, its a legal ploy to destroy buildings that are unoccupied to
> open line of sight.
> (A2)Yes.
> (A3)Yes, it saves at -4, consider it a model.
> What about buildings that are occupied by enemy troops that are not seen
> by any friendly troops. Can these buildings be targeted? How can your
> artillery know that that is THE BUILDING to target, if the enemy trops
> are not visable? Also, is it possible to target enemy infantry in
> woods, when they are not visable to any of your own troops? How can
> your artillery know THE PATCH OF TREES to bombard, if the enemy remains
> unseen?

In all fairness, I would have to say that in the 41st century the detection
equipment / psykics would be advanced enoughto know general locations of
enemy units. They would probably know that enemy troops are in a certain
building and therefore could fire at the building, however a forest is
usually larger than a building and while knowing the general area of the
troops it would not be possible to target them effectively. Therefore I would
say that building could be targeted at anytime, but troops in a forest would
be off limits to enemy fire if not visible. Once again this is an issue of
game balance. If troops are allowed to be bombarded in a forest, their value
would be severly diminished.

> Other:
> Q) How is Close Combat resolved when a titan initiates Close Combat with
> infantry, and tanks? How do the titan anti-personal weapons
> affect defending infantry and tanks? Is the CAF of the titan used
> at all?
> (A)No. The anti-personel rules still apply and vehicles are rammed
> (or kicked)

I do not totally understand the Netepic version of titan vs. smaller CC,
could someone give an example of how this would work.

I did have one other thought that came up in a game a few weeks ago. Are
cavalry able to engage troops that are using forest for cover. Technically
they are inside the forest, and cavalry cannot charge into forest, only
advance through. Would the cavalry be able to initiate CC with troops that
are peeking out of forest?


Received on Sun Jan 23 2000 - 22:32:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:50 UTC