Re: [NetEpic ML] New poll for netepic

From: Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_...>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:19:54 -0400 (EDT)

Re: tunnelers vs troops:
> the rule should specify "infantry"

I agree. How about "base-to-base contact with a model it can pin." I don't think changing pinning class is a good idea, but I'm open for discussion.


>On the question on diagrams: I personally prefer plain B&W diagrams
>rther than pics for playing rulesets

I'll leave the color pics out of the NetEpic Lite, but I think the color pics add a lot to the thick rulebook. NetEpic Gold will have more professional pictures, I believe.


>- In the unit activation sequence explanation, it should be specified that
at the end of the movement phase, non-activated units units do NOT have
their orders revealed, thus leaving the opponent to guess the real orders of
any unmoved units that have not been activated. With the present wording it
is not clear what happens at the end of the movement phase.

I haven't found that it matters if my opponent knows if a unit is on First Fire or Advance or not - if I haven't moved it he just assumes it's on First Fire. And if it's not on First Fire but I haven't moved it, I deserve it. But I see your point and will change the wording.


>- I haven't found anywhere any explicit reference that pop-up attacks can
only be made by skimmer units in first-fire.

Neither have I, but I changed that in both the Pop-up description and on the Combat page.


>- In the pinning class section, in the Special Rule: Skimmers box, IMHO the
first sentence should read: "Skimmers cannot(...) themselves skimmers and at
least of the same pinning class". The reason is that IIRC eldar army has
some SH tanks with the skimmer ability, which should not be pinned by e.g. a
small land speeder.

Good point. Edited.


>- On page 31, victory points, the optional rule (no enemy units nearer than
15 cm to claim an objective) is used and not the core rule (closest legal
unit to the objective, at least closer than 15 cm, claims objective ). legal
stays for units not in CC or with fall back orders.

I've changed the word "active" to "valid".


>- Special ability: Elite (33), it is not specified how many times (each
turn, each battle) can be used the reroll counter. If once per game, it
should be specified as so.

I assumed that "one counter" would be sufficient, but I'll be more specific.


>- Titans in Close Combat (36), first it reads that titans are not
outnumbered by anything smaller than knight-class. Next sentence states that
only opposing titans count for adding extra dice in CC. This is
contradictory. I think that the correct sentence is the first, and thus,
only Knights, SH vehicles, praetorians and other titans count for the
purpose of outnumbering. If this is so, second sentence should be corrected.

That's what I get for so much cut & paste. I've re-writeen the second sentence as "That is, vehicles and smaller units do not generate extra dice for having multiple opponents."


>- It could be worth adding a small example of a CC fight of a Titan against
multiple opponents, probably better if at least one Titan/praetorian, one
knight/SH and some vehicles and infantry (elite and not elite are added)
were present.

You're right, and I'll take a gander at it. My only objection stems from my not wanting to add a page containing only an example. If this isn't a concern to anyone else I'll do it, but I preferred to have a smaller rulebook.


>- Appendix A, there's a typo in the example box of pinning classes:infantry
has a 5) instead of a 1) and the text is displaced

Thanks. Word has some irritating default formatting.


>- Appendix C, I wouldn't try to add all codex lists, since most codex lists
are variable and sometimes optional. Maybe put three or four as an example

Fair enough. I've moved all the Standard Army lists up to the "CHoosing an Army" section and added a few of the codex lists for each.


>For the rest, I couldn't see any other problems. Probably I'll try to read
>it again after some days (or weeks, real life sometimes is so strange...).
>In any case, very good job!!

Thank you very much! It's nice to know that folks are reading my work. Let me know anything else you find, and I'll see what I can do about it.
-Yar


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
\~
 |~ . o o . :;: () -0- o o .
 |~ ^
/~ |
         You are here. Wouldn't you rather be out there? -->
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Received on Wed Sep 22 2004 - 13:19:54 UTC