AMF's commentaries v1.00 [long]

From: A.M.F. <KOKEL>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:11:08 -0000

NetEpic V5 PlayTest


Here the compilation of my commentaries on the subject of this
edition of NetEpic. I present you my excuse by advances for my
spelling or grammar errors...


==================================================


CORE RULES

Page 06

Victory Points : I do not understand why you improved the precision
of the cost points and not the one of the victory points.


50 CP = 1 VP
75 CP = 1 VP
100 CP = 1 VP
125 CP = 1 VP
150 CP = 2 VP
175 CP = 2 VP
200 CP = 2 VP
225 CP = 2 VP
250 CP = 3 VP
275 CP = 3 VP
300 CP = 3 VP
325 CP = 3 VP

Etc, etc...


I would prefer to have this instead of :

50 CP = 2 VP
75 CP = 3 VP
100 CP = 4 VP
125 CP = 5 VP
150 CP = 6 VP
175 CP = 7 VP
200 CP = 8 VP
225 CP = 9 VP
250 CP = 10 VP
275 CP = 11 VP
300 CP = 12 VP
325 CP = 13 VP

Etc, etc...


It does not remain anymore than to change the value of the victory
conditions.

I think that this is well more stable thus.

Page 07

Special Cards : I find damage, for the variety of the game, to have
to choose between a small personage and a big unit like a titan or a
praetorian. Especially for little games. I had introduced, to the era
of Space Marines 2nd, the following concept: the minors and major
special cards. A minor special card is a special card being worth 150
points to the maximum. Inversely, the major special cards are the
one being worth more than 150 pts. A company card can recruit a minor
special card and a major special card. The major special card can be
replaced by a second minor special card. But this is not reciprocal.
This little rule allows playing more easily the small personages as
the psykers, the medics, the chapelins, the techmarines or their
counterparts of the other factions.

Special Rule : Duplicate Units : I think that this rule must not
apply to personnality or legendary units.

Allies : One could soften and balance the rule of the alliances in
substitute the percentages by an additional cost of allied unities.
This additional cost would depend on links uniting the various
factions that fight together. Thus, the additional cost of a space
marines unit in an Imperial Guard army would be lighter than for
eldar or ork units. This is also more equitable in comparison with
the armies that do not employ any allies. That worked well with Clan
War (the Legend of the Five Rings miniatures game). If you ask it, I
can scan the page of Clan War alliances to do an example.

Page 08 :

Is it normal that eldars may ally with Orks ?
I think that independant mercenaries like kroots can't have any non-
mercenary ally.
Where are squats ?
Space Marine may recruit orks. But I think it must not be
reciprocal...

Infiltration : I suggest this: Players place infiltration units every
where on the table but to a distance of enemi units.

Page 10

Optional Command Rule : Give an order when you activate the command
unit (even with a reaction) :
- Command First Fire Order : fire on First Fire Segment and Advance
Fire Segment.
- Command Advance Order : move on Advance Order and fire on First
Fire Segment.
- Command Charge Order : move on Charge Order and fire on Advance
Fire Segment.

Initiative : I suggest to throw 2D6 and add a faction bonus
representing his tactical/strategic level. We could use the same as
W40k2.

Page 11

Activate Units : I think that we could adopt the activation system of
Warzone 2ND :
- If it you remain more units to activate than your opponent, to the
double, you activate two units at once until you have as much as him.
- If it you remain more double of units to activate than your
opponent, until the triple one, you activate three units at once
until you have the double of him.
- Etc, etc...
(Tested and approved in many games !)

Page 12

Moving and Turning : Vehicles are too easy to maneuver. I think that
one should give to them the same rule than titans. I consider that
movement flexibility must remain exclusive appanage of the infantry,
the cavalry and light vehicles (bikes, walkers, etc. ..). It is
important for me, I play especially in urban environment. And this
difference between troops and vehicles adds a lot to the interest on
the played games.

Point Defense : 6+ to hit is not so efficiant for weapons that fire
only on infantery. 5+ could be better.

Page 14

Movement Off-Table : The current rule is really excessive. If the
fall back units cannot return, it is normal. On the other hand, to be
considered as a loss because of a unfortunate deviation throw, this
is too much. I think that the latter should be able to return at the
time of the turns following by the point where they took out.
Eventuellement, one can put the condition to succeed a die throw like
4 +.

Page 16

Zone of Control : This should not be an optional rule.

Page 17

Floater : 6 Hard Targets : I think that there's an error : " Only
Infantery-class ... may fire at Floaters (but not Floaters) "

High Altitude : " Likewise, virtually everyone can see it but must
add 25 cm to the range when firing at it ". Question : Is it valid
for the pop up attack ? (up to 30 cm above the ground when firing...)

Page 18

Transport : I don't like this rule of 5cm for embark/disembark...
This rule introduces temporal distortions. I prefer old one with
ratio. Movement speed of a embarked unit has no impact on the time
that it wait and do nothing else when it is in its vehicle. If it is
in a vehicle during the half of the activation of the latter, it
loses the half of his own activation. A transportation vehicle is not
a catapults !

Page 19

Trenches : A troop that renounces to pull can spend the whole times
that is allocated for him for this turn to move itself. And this
report remains valid in the trenches. Therefore, the troops must be
able to enter into a trench with a Charge Order. To simulate the
difficulty to evolve in the middle of the trenches, one counts them
as difficult land for units of 3 or less pinning class.

Page 20

Destroy Building : These weapons should inflict 1D3 or 1D6 points of
damage against buildings instead of to destroy them automatically. If
no, that forbids us the possibility offered by a scenario containing
a particularly resistant building as objective.

Page 25

Template : I think that there is an error when one shows the Scorcher
or the Bowelburna as usage example of the large teardrop... If no,
this would be really frightful !!!

Page 27

Superheavy Vehicles : I would change damage table by this :
- 1 : No effect
- 2 - 4 : Damaged
- 5 - 6 : Destroyed

Page 36

Movement : " To reflect this, titans ... be divided between any
number of turns. ". In my opinion, a conventional titan should not be
able to turn more than two time in a turn.

Titans vs. Everything Else : I am not agreed with the cancellation of
the additional close combat dice for lighter units than knights. I
consider that the anti-personnel weapons of the titan are already
well enough!

Page 38

Angelic : " This is only inclued for the editor's sence of
completeness. " I think nonetheless that this is an error. According
to me that what you name angelic minions are demons in Warhammer
World. Like Viydagg for example.

Page 41

Army Card : The new cards are more exhaustive, but less visual too.
When one spreads his army compo, this is rather untidy.


==================================================


TITAN LEGIONS

Page 12

Close/Weapon Combat Head : I would autorise them for Warhound (with
an armor save of 3+)

I would that Warhound may be equiped with MRL. With less efficiant
power or precision if necessary. Don't forget that these weapons were
authorized in Space Marines 2nd. Some players have enhance some
warhound with these weapons.

Page 29

There's an error in contents of both reaver and warlord battle groups.


==================================================


CHAOS

Page 05

I do not like this fragmentation of the Chaos army. I have the
impression to be at Warhammer Battle ! That not resembles at all to
the joyous odds and ends that I knew with Space Marine 2nd ! I want
to be able to play all the four Chaos powers with the mortal ones of
my choice. Separate the demons of a god and the space marines that
are pledged for him in different lists is really excessive for
example.

Page 06

I think that the cost of Chaos Marks should be indexed on the cost of
the unity that the receipt. I consider that an even marks has more
impact on a big piece, as a major demon, than on a simple base of
troops like chaos space marines.

Page 07

Animosity : Is it normal that greater demons of same god beat between
them also easily as the greater demons of different gods ? Or true
enemy gods ? I think that it is more risked for a greater demon to
attack another servant of his own god, putting thus in peril the
plans of their own one master. And a chaos god wraith against his two
servants could be very terrible...

I suggest therefore this:

Same God : 6+ (ex : Tzeench and Tzeench)
Rival God : 5+ (ex : Tzeench and Nurgle)
Enemy God : 4+ (ex : Tzeench and Khorne)

Or this :

Same God : no roll (ex : Tzeench and Tzeench)
Rival God : 5+ (ex : Tzeench and Nurgle)
Enemy God : 3+ (ex : Tzeench and Khorne)

Page 08

Is it normal that Daemon Princes got " Psychic Vulnerability "
without " That Didn't Hurt ! " ?

Daemon Engines of Khorne may not be given Advance and First Fire
Orders. How can they fire with their range weapons ? I think that
DEoK may be given Advance Order.

Page 31

I think that this would be a good thing to propose demonic possession
kits to custom chaos titan. With an advantage/flaw system like many
JdR.


==================================================


A.M.F.

.
Received on Mon Jan 10 2005 - 05:11:08 UTC