I agree with the push for two-sided SM2-style cards.
I always liked flipping them over as units were broken to show progress during the game.
The silhouettes also work nicely, particularly if your own painted units bear no resemblance to the pictures.
Ken
netepic_at_yahoogroups.com wrote:
There are 17 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. On Tau Again
From: "Stephane"
2. Re: Large Ultra Marine Army For Sale
From: "Stephane"
3. Re: Re: A couple of further Net Epic questions
From: Peter Ramos
4. Re: Re: NetEpic 5 Questions
From: Peter Ramos
5. Re: Re: A couple of further Net Epic questions
From: Peter Ramos
6. Re: Re: NetEpic 5 Questions
From: Peter Ramos
7. Re: About army cards...
From: Peter Ramos
8. Re: On Tau Again
From: Peter Ramos
9. Re: About army cards...
From: Kelvin Henderson
10. Army cards
From: Bruce Scott
11. Re: Re: Large Ultra Marine Army For Sale
From: darius spano
12. Re: Re: Large Ultra Marine Army For Sale
From: Peter Ramos
13. Re: Army cards
From: Peter Ramos
14. Re: Army cards
From: "warmaster_nice"
15. Re: Army cards
From: "Stephane"
16. Re: Army cards
From: "Tim Johns"
17. Re: Army cards
From: "Toma Diener"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:16:17 -0000
From: "Stephane"
Subject: On Tau Again
Hum, Kelvin, it seems definitely that the discussion did not happen!
I made several proposal; the one I found best was:
1. to give Tau fire warriors a 5+ to hit instead of 4+.
2. the reroll for Tau infantry would have been for first fire orders
and only when not base to base with an enemy unit.
Slightly downgrading them (a rerolled 5+ is worth a 3+ anyway, far
better than any basic infantry in the game) and keeping intact their
vulnerability in HtH.
For a Tau player it might be hard to swallow, I admit. Yet, I am not a
Tau player, a Tau hater or anything; I have plenty of NetEpic armies,
including Tau, and I found they were just too good at shooting, able to
repel any ground assault. Tau Fire warriors can't be expelled from a
building apart from massive use of artillery, and this is simply not
fitting their theme :)
Stephane
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:18:55 -0000
From: "Stephane"
Subject: Re: Large Ultra Marine Army For Sale
Nice army. Any chance to get pictures taken from closer?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:26:34 -0400
From: Peter Ramos
Subject: Re: Re: A couple of further Net Epic questions
Stephane Montabert wrote:
>While we are at it...
>
>- I'm still hoping for the rules and profiles of
>Tunneller carriers (you know, the ones that can be
>shot while the tunneller is underground).
>
>
These got lost somewhere and need to be re-instated.
>- The Squat army book lost the Ironbreaker company,
>with its Leviathan. Only the Hellbore company remains.
>I hope it's an omission, since NetEpic had the policy
>of not removing existing units, and because to me it's
>clear that all Imperial Guard Leviathans have probably
>been built on Squat homeworlds...
>
>
An omission.
>- I'm not 100% convinced by the Exodite list (reading
>the standalone version). I know that armies were
>somehow resolving around numbers matching the original
>blister packaging - not an argument perpetually true
>but certainly holding water for earlier days of Epic.
>For example, Leman Russ were sold in squadrons of 3.
>For exodites, the two larger dinosaur types (lord and
>horned one) were sold in blisters of 3, and the plain
>runner in blisters of 5. I don't know for the flying
>one. Mayhap we should work something with those
>numbers?
>
>
This is certainly a good point. Most old detachments were thought of in
context of packaging. Since getting epic models nowadays is certainly
haphazard at best, perhaps making more flexible numbers is something
that should be looked at.
>- I've opened a thread some time ago about Tau Fire
>Warriors that were really impossible to assault in
>close-combat (reroll a 4+ to-hit on any incoming
>attacker, yay!) but it seems the topic went down the
>drain...
>
>
No it didnt go down the drain. I beleive I sent some conclusions to Jar
and those most favored were to be included/modified.
Feel free to discuss it again, if need be, I will send another summary
to Jar.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:30:00 -0400
From: Peter Ramos
Subject: Re: Re: NetEpic 5 Questions
Hi!
NetEpic gold is a HUGE undertaking. No doubt it will take to next year
to finish. Its just that big. Everyone must remember we are using
original photos, drawings and fluff, so it takes time for contributors
to get all that ready. The drafts for the stuff that has come out is
amazing, so the finished product will be top notch!!
I second WMN's peticion for what people want for the army cards. I left
thier creations and design totally open ended. So this is the time to
tell WMN what you would like. :-)
Peter
warmaster_nice wrote:
>Hi
>
>That sounds like a great idea Ferran.
>
>A status update on the NetEpic Gold books:
>
>NetEpic Gold core rulebook 99%
>Adeptus Astartes Army Book: 95%
>Ork Army Book: 90%
>Adeptus Militaris Army Book: 95%
>Eldar Army Book: 30%
>Chaos Army Book: 10%
>
>Adeptus Titanicus, 'Nids, Tau and Necrons are next probably in that
>order. I doubt those books will be completed this year. Then we'll
>start filling in the holes.
>
>About the Army Cards: I'd be very interested in hearing people's
>thoughts about these. What do you like/dislike about what's been
>available so far (SM2, NetEpic 4.0, Chernobyl's E:A army cards, etc.)
>
>Cheers
>W/N
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:31:01 -0400
From: Peter Ramos
Subject: Re: Re: A couple of further Net Epic questions
Hi!
I beleive this is correct and this is what was forwarded to Jar.
Peter
Kelvin Henderson wrote:
>I thought we'd agreed that they would re-roll ones on an assault rather
>than re-roll misses? You are right that a re-roll on a 4+ makes them
>virtually impossible to assault (as a Tau fan I think that's perfectly
>acceptable though....) ;-).
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:31:51 -0400
From: Peter Ramos
Subject: Re: Re: NetEpic 5 Questions
Ferran Clavero wrote:
> ok maybe I can draw some minipics to the cards , but I need the card
> layer (that's work for you W/N) and I can start to work!!
>
> ferran
>
> PS: I want to see this army books as soon as possible :-DD
>
Hi!
That I beleive is very good idea. Perhaps, instead of pictures drawings
would be much more effective.
Comments?
Peter
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:34:08 -0400
From: Peter Ramos
Subject: Re: About army cards...
Hi!
I agree with your perceptions. I made those other cards without much
help and lacking knowledge in formatting and layout. The minis were my
own crappily painted stuff, so they had much to be desired.
I agree a simpler more graphic approach is best. Also, datacards with
stats is more effective than putting them on the army card itself.
Peter
Stephane wrote:
>Hum , athough I'm not able to make a discinction between all those
>versions, I have always been fond of the first versions included in
>Epic - the ones with repeating black shapes accordingly to the number
>of stands.
>
>They were very good for giving a sense of scale to any company or
>squadron. I have several printed card from every version but when I
>speak of army composition that's always the ones I bring to a new
>player. Explaning that each silhouette is a stand is speaking volumes
>when you want to show the might of the Imperial guard. The only
>change I'd do would be to write the break point and morale on the
>front side.
>
>Coloured versions are not necessarily better, because X X X X X X is
>more visual than writing "X x 10". We don't have painted version of
>every unit in the game; and finally, the paint job shown isn't always
>top notch...
>
>Putting rules on the cards is annoying, first because not all special
>rules can fit, and second because it's harder to maintain. Perhaps
>only the profile summary would suffice (CAF, save, etc.) but I
>definitely think a smaller font size should be used.
>
>In my games, I have the card for the army composition along with a
>printed page of the Summary of Units Statistics of the list I use
>where the troops actually fielded are highlighted. I found it was the
>best compromise.
>
>Just my 2 first fire orders :)
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:35:53 -0400
From: Peter Ramos
Subject: Re: On Tau Again
Stephane wrote:
>Hum, Kelvin, it seems definitely that the discussion did not happen!
>
>I made several proposal; the one I found best was:
>
>1. to give Tau fire warriors a 5+ to hit instead of 4+.
>2. the reroll for Tau infantry would have been for first fire orders
>and only when not base to base with an enemy unit.
>
>Slightly downgrading them (a rerolled 5+ is worth a 3+ anyway, far
>better than any basic infantry in the game) and keeping intact their
>vulnerability in HtH.
>
>For a Tau player it might be hard to swallow, I admit. Yet, I am not a
>Tau player, a Tau hater or anything; I have plenty of NetEpic armies,
>including Tau, and I found they were just too good at shooting, able to
>repel any ground assault. Tau Fire warriors can't be expelled from a
>building apart from massive use of artillery, and this is simply not
>fitting their theme :)
>
> Stephane
>
>
Hi!
If people prefer these limitations/changes, let me know. At this phase
we can change things pretty easily.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:40:17 +1000
From: Kelvin Henderson
Subject: Re: About army cards...
>Hum , athough I'm not able to make a discinction between all those
>versions, I have always been fond of the first versions included in
>Epic - the ones with repeating black shapes accordingly to the number
>of stands.
I agree with Stephane here. The silhouette cards were the best IMHO. They
showed the scale of the unit you were using and represented the unit as
well. Sure the colour cards with actual minis are pretty and all but the
silhouette cards were simple and effective. I usually take my old SM
cards, copy them and alter the points values and VPs/BPs where needed.
Also Stephane is right when talking about using them as a training
tool. New players get a better sense of te scale of the force they are
using when they can see it represented visually on the card which the
silhouette layout allows you to do easily.
-Kelvin....
"Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain. But when you put it
in the body of a great white shark, ooohh! Suddenly you've gone too far!"
-Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:04:40 +1000
From: Bruce Scott
Subject: Army cards
I'd vote for the SM2 style ones too.
>About the Army Cards: I'd be very interested in hearing people's
>thoughts about these. What do you like/dislike about what's been
>available so far (SM2, NetEpic 4.0, Chernobyl's E:A army cards, etc.)
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: darius spano
Subject: Re: Re: Large Ultra Marine Army For Sale
Hi Stephane,
Before it is sold I will take some close ups. My
painting isn't Pro but I think they came out nicely. I
liked this army but I had started it after my first
monster space marine army was done. I thought of
trying to go for 100000 pts worth of various armies
but fell short at 65K (Orcs, Space Marines, Tyranids,
Squats and Imperial Guard). Peter I am not worthy!!!!
I think he has more points in titans than I do in my
total army.
I took a handful of pictures for the posting. You can
email me at d.r.spano at worldnet.att.net and I can
send you a pic at a time since I am still on dial-up
and they are 1 Meg each.
Darius
--- Stephane wrote:
> Nice army. Any chance to get pictures taken from
> closer?
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:56:14 -0400
From: Peter Ramos
Subject: Re: Re: Large Ultra Marine Army For Sale
Hi!
Not everyone can be "primarch" Darius.... ;-)
Too bad you didnt sell it a few years ago, I would of bought it.
It is however a extrememly good buy for starting a SM force, so the
lucky winner will be most fortunate. :-)
Peter
darius spano wrote:
>Hi Stephane,
>Before it is sold I will take some close ups. My
>painting isn't Pro but I think they came out nicely. I
>liked this army but I had started it after my first
>monster space marine army was done. I thought of
>trying to go for 100000 pts worth of various armies
>but fell short at 65K (Orcs, Space Marines, Tyranids,
>Squats and Imperial Guard). Peter I am not worthy!!!!
>I think he has more points in titans than I do in my
>total army.
>I took a handful of pictures for the posting. You can
>email me at d.r.spano at worldnet.att.net and I can
>send you a pic at a time since I am still on dial-up
>and they are 1 Meg each.
>Darius
>
>--- Stephane wrote:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:52:54 -0400
From: Peter Ramos
Subject: Re: Army cards
Hi!
It seems that WMN has a mandate on how to make the army cards.... ;-)
Peter
Bruce Scott wrote:
>
> I'd vote for the SM2 style ones too.
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:04:09 -0000
From: "warmaster_nice"
Subject: Re: Army cards
We'll base them on the SM2 style cards then. ...Spiced up a bit of
course ;-)
How do people feel about unit stats on the cards? Personally I like it
but as Peter said a reference sheet could also do the trick...
Also Should the cards be printed one sided only to allow randomly
drawn cards, hidden setups etc.?
Cheers!
--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, Peter Ramos
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> It seems that WMN has a mandate on how to make the army cards.... ;-)
>
> Peter
>
> Bruce Scott wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd vote for the SM2 style ones too.
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:31:24 -0000
From: "Stephane"
Subject: Re: Army cards
Methink cards should not be printed on only one face.
At the moment, I don't think of any game usage where they should be
chosen randomly; should the case exist, a dice roll would be enough. Or
dropping a counter from 30" on the cards laid on table and see where it
lands...
For hidden setup, the problem has always been that a single card (a
company card for example) features more than one unit that have no
reason to be deployed in a single place. I think it's not appropriate.
The card I'd like best would be close to SM2 ones, with only minor
tweaks: break point, morale and VP on front (maybe on front AND back?),
and eventually profile with the same information that appear in each
army book summary. Current SM2 cards are annoying because you always
have to see the back to check if break point has been reached or not.
For layout, bear in mind that a company card has to bear massive amount
of information on the back, like a Squat Ironbreaker Company: Warlord,
Hearthguard, Berserkers, Warriors, and a Leviathan!
A test run should be made with this kind of card as examples - the hard
ones :o)
Stephane
--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "warmaster_nice"
wrote:
>
> We'll base them on the SM2 style cards then. ...Spiced up a bit of
> course ;-)
>
> How do people feel about unit stats on the cards? Personally I like
it
> but as Peter said a reference sheet could also do the trick...
>
> Also Should the cards be printed one sided only to allow randomly
> drawn cards, hidden setups etc.?
>
> Cheers!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:37:24 -0000
From: "Tim Johns"
Subject: Re: Army cards
--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, Peter Ramos
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> It seems that WMN has a mandate on how to make the army cards.... ;-)
>
> Peter
>
> Bruce Scott wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd vote for the SM2 style ones too.
> >
>
Throwing in my 2 cents, I too prefer the SM2 style. While having pics
of the minis was eye-appealing, I find the SM2 army cards very
utilitarian, except for (as already mentioned by others) having the
break point on the back. Also, I would prefer to have them printed on
both sides. Having the back blank to facilitate hidden concealed set
up isn't a bad idea, but it would be constricting when trying to
deploy companies, especially an SM Battle Company, which I hardly ever
set up with the three detachments in close proximity.
Tim aka Dwarf Supreme
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:58:21 -0000
From: "Toma Diener"
Subject: Re: Army cards
I would _love_ to see unit stats on the cards themselves:
absolutely the biggest delay I currently experience in a game is
refering to the stat-line on a reference sheet. Unit Stat cards
could speed my games by 25-30%!! (OK: so I may be a bit ditzy
in this regard...)
Two sided cards are fine. In fact: I'm not sure all the
information will fit on only one side!
--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "warmaster_nice"
wrote:
> How do people feel about unit stats on the cards? Personally I
like it
> but as Peter said a reference sheet could also do the trick...
>
> Also Should the cards be printed one sided only to allow
randomly
> drawn cards, hidden setups etc.?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
Received on Wed Apr 12 2006 - 18:04:04 UTC