[NetEpic ML] Re: R: heresy questions: replay

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:58:58 -0600


Hi Peter,

>>Light vehicules: I found that they are very difficult to take out with
>their -2 accuracy modifier

>That is a very good point. The modifier simulates how hard they are when
they move >not when they dont move. I will make this caviat in the rules.
Also would a -1 to hit be >better than a -2?

IMHO a -1 to hit modifier should be better because if you consider that the
normal accuracy rating is 7, with the -2 modifier these units are too good
and some of them have also a good weaponery that combined with the skill
make them very dangerous. Consider a land speader with its multi melta and
heavy bolter and you have for a very cheap cost a tank/infantry killer. In
my first game I saw three squat bikes with heavy bolters engaging at long
range 12 ork boyz, the only think the orcks made was to suppress the
speaders, because their to hit roll for long range fire was 8 (basic) + 2
light vehicule + 2 long range = 12; the only time I hit a speader, it with a
modified armor save of 7 survided.
IMHO the modifiers could be -2 if on charge, -1 on advance and 0 on prepared
This not a bad idea at all and I am all for it. I will edit the rules to reflect it.

>Stealth skill
>You add the leadership bonus, +1 , +2 or +3 depending on leadership, it
protects them but they are not invulnerable.In case of Warlocks they >add
that bonus and the mastery level +1-4 depending on level. I forgot the
stealth skill for mekaniaks, it will be added.

My mistake was that I added the full leadeship to the roll ,for this reason
I found impossible to hit them.
Actually in the original rules I atually thought it should be this way until playtest proved otherwise.

>I don' tunderstand why a commissar has a 9 leadeship value, while the best
>marines officier has only 7? This make the IG better then most armies and
>this is incredible.
>First off you get few commisars and only starting at battalion level, not
company. The commissar's higher rating reflects not only his tactical >savy
but the fear he instils to his troops which is way beyond the marines
control over other marines. Also note that either the commissar >functions
as a unit company commander OR a unit commander confering its skills to it,
NOT both. Still to avoid this arguement altogether I >will lower it to 7.

I agree with you about the inspirational presence of the commissar in a unit
for the terror that inspire in his follow, but I don't understand why this
leadership should make him a good commander for initiative purpouse etc.
When I think about commissars I remember the russian ones that were
present in the army until 1942, these men were there only to survive the
political fervor of their men, and in general they were the worst officiers
in the army. With this political control the commanders could'nt take
personal initiative because their fear for the conseguences for unsuccess
was death. IMHO a commissar should be a good leader for really pourpose,
morale check under fire, not for check as indirect fire, spotting etc.
True, It hunk the new 7 leadership will be better overall.

>AA: the rules stated that infantries can shoot in AA mode if within 25 cm.
>from the strike point if they pass a -2 leadership test. In my test a
>thunderers detach. was in this condition, but also within 35 cm from a
>warlord (leadership 7 = +2 leadership bonus), this permitted them to test
>a 6 leadership and in the case of unsuccess they could reroll for their
>stubborn skill.

>Note the test is at no penalty the -2 is for hitting the flyer. Also, the
stubborn skill ONLY apply to checks when morale level loss is on the >line.
Not for these tyoe checks.

I checked the rules and I saw my mistake, also in my example probably I
thought again with an epic vision and I placed the squadron too near the
target without check that the weapons range was higher, probably because I
usually play epic with the incoming rules that made the air range shorter
The stubborn example should be help me, with your help, to understand when
the morale can be modified by external modifiers:

Can I use the leadership modifier for:

Indirect fire calling?

Spotting hidden units?

AA pre fire check?

or only for:

Psicology (rout, fear, terror etc.) and initiative.
Yes as well.

>Please note that the edited new Heresy files are still in progress and
ahve address a lot of poorly worded rules. Once they are available I will
>announce it to the group.

I just downloaded the new versions and sooner I will check the changements.

>Overall how did you find the game mechanics and play?

I really appreciate the game mechanism because after long playng net epic I
needed somethink more detailed and more real.
One of the first think I found really different was the difficulty to engage
in close combat, specially when the defender was on prepared fire; in my
experience, close combat was one of the most important event in the epic
system, specially because there weren't bonus for the defenders for close
shooting, because the dice roll to hit was the same at long range and at
short range, now the defender, not only if on prepared fire has a +2
accuracy bonus, but even on advance order can fire if he win the
This is the effect I wanted, shooting is very effective and if you think you can just charge in open ground to engage an enemy in close combat you will die. It takes thought and maneuver to get into close combat.

The same combat is very deadly because, also the strongest opponent takes
hits, and now the rounds of combat are infinite until one leaves.
One question I don't find an answer is: one unit is on advance order, is
engaged in close combat and for casualities retreats, can,during the advance
fire phase, shoots again?
Exactly. Both oponents suffer damage un close assault as it should be, in net epic its easy to over power and destroy the enemy without suffering casualties this is wrong. The stronger eliminates the opponent quickewr thus REDUCING casualties but he still takes them.
As for the advance question that has been dealt with in the new draft. The answer is that IF the unit has not been pushed back and has NOT suffered a morale level loss he may shoot in the advance fire phase.

The second think I noticed was the frequent use of morale check required; in
net epic this was required only for break test and only in rare occasion for
terror. As many actions require a morale chack, this really made the
difference between elite and poor armies.
I wanted morale to mean something. Better trained armies should be able to do more and resist casualties than a army with lesser morale. I think I achieved this.

A question: can a routed unit rally in the same turn it routed?
Yes, he may attempt rallying in the same end phase he routed.

Third the command rules are fine and give a player a new level of control.
The only think I don't like is that if a unit is in command will receive
automatically a leadership bonus for this, I would like a more range
restriction for the bonus only, for example the bonus could be received only
if within 10 cm., further the unit should be considered only in command.
Hmmm... thats a very good notion. I will work something out and present it to you. I thonk its a good addition.

Question: can a suppressed command has a command range or must be penalized?
There is no penalty for suppression commander in regards to command range and distance. U was thinking or reducing command radius to half normal, hows that?

Fourth, the artillery system is better, now I can choose to fire in
different ways and also I appreciate the reintroduction of special rounds as
smoke and blind. I would like to see a separate artillery phase, as in most
wargames, that allow to suppress/shoot smoke ect. before the movement phase.
Actually the original rules had an ordinance phase that had flyers and artillery resolve actions before standard units. I decided against it though since it wasn't too great in playtest. Actually it would be easy to give reaction fire to artillery for smoke and blind ONLY during movement, hows that?

Fifth, the army building. I like the system of purcheasing lower to higher
commands, but one think I don't like is that every level of command state
only the maximun number of units and type that could support, but leave the
player free of buyng only the units he likes without any restriction of
buyng line units before. For example an hearth guard command state that it
can command four units, and two could be elite or support. With this
argument one can buy only the elite or support. I would like to impose some
Hmmm. not sure I follow you here. For example space marines company commander can lead three units two must be line and one specail OR support, so he HAS to buy line units, most army lists are this way. Please clarify.

Your squat example of the hearthguard reveals a poorly worded phrase teh line should read may take 2 support and 2 line units so they MUST take line units.
Question: concernig the squats I don't see any restriction for buyng
different level of command, with this argument I could only buy warlord or
else. I think that their restrictions must be the same as most armies.
You are correct this is an omission, it will be rectified.

This evening with I will try to teach the game to my "napoleonic group" to
test their reactions and listen their comments and considerations.
I will add you name to the Heresy credits for your contributionsa which I deem to be very important. By all means tell me about the feedback from your group.

Thanks your for help.
Thank YOU for the help!

Received on Tue Feb 08 2000 - 23:58:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:51 UTC