[NetEpic ML] Re: R: R: heresy questions: replay 2

From: stefano andreoni <ltremari_at_...>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:25:38 +0100

Hi Peter!

>>Light vehicules: I found that they are very difficult to take out with
>their -2 accuracy modifier
>IMHO the modifiers could be -2 if on charge, -1 on advance and 0 on
>This not a bad idea at all and I am all for it. I will edit the rules to
reflect it.

Yesterday evening we started a "little" scenario between orks and squats and
we used the above rule variant and we found that it work. If on prepared
fire light vehicules are vulnerable as any other units, on advance they are
decent, but they fire in advance fire, on charge they are strong, but
generally this order allow close combat but is compensated with the +2
accuracy bonus that defenders have.
Also about light vehicules, playtesting, I saw that they are equipared to
hard vehicule for suppression pourpose; I feel that the fire power dice
should be only halved, not quartered against them for anti infantry weapons
suppression, because their light chassis aren't comparable with the thick
armor plate that armored vehicules have and in any case the crew has a
relative protection and even a near miss shot can be a dreadfull experience
for an exposed crew.

>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 correct my rules, but I tested that generally no one fire at a command
unit because the fear to lose the shoot in the case of unsuccessfull check
is too great.
Using the orks we had a case where a battleweagon that carried a boss, and
was part of the same detachment, was destroyed, in this case can I apply the
stealth skill still? And the look out sir rule still apply?

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

>One of the first think I found really different was the difficulty to
>in close combat
>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 rules don't say anythink about suppressed units in close combat, are
they fighting capable as the unsuppressed one? I feel that their assault
factor should be reduced (halved?). One of the modern war objective is the
suppression of the command & 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
>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.

Also yesterday we try to use a rule that the bonus can only be received if
within 10 cm. from a command unit, this should be claim as the leaders
should be seen, not only listened on the radio to rise the morale.

>Question: can a suppressed command has a command range or must be
>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?

I think that a suppressed command should be penalized because suppression
paralize the order chain. IMHO a should halve their command range and deny
any leadership bonus.

>I would like to see a separate artillery phase, as in most
>wargames, that allow to suppress/shoot smoke ect. before the movement
>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?

Yes reaction fire could be a solution, but if I want to assault a prepared
position where the defenders don't move, my hope for reaction fire will be
Concerning smoke an blind mission, I didn't see in the rules any information
about how many time these effect stay on the battlefield. I think that we
must check in the end phase to see if their effect end, for example, smoke
rounds end on a roll of 5+, blind on a roll of 7+.

>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.

The rules state that you can buy a limited number for each classes, but I
don't see any restiction to buy only some. For example: an heartguard hq
support 4 units, two can be line, two can be support, what I don't like is
that I can only buy the support ones without any restriction to buy at least
some line units.

>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.

Yesterday we started to play, we spent 30 min. to teach the rules and the
same time to set up and explain the scenario. I transformed a classical ASL
1941 russian assault with big tanks against german, in a orks (russian),
squats (german) scenario. The thin squats line should delay the orks orde
until the arrival of their reinforcements with some heavy guy.
We used all except pretorians and titans. I wanted to do somethink that my
friends could understand with easy because they played recently a similar
scenario with ASL.
The most important think I saw was that they sooner were able to play in
right way, this is important because even if I did a faster teaching, they
were able to understand the rules concepts immediatelly, this because the
rules are well written and there are a lot of examples to explain every
The second think a noticed was that even we spent a lot of time reading,
setting up etc. in two hours we played four turns with 2500 point per side.
At the first time I read the rules I thought that the time required would be
higher then epic, but playng I had the opposite feeling.
I had also the feeling that, after some hesitation, because someone like to
play only historic rules, eveyone had an approach similar as they played a
WW2 games and this was the reason that the rules has success.
Next thuersday we will continue the scenario and we could master all the


Received on Wed Feb 09 2000 - 17:25:38 UTC

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