[NetEpic ML] Decision, decisions, what to do with the revision?

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:24:27 -0600

Hi!

This will be somewhat longwinded, but I'll break it up it topics so people
can copy paste what they desire to comment on.

The las several post (Butch's posts especially) have gotten me thinking
(dangerous I know). Originallly the revision was of broad scope, then I
quickly realized that people really wanted very little changed. Now I
realized that a revision in the full sense of the word may not be needed.

Kenneth and I are tinkerers by nature and that obviously affects how we
approach changing net epic. Of couse, that may not be exactly whats needed.
Net epic originally was basically intended as substitute for net epic but
fixing the ambiguoities and errors. Sometimes I do forget this. Having
played this game forever I sometimes wish to change it, perhaps more than
the system will bear and more than it should be changed.

Heresy was a good outlet for that, but it should be stressed they are two
different things and are NEVER meant to be compatible or similar to each
other. Sometimes I forget that too.

Lately I yearn for the simpler days of epic and some of what follows
reflects that. to the surprise of some, they'll see their ideas voiced here
again. I really appreciate dissenting opinions. They make me think a lot and
backoff and review what we are doing and where its heading.

It seems very clear that people want the game pretty much as is and only
minor clarifications need be done. No doubt people have their own house
rules, but it is beyond the scope of these rules to represent them all.
Terefore lets go very basic and let people decide what their ultimate
variants may be.

In review we haven't really changed much at all, heres what follows:

Core rules
In essence, it was eliminating the flyer phase.

After hearing all the different points. I was particularly fond of one post
(can't remeber which as usual) that just went back to the origianl rules
with some caviats:

1. They cant be engaged in close combat only by other flyers
2. They must move at least half their move as per orders
3. Weapon range is normal as with all other units.
4. Infantry may fire at them only if they themselves are targetted by flyers
5. Only AA guns may fire at them in the movement phase

The advantages are of course obvious, no extra rules, no extra orders.

I'd like opinions on this again and what else to add. Note that other
variants will still be available, just optional.

Titans

The only thing that people virtually unanimously went for is a better reapir
and shield regeneration this will stand. As for the reactor debate on eldar
titans and warlors, why not just leave those in place at better the save for
the warlord to 1+. Opinions?

As for Imperial titan weapons the only one people really wanted changed was
the multi-launcher, it seems that all others could be lived with. Is that
correct?

As far as the eldar holofiled, as i sad before I'm of two minds. I guess to
avoid major conflicts the barrage liablility should stand, BUT I'd lower the
hull cost a tiny bit. We'd leave the original holofield rules.

As for the D-cannon. This was originally intended as the eldar equivalent
for the volcano cannon. Why not just do this:

Range 75cm, to hit 3+, save modifier -4, add +2 to damage rolls. One attack
dice Cost 100 points, pretty much a volcano cannon. It would eliminate all
the fiddly rules and people would want to buy it. Opinions?

As for the remaining titans I'd rather ask if people have a particular
problem with them and address those issues.

Peter
Received on Tue Mar 14 2000 - 00:24:27 UTC