Hi,
I agree completely. There is probably as many variants of NetEpic as
there are gaming groups represented here. We all have our own house ruls and
interpitations of the existing rules, and we'll probably only use the
revisions we like anyhow. I think that the "new" approch of having us bring
our problems to this group, instead of working through the entire rules is
smarter and less time consuming.
Having said that, I do believe that this type of discussion is very
valuable. I really appreciate all the input I get from these rules
discussions and I do belive that we've come up with som really good changes.
Like the multiple rocket launcher and the flyer rules of cource. I'd only
like to add, that its important to make som turning restrictions on the
flyers, and give penalties to infantry and vehicles fiering at them.
Nils
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *** Got Questions? Get Answers. Got Answers? Get Paid. ***
> Sign up at Infomarco.com and you can win $30,000 cash or a trip to China.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/1251/2/_/7255/_/952993823/
>
> -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=netepic&m=1
>
Received on Tue Mar 14 2000 - 07:53:49 UTC