On 13 Jan 97 at 17:57, Perrin Haley wrote:
> > However, if it were to be used for friendly
> >>games or for in-store tournaments with house rules, it wouldn't be all
> >>that bad an idea. While we suspect that Epic 40K won't be very good,
> >>I'm sure that it will have some rules improvements of which we could take
> >>advantage. Of course, someone would have to maintain a www page with
> >>the rules....
> >
> >I'll do it. The EPICentre is becoming more and more useless as it deals only
> >with the current edition, even though I've heard from a lot of people not on
> >this list that they will stick to the current ed. I'll gladly put these new
> >rules up (as i said, it is something i was wanting to do anyway)
>
> All right! We got somewhere to put it, now we have to find a system upon
> which we can all agree on. Any suggestions? ;?)
>
> >doddsy
>
> Perrin
>
>
I think that we should probably wait until Epic 40K comes out so we can
see what to steal from it. However, a checklist of things to be
fixed/changed/modified might be a good idea so that we can begin
putting our heads together. I'll start. I would like to see:
1) New flyer rules. I haven't personally run into any problems with
the rules yet (not fielding any flyers yet myself), but some of the
things seem pretty silly. Infantry close assaulting flyers? Come on.
I have seen alternate rules for flyers at
http://work1.utsi.edu:8000/~amccarle/flyers.html which are based on
flyers making passes across the table, similar to Dirtside II, from
what I hear. Maybe this is the way to go.
2) Clarifications on some weapons interactions. Yes, that means
Doomweaver vs. void shields. I can hear the groans now. However,
that's part of our problem with Epic, right? One way or the other, we
have to come to a conclusion and make it official (or as official as
this is going to be). Same goes for Dragsta fields. Someone posted a
list of weapons that ignore them. Was it missing any? A list should
be formulated and made official.
3) Firing arcs. This is a minor nit, but it seems to me that limiting
some of these vehicles to 180 degree firing arcs is silly. Can't a Leman
Russ's turret turn 360 degrees? Then why can't it fire 360 degrees?
Maybe certain weapons on a vehicle could be designated as 360 weapons,
like the Leman Russ's battle cannon.
4) New units. Obviously GW will be releasing new units that have been
introduced into 40K into Epic. So someone will have to convert them to
"Net Epic" stats and come up with any necessary cards. For example,
can the Leman Russ Destructor be bought in company strength or only in
detachment strength? How many points will they cost? Break point?
etc.
5) Reworking movement. Some have commented that having all the units
of one side move is too unbalanced. There have been talks of
alternating detachment movement, like firing is alternated. Perhaps
more than one detachment could be moved at a time.
Obviously, much more could be added to this list. However, if some
sort of "gripe list" were maintained, it would help define what
precisely we are attempting to change and would organize our efforts.
Also, if we are going to be serious about doing this, someone needs to
be the organizer of the effort. He would have to keep track of
possible rules, organize votes, and send the final work to whoever is
posting this on the Web. I'm not nominating anyone, but I feel that
someone needs to be "in charge" of this effort, merely with an eye to
keeping it focused. We can sit around coming up with new house rules
all day, but it won't have the coherence and cohesion of a rules system
unless it's organized.
Okay, I've said my bit. Respond/flame away.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
Received on Tue Jan 14 1997 - 05:17:28 UTC