Re: [Epic] Creating new version of Epic

From: Perrin Haley <phaley_at_...>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:10:05 -0800

>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:

Agreed; I had actually meant to mention this in my last post, but it must
have slipped my mind.

>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
> 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.

The only problems that I have run into with flyers are the same as yours;
mostly common sense speaking to me. I think I heard something about Epic
40k having new flyer rules similiar to the ones on Allen's page, so we may
be able to just use the ones that GW invents (what a novel idea!)

>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.

Couldn't agree with you more on this one. We'll need a good index to help
for fast and easy reference. Eg: (I stole this idea from a past post
during the "war.")
Doomweavers and, 34
        Void Shields 35
        Power Fields 67
        Dragsta Fields 43
        Multiple Wounds 40

>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.

Interesting, and one I hadn't thought of before. Sounds like a good idea,
but we'll have to draw the line somewhere; maybe only a turreted 360 fire
arc on vehichles with a top mounted turret. Eg: Predators would get only
one 360 shot, as they have three turrets, two side and one top. Land
Raiders, OTOH, wouldn't get any 360 fire power, as their turrets are both

Speaking of fire arcs, here is another gripe of mine: The massive 360
attack dice of the Squat (and some Imperial) SHV's. IMHO, the Collossus
should have *two* 180 fire arcs, divided down the middle of the vehichle.
Four Battlecannon shots to side. Similiar things could be done with the
Leviathan and its Lascannon at three to a side, with the top-mounted turret
staying 360 as per above. I think the bolters on all SHV's ought to stay
at 360, too. This adds to realism (look at the model), but doesn't take
away too much fire power.

Speaking of Squat SHV's (here we go again), I'd like to see if we could
implement the optional rules that give them armor saves like Titans. I
don't remember how powerful the rules made them, but we could increase
point cost if needed. They were posted on a web-page, but I lost the url.
Any comments?

>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?

I don't think this would be a major problem; as new units came out in WD,
we could just adapt the stats the same way that we are going to adapt the
old units that already exist.

>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.

Sounds interesting, but it might make the movement phase take uneccesarily
long. When you mentioned movement, I was hoping you would say something
about the turning ratios for vehichles, as they've always bothered me.
Vehichles with treads ought to be able to drive backwards, too.

>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.

Again, another great idea.

>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.

Yet again (yeah, I know this is getting redundant) a great idea. Any
volunteers for being the boss, so we can all stay focused. (Personally I'd
want someone who has been playing the game for a long time, so that they
would have a better scope of things.)

>Okay, I've said my bit. Respond/flame away.

No flames here; it was a good "bit."

>Seth Ben-Ezra
>Great Wolf


"...I could never become a prophet...just
a critic-which is a poor thing at best,
a sort of fourth-rate prophet suffering
from delusions of gender."

        -Jubal Harshaw, "Stranger in a Strange Land"
Received on Wed Jan 15 1997 - 01:10:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:00 UTC