Re: [Epic] Creating new version of Epic

From: Michael the Liu <mikethel_at_...>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 00:38:48 -0800

Wow! This response to my suggestion for the creation of NetEpic40k is
probably the first time the list has responded to anything I said. :P

>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:

Yeah, I definately agree we shouldn't finalize anything until the actual
Epic 40k comes out. (and in case it's good enough that it doesn't need any
modifications) (haha!)

>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.

We should definately consider whatever GWs new rules for everything are
before we rush off to make our own rules. In our effort to get these rules
adopted as mere "house rules" it would be best if we tried to keep it as
much in line with Epic 40k as possible while preserving the spirit of what
we're aiming at. Also, this would make it easier for new players to pick up
our game, and who knows, GW might actually come up with some great idea that
we can steal (though it sure has been a while since GWs come up with
anything really clever).

>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.

While I agree with this in theory, I don't think the best way to do it would
be a list/table/weapons categories approach. That thing in 1st edition with
certain standardized types of weapons was one of the things that I didn't
like. I think the second edition system is okay, just needing to clarify
the weapons/shields in the descriptions. For example, only Dragstas have
dragsta shields so I hardly see the need to clutter a rulebook with
unnecesary tables and such when all the exceptions for the shields could be
listed under that particular vehicle's description. The only widespread
shields are the void, power and holo, so exceptions to these could be listed
under weapons, while the other shields' interactions with weapons can listed
under the particular descriptions for those shields.

>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.

This could quickly get overly complicated. My gaming group plays that
anything with a visible top mounted turret can fire the guns on it 360
degrees, but if we were to get into creating 180 degree side arcs and all
that weapons descriptions would quickly get bogged down. The whole point of
Epic (IMHO) is that vehicle/infantry interactions are quick and easy, with a
vehicle either alive or dead (no in-between damage) and everything fairly
easy to keep track of. If we were to introduce side mounting guns, etc. as
Perrin mentioned as a possibility, it would add a whole new range of
complexity a la 40k, "such as if my stand is directly in front of the Land
Raider, can it hit me with the sponson mounts?" and such.

>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?

Funfunfun. Designing units is one of the most fun parts of Epic! (and
judging by the number of posts we've gotten in the past on this I'm not the
only one who feels this way ;) )

>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.

I liked the system with the deck of playing cards someone mentioned a while
ago...but perhaps we had better just keep in mind that this is a gripe, and
then try to fix it after Epic40k is released.

Another gripe:
Well, the GW system for movement/first fire/advance phases has always bugged
the heck out of me, what with troops rushing past each other like ships in
the night, like when a stand runs by another stand on FF orders in order to
CC his buddy, and he can't do a thing about it! I have a system that I
would advocate as an alternative (I've posted it before) but I'll wait on
Epic40k until/to see if I will forward it as an alternative system.

I have other minor gripes too, but all of the major one are now upper there,
with the addition of the phase system.

I've noticed that there has been a lot of emphasis on the mailing list on
1st edition space marine. While I don't deny that it definately has some
good ideas that can be taken from it (I especially like the getting within
the void shield banks to fire upon titans and the off-table artillery), I
think that we should be basing our system either upon the 2nd or Epic40k
versions of the game. Our choice of which to base it upon will depend on
how badly GW messes up (or fails to mess up) Epic40k. As I haven't read the
6mm rules yet, I can't comment on them, but my guess would be that 2nd or
40k edition would make better bases for our system than it would. (we all
already play 2nd edition, which would make the transition easier, and 40k
edition will probably become the standard of the future (unless we stop it
;) ) which gives them advantages over any other possible bases)

Lastly, does anyone know if the Primarchs/Tyranid Tim were ever
resubscribed? I'm a little curious what they must be thinking about this
discussion. ;)

Michael, advocate for the Liu
Received on Wed Jan 15 1997 - 08:38:48 UTC

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