RE: [Epic] Net Epic Gudelines

From: Eric Larsen <nimhbus_at_...>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 23:19:51 -0800

Hello all,
I'm going to give a semi-short argument now... and a semi-long "=
idea rant" in another message... sorry if it gets a bit to "word-windy"....=

-----------------
1-Army construction, present system(company cards,etc.) =
or a individual model points system(each figure assigned a point value), WH=
AT STAYS OR GOES!
--------------------------
(Idea for 1.)

I vote FOR form=
ation cards, however, I think we should modify the current cards to MAKE SE=
NSE!

I like the idea of cards for formations, however the flexibility of t=
he formations presented within the "official" Epic seem almost RANDOM... >F=
rom breakpoint, to lack of options to pricing to etc.... For instance...

W=
hy as a Marine player must I take:
* Rhinos for every infantry formation EX=
CEPT scouts?... What if I hate rhinos (and I do)?! What if I want a Battle =
Company with Landraiders?
* And yet I MUST take said landraiders along with=
 ALL standard terminator formations?
* My only "bike company" as a "special=
, one chapter, one of a kind" card? There should NEVER be a reason to print=
 a company card, if you can only take one in a game... that is where SPECIA=
L cards come in!

as an Eldar player:
* Have almost every card ending in 50=
pts, cheating me of a victory point?
* Have an even number for MOST troop t=
ypes, making my break point worse for no specific reason?
--- Would any Eld=
ar player design cards using the methods given by GW?

as an Ork player:
* =
Be forced into taking different clans if I go beyond 1 company card? What =
if I really like Blood Axes? What if I only have 5 colors of paint for gos=
h sakes!!? (Ok... admitted, super, super rare... taking Blood Axes I mean)
=

(Numerous other examples not given to keep people sane)

NET IDEA: Keep fo=
rmation cards, change some of the formations - ADD SOME OF OUR OWN!!!... Pl=
ease, please, please - let's not get stuck in a "let's don't change ANY of =
formations because we always played this way" or "change is cheez" argument=
s! - Variety with control is alway cool.


----------------------------
2-=
Order Phase,What will each of the orders mean in terms of movement and
firi=
ng.First Fire, Advance, Charge, Fallback
---------------------------
(Idea =
for 2.)

NOTE: I know most of the following ideas have been mentioned in so=
me form before - I want to thank whoever sparked my imagination into puttin=
g these ideas down

I vote for keeping orders, but restructure the way orde=
rs work in relation to movement.

Ok, this may be a bit long... Okay, way w=
ay too long... but I really don't think that the "orders" topic is really a=
ll that "quick" a decision!

One of the worst things that I have found abou=
t Epic is the "play turn" system of "one side moves everything, then the ot=
her side moves everything"... In most of the games that I have played, this=
 has meant "I'll move my side, you take a trip to the store" or "I'll move =
all my stuff, you react to everything and jump on all of my stuff the way Y=
OU want"....

Suggestion: Alternate movement between players and COMBINE i=
t with the firing phase. I know that this idea has been mentioned in many f=
orms before (good thinking!), but here is my take...

Place orders as nor=
mal - Roll initiative, high roller determines who goes first (as usual), bu=
t this is where it gets a bit different:

Whoever gets to go first should t=
ake 1 detachment and have it do its complete move AND combat action, this m=
ay include:

1. Firing, but not moving (1st fire)
2. Moving up to its movem=
ent factor, firing after movement (Advance)
3. Moving up to double its move=
ment factor, with the option of ending the move in close-combat (the result=
s of which are determined immediately)

- just make sure to flip over your =
order counter when you are done! (and keep it with the detachment!)

Altern=
ate detachment move/firing between the SIDES involved in the conflict (usua=
lly 2 sides, obviously)... Simple, NO? Here are the modifiers that you wil=
l need to keep in mind....

- Close combat -
What?! (you may ask your self)=
 Close combat immediately? Yep... treat it just like normal CC - each addit=
ional unit adds another d6, etc... the difference is that you DON'T REMOVE =
THE UNITS THAT LOSE CLOSE COMBAT, flip them over, placing them as close the=
 unit that they fought against - this indicates how many units the victor h=
as fought close combat with. This (or some other indicator, a chit or some=
thing) determines the factors for fighting off the next combatant (from the=
 current aggressors OR a DIFFERENT detachment attacking them).

If you are=
 on 1st fire you MAY opt to fire at the INCOMING ATTACKERS as normal (this =
does not require a card draw), but you will lose your action for that turn =
- otherwise, you may (if you are lucky) fight of the attackers to keep your=
 action to be used as normal (but see pinning, next).

- Pinning -
Pinning =
works just like normal - if you can be pinned by somebody close combating y=
ou, follow the rules as written for firing into/out of/at units in CC. NOT=
E: If you didn't use your action in fighting off the close combatants, you =
may still move/fire non-pinned units within the detachment when your normal=
 action comes up.

- Pinning... and Skimmers -
Skimmers deserve a special n=
ote, as they can't be pinned you must use a special rule for an "alternatin=
g movement" style of play like this...
It's pretty basic... if the defendi=
ng CC player has skimmers with advance or charge orders he or she may elect=
 to "evade" close combat IF (a BIG IF) they move the defending detachment o=
n their next unit activation, otherwise, they must fight close combat as no=
rmal... more on this later (if any or all of these ideas work for anybody!)=
.

Quick example:
Player A has 1 bike group, and moves when red cards are =
shown
Player B has 1 falcon detachment, and moves when black cards are show=
n

Bike group 1 charges the Falcon group (which is on advance orders) - Fal=
con player may "avoid CC" by moving durring that players next activation (o=
r as immediate a card draw will allow "black" to come up).

- Troop carrier=
s -
You may (on "activating" a detachment) use the carrying unit's action t=
o "deposit" riders at the end of the vehicle's movement (as normal) - the u=
nits that leave the vehicle may move as far as they are normally allowed to=
 move. At the end of all that detachment's movement, the entire detachment =
may fire as normal under advance orders (if they are on advance) or may clo=
se combat (if on charge)... As for units that are separate, but carry troop=
s (different detachments) - they may optionally be treated as one detachmen=
t for movement/firing - or can be considered separate, not as sure on that =
one.

- Psychics -
There would no longer be a psychic phase:
When it is you=
r turn to do a detachment "action", you may also use 1 psychic power from t=
hat detachment/unit or another detachment/unit.

- Snap firing units -
If a=
 unit is physically able to do snap fire (on first fire orders, etc.) the u=
nit may do snap fires just like in the regular game, or may use their actio=
n to fire the entire detachment (as normal).

Ok... what does all of this m=
ean in terms of being differnt than the "standard" game.

1. Initiative is =
not NEARLY as game deciding (in the case of cards... there may not even be =
a need for initiative)
2. There is little difference between Advance and 1s=
t fire orders, other than the ability of firing at units that are charging =
you without waiting for your normal "turn" to come up.
3. Weird-ass psychic=
 powers can't be used to overwhelm the opposition before they even get a ch=
ance to fire!
3. Command unit abilities (charge, first fire) are not so #%=
**^*_at_! damn good anymore! And more importantly they can't charge, close co=
mbat, and THEN GET TO FIRE!! I'm continually amazed at what command units =
can do in Epic!

What does this mean in terms of actually playing the game:=

1. More "flow of combat" - less "wait forever" or "you won initiative 3 ti=
mes in 3 turns... you win"
2. Time to play the game should NOT increase rad=
ically, as the entire movement/psychic phase system is rolled into ONE comb=
at phase
3. Tactics become different but just as crucial (if not more!)... =
you can no longer simply use the old "chargem and stickem" into advancing u=
nits who can't fight back properly...

I HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER RULE CLARIF=
ICATIONS (most pretty obvious)- but I want to find out if this method of do=
ing Epic combat appeals to anybody before I spend the time to spell it all =
out!

(if it is not too out of turn for a Net Epic entry) please give comme=
nts and suggestions!! Does any of this make any sense?
-------------------=
--------
United we stand!
Peter
---------------------------
(divided, we bu=
y re-melted pewter at inflated prices....)
Eric Larsen

p.s. Sorry if this =
was too long, too late, or too "out of order" for a Net Epic idea... It's h=
ard for me to get a regular schedule when "interneting" - thanks for your p=
atience.
Received on Thu Jan 30 1997 - 07:19:51 UTC