Re: [Epic] Net epic

From: <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 16:01:51 +1000 (EST)

>The discussion will cover several themes as usual I will give some ideas
>to stimulate opinions.
>I guess the current 6 cm works okay. About how support cards interact
>with their parent company cards( as in ork clans would be the prime
>example) will be discussed with the appropiate army.

I like the idea if the 6cm coherency. Keeps things simple. Also, Stargrunt
II has an interesting use for COmmand Units. if they use their action
commanding another unit, that unit can take an extra action like moving or
shooting. This could work in Epic by allowing the command unit to issue an
extra action to another unit within a certain distance. Not everyone will
like this, but its just a thought.

>Many have expressed the interactions of certain vehicle type and the
>effects of terrain sometimes either dont make sense or are ridiculously
> Example: jetbikes not entering woods, track vehicles not being >
able to move backwards and fire.
>A house rule I have used relates terrain and its effects to the type of
>propulsion the vehicle has.
>foot/horse no restrictions except for rivers and
other impassible terrain
>tracked May move backwards and shoot only in advance
fire at 1/2 the advance move
> May move into woods on advance also at 1/2 the
advance move
> Usual restrictions for impassible terrain
>anti-grav (skimmers) May move into woods in advance orders at
normal rate.Usual restriction for immpassible terrain

This all looks O.K. to me. I like the idea of fully explaining how units
may enter terrain. Something GW just basically gave and never really
explained (I've seen Harlies enter a house and drive up the stairs! Not on
their own mind you ;-)).

>This system basically represents historic movement possibilities for
>things like foot, track movement and represents are more realistic
>approach to more manuvearble anti-grav vehicles(no I am not an eldar
>fan!).This gives pros and cons to each movement type: skimmers move
>quicker in difficult terrain but only tracked vehicles can make real
>fighting retreats(firing while moveing backwards).

This is true enough and I like this. I think it would be good to keep.

>In the older edition orders were revealed as the unit was activated thus
>hightening the expection and sense of unknown, this fits like a glove
>with the alternating movement system I am proposing.I stongly suggest
>not revealing orders until activation its a definite plus!!

I suppose. But in a game where Snap-Fire is being used, how are we going to
distinguish between all the types of movement? Are we to keep the various
Phases as they currently stand or merely have the one game phase where you
reveal an order and resolve whatever the unit may be doing? If we use the
second then the advantages/disadvantages of stationary firing over moving
and firing must be made. And how Snap-Fire fits into all of this.

>The premise of this system is that certain units have an inherent
>slowness to react based on size, bulk, lack of manuverability.Therefore
>although a titan is a powerful piece it is really immpossible for it
>tomove quicker than lets say troop stand or small vehicles.
>The movement phase is broke down as follows:
>Phase 1:Titans and super heavy vehicles
>Phase 2:Models of the Khight class (greater deamons, carnifex etc.)
>Phase 3:All vehicles that dont belong to the above classes
>Phase 4:Troop stands(which includes cavalry/bike type stands)

I like the movement rules that Andy Skinner presented here a while back and
with a little work on the finer points they could work beautifully. Andy
can explain more as I remember it only vaguely (sorry Andy).

>Movement in each phase is alternating the player who wins initiatives
>decides to either move first or make opponent move first then alternate
>Any unit on first fire orders may interrupt movement to resolve fire.
>The exception is that another unit may not interrupt a unit that is snap
>firing. Please note we will not discuss present edition snap fire units
>these will be covered with flyers. This is to keep these unit "special
>snap fire distinct from general snap fire (we will probably call it AA
>fire to avoid confusion).

Great idea. Snap Fire was one of the good 1st ed rules that was lost in 2nd ed.

>The present rules for embarking/disembarking troops has sometimes caused
>difficulty due to how much movement is left to troop stands after the
>vehicle has moved. I really dont have any comments on this one ,but
>someone might have a better solution.

I still think that the current system in SM/TL works. The infantry get a
move equal to the percentage of move the transport didn't move. The Rhino
moved 80% of its move (40cm on charge) then the infantry can move 20% of
their move (4cm on charge for most infantry). If a Transport move 100% then
the infantry can disembark, but must be in base contact with the transport
(making them great barrage targets). Simple.


I still think that Andy's system sounds great and needs little work. The
Dirtside II system of movement is good too (which is where I believe Andy
extrapolated his ideas from) and could be easily applied to the orders
system that Epic currently uses (if we keep it).

>There are of course many points regarding what I am proposing that I
>have not covered(this letter is long enough!) so please ask many
>questions as you can think of!!.
>United we stand!


           "Two weeks ago I had it made.
             Two weeks ago I was dead."
          -Katchoo, Strangers in Paradise
          email: kx.henderson_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:05 UTC