Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte wrote:
> J. Michael Looney wrote:
>
> > Epic 41K Changes to current Special abilities
> >
> > Commander:
> > A unit with the Commander special ability may take command of any units
> > of his army (i.e. not allies) that are currently "out of command" but
> > with in 30 cm of his position. The units that he has taken command of
> > are now part of his detachment for the rest of the game
> >
>
> Seems to make sense, and not a big power increase; I like it. One wonders if
> unscrupulous players would deliberately leave models out of command and pick
> them up with the SC, to soak up fire that would otherwise kill the
> Commander.
>
Can you say "Anti-Tank Shot?" I knew you could. Don't forget E40K does not
have the "you can't shoot a commander" rule.
> > Artillery:
> > 1. Artillery unit may fire Smoke rounds
>
> Does this cost 'em the five points still? I always thought it should cost
> more points for longer range artillery. Can artillery lay smoke indirectly?
> Is there any disadvantage to doing so?(snip new Arty rules)(snip example)I
> understand where these rules are coming from, in terms of realism; however,
> artillery (particularily the IG type) already seems to be rather powerful.
> The question is whether the proposed changes in the rules increase,
> decrease, or don't much affect artillery firepower. It's hard to say without
> playtesting. I think that the rules for indirect fire will tone down
> artillery a bit, but it's hard to say how far the extended range will go to
> compensate for this. My gut feeling is that it'll probably be okay.
>
Yes smoke can fire indirect. When you a making a smoke cloud that is 100
meters across (real world) being off target by a little is no big deal.As a Ork
Commander facing an Imperial force, well, lets just say that I know what IG
artillery is like.
Matt: You have been looking at these haven't you....
> > Flak:
> > 1. The "optional" rules for flyers on page 108 of the battle book are no
> > longer optional.
>
> As they are presented, I don't think the rule presented in the battle book
> is usable, because as far as I can tell, the flyers would still be
> vulnerable to snap fire, which means that unless the route just kind of
> skims the edge of the enemy, all of the flyers would be pretty well
> automatically shot down/driven off by multiple snap fire attacks. I have no
> problem with Flak units being allowed to fire at flyers during the rest of
> their path - it would make flak useful- but something should be added to the
> effect that flyers are not vulnerable to snap fire after they have made
> their attack/deployed their passengers.
>
As a former "Duck Hunter", (I spent 9 years in US Army Air Defense) think that
the "real" rules suck wind. The thing in the fluff about point straight up and
kicking in after burners.... That is what ADA types pray for. Pilots fear
the "Golden BB", which is small arms fire vs air craft. It's a real problem.
Unless you do a DAMN good job of SEAD (Suppresion of Enemy Air Defense) your
zoomie is going to be in a world of hurt. In Desert Storm up to 25% of the
aircraft flying about function in life was making the life Iraq AD types
exciting, or short, or both.
> > 2. The Missile ADA rules are in effect
> >
>
> I can't remember what these were off the top of my head, so I better not
> comment...
>
They are on the web site.....
> > Infiltrators
> > 1. May be upgraded to "Recon" at a cost of +2 points per unit
> > 2. This means that may also be upgraded to "Forward Observer" at normal
> > cost for level
> >
>
> Are ratlings really the IG's only forward observers?
>
Nope, any detachment commander can be upgraded to Foward Observer at cost. I
know that made it to the web site version, I am not sure if it made to the
mailing list version. Sorry.
> > Any unit that starts as a detachment command unit may be upgraded to
> > Forward observer at level cost.
>
Looks like it did....
> >
> > New Special powers:
> >
> > Alan Brain's list of special powers in his "Flavour" rules are in
> > effect.
> >
>
> Ok. I was/am very impressed with the thought and work that went into these,
> but I still haven't had a chance to test them out or see if I have any
> problems with them. To me, one of the appealing things about epic is its
> simplicity, so although I might adopt some of the suggestions, I doubt if
> I'll ever use the posting in its entirety. I like the rules mainly because
> they offer a way for the people who were upset about missing units from
> SM/TL to get over it.
>
That is the point of Epic 41K
> > Engineer:
> > See posted rules
>
> At the time, I thought the posted rules were a bit confusing - was it ever
> decided whether the points are 'used up' when they lay minefields, etc.?
> Also, at the moment, there is no bonus to firefights and close assaults for
> being in a fortified building, so it seems unfair to give engineers a bonus
> to attacking them. I mean, if troops have the choice of assaulting enemy in
> the open, or assaulting entrenched troops with the assisstance of engineers,
> I think they'll plump for the first choice...
>
Depends. If your mission is go clean out the Sigfrield line, well, you get to
attack entrenched troops.The point about no bonus for firefight and close
assults is well taken. Stand by on that. They do get an advantage in normal
firing.
> > Recon:
> > 1. Cost +2 per unit.
> > 2. A Recon unit may spot a hidden unit at a range of 30 cm, not 15 cm as
> > given on page 13 of the battle book.
> > 3. A Recon unit may be upgraded to Forward observer at level cost.
> >
>
> An ability that is fine as long as people construct their army lists without
> knowing which scenario they are playing, or which side.
>
> > Forward observer:
>
> (snip all the details of levels of obsevers and off board
> artillery)Interesting. I would tend to think that these very expensive
> infantry are likely to be annihilated before they accomplish anything, were
> it not for the fact that their special ability has unlimited range. Could be
> very annoying on a big, open board.
>
Well, don't play on a big open board then... :-)
> > http://www.spellbooksoftware.com/e41k/
>
> I think Epic 41k should revise the cost of IG command stands - it's a
> scandal.Thanks for keeping on putting out stuff; it's a pleasure to read
> well thought out variant rules and army lists.
>
Thinking about that.
Received on Mon Oct 06 1997 - 20:24:24 UTC