Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

Net Epic - consolidating language for future rules?

 Post subject: Net Epic - consolidating language for future rules?
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:49 pm
Posts: 159
Location: London (UK)
One more for tonight, tell me to stop when you are bored...

As mentioned in one of my other threads, one thing I really think might benefit the rules as a whole is a tightening up of the language a little.

I've played GW games since 4th Ed Fantasy/2nd Ed 40K, and in all honesty, outside of Epic:Armageddon, they have always been a little loosey goosey when it comes to language, which often leads to the criticism of poor rules writing and the RAW/RAI arguments of lore. Not to mention rolling a D6 for the "correct" interpretation.

While no ruleset survives contact with the enemy (gamers have a nasty habit of tearing something apart on sight, yes I appreciate the irony of that comment given my current thinking...) I think more modern rulessets can do a better job, and I'd love to see that be applied here.

As an example, here is a first pass at the pinning rules, as mentioned, I felt they didn't quite explain the full intent of pinning in the current rules, though with a little thought its pretty obvious what was being driven at.

I've tweaked the language a little, and added a clear (I hope!) definition of exactly what pinning does in game language, dropping the more fluffy aspects of the language where possible. Fluff is for fluff, cold hard rules are for rules, if that makes sense?

It reads a lot more sterile, which is not as fun to read, but hopefully it helps convey the rules in a more clear manner.

I've also introduced the "key word" concept more fully. This is something that may be a huge undertaking to edit in to future documents, but if you can highlight any and all regularly appearing game terms, then include them in a glossary at the back of the book then I think it can really help clear up player confusion.

Again, this is all old hat for many of you, but if you are looking to attract new blood and convert people to the game, it may help. I appreciate not everyone thinks like me, so this might not be what you are looking for, but its a different take on the same end principle of a useful set of rules to learn and play Epic.

Note, some of the formatting will be lost on a forum, so this isn't WYSIWYG yet. I may produce a PDF to more closely illustrate what I think it might look like.

Quote:
Pinning Class

Pinning class refers to the ability to physically restrict your enemy from leaving close combat, and is a general indication of size and mobility.

When a unit is engaged in close combat by another unit from the same or higher pinning class it is said to be pinned. A pinned unit cannot disengage and leave close combat until it has killed the unit(s) causing it to be pinned, or is itself destroyed.

Pinning classes, in order from smallest to largest are:

Unit Type/Pinning Class
Infantry & Light Artillery /1
Cavalry & Walkers/2
Vehicles & Heavy Artillery/3
Superheavy Vehicles & Knights/4
Titans & Praetorians/5

Example: A Warlord titan and a Land Raider tank are in close combat. The tank is pinned but the titan is not. The Warlord can walk away during any movement phase, but the Land Raider must win close combat or die.

Hint: To engage a unit in close combat that is from a higher pinning class than you, charge it after it has completed the movement part of its activation.


Quote:
Special Rule: Skimmer Pinning Class
Skimmers cannot be pinned by units that are not themselves skimmers and at least of the same pinning class, and may move out of close combat on their next move (even if their next move is in the same turn). However, if the skimmer decides to stay it is considered pinned for that turn ONLY. That means opponents may not be able to fire at the skimmer since it is in close combat and considered pinned for that turn. If the skimmer survives the turn it may move normally next turn.


Quote:
Glossary of terms.

close combat – hand to hand fighting between two or more units
pinned – a unit is held in close combat by an enemy unit
pinning class – represents the size and mobility of a unit and its ability to hold up enemies
skimmer(s) – units that float just above ground level, using anti grav or possibly magic to remain aloft
unit(s) – each stand of troops, tank, titan or aircraft is a unit. Basically a model


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Net Epic - consolidating language for future rules?
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1476
This all makes sense, and basically mirrors another fairly recent discussion about Pinning Classes. At least, I think it does.

I agree that the language needs to be cleaned up and clarified in several places. One specific thing that a bunch of us decided on a while ago (though it appears to have not been implemented as yet) was to replace all uses of the word "unit" with either "model", "detachment", or "Formation" (IE, card) where appropriate, as there are places in the rules where the meaning is a bit obscure.

Aside from that, this looks good.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Net Epic - consolidating language for future rules?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
MagnusIlluminus wrote:
This all makes sense, and basically mirrors another fairly recent discussion about Pinning Classes. At least, I think it does.

I agree that the language needs to be cleaned up and clarified in several places. One specific thing that a bunch of us decided on a while ago (though it appears to have not been implemented as yet) was to replace all uses of the word "unit" with either "model", "detachment", or "Formation" (IE, card) where appropriate, as there are places in the rules where the meaning is a bit obscure.

Aside from that, this looks good.


Hi!

I agree with both of you.

The lack of clarity in certain words is something we have dragged from version 1. I'm not quite sure why it has not been remedied, beyond the usual inertia to change.

As I have had time on my Christmas vacation to ponder many things. I am increasingly coming closer to the decision of really cleaning up net epic gold.

No rules changes, add-ons or anything of the sort. Only stuff like these things dancingmonkey has posted. Purely organizational, clarifications and efficiency on how the info is presented.

Platinum can remain its own "evolutionary thing" and Gold can become more "clear" within its own restrictions.

More work for sure, but worth it in the end.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Net Epic - consolidating language for future rules?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 6:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:49 pm
Posts: 159
Location: London (UK)
MagnusIlluminus wrote:
This all makes sense, and basically mirrors another fairly recent discussion about Pinning Classes. At least, I think it does.

I agree that the language needs to be cleaned up and clarified in several places. One specific thing that a bunch of us decided on a while ago (though it appears to have not been implemented as yet) was to replace all uses of the word "unit" with either "model", "detachment", or "Formation" (IE, card) where appropriate, as there are places in the rules where the meaning is a bit obscure.

Aside from that, this looks good.


First up, thanks for both replying (both here and the other two threads ;) Appreciate I can be a little verbose at times, but I just like talking about toy soldiers I guess.

The unit = model/detachment/formation is spot on. There are a few cases across the various documents where this slight ambiguity has crept in, so by codifying any and all references to a key word, that would be great.

It will be a bit of a task getting any edits made, and of course getting people to adopt terminology can be a tricky one, but I believe it will help.

primarch wrote:

Hi!

I agree with both of you.

The lack of clarity in certain words is something we have dragged from version 1. I'm not quite sure why it has not been remedied, beyond the usual inertia to change.

As I have had time on my Christmas vacation to ponder many things. I am increasingly coming closer to the decision of really cleaning up net epic gold.

No rules changes, add-ons or anything of the sort. Only stuff like these things dancingmonkey has posted. Purely organizational, clarifications and efficiency on how the info is presented.

Platinum can remain its own "evolutionary thing" and Gold can become more "clear" within its own restrictions.

More work for sure, but worth it in the end.

Primarch


Like any fan based, not for profit, work of passion, A: Its hard to see the need for change (and change for change sake is bad!) and B: having the time and energy to make amendments is a hard task at times, but I think an edit would be a boon.

Of course, there are a few key issues.
A - finding the time and resources to do it
B - being able to re-design any pages as needed to include amendments (not sure who your graphic designer is and if they would want to go back and re-jig stuff... that's a big job right there)
C - agreeing on what amendments are actually needed. This is where the community comes in of course.

The good thing is Gold is not going anywhere, so its not a pressing need, and would be a 1.5 rather than a 2.0 I think.

I guess I'm sort of offering my assistance if its wanted in my thinking. Not looking to steal any glory or anything, but if you need a vaguely qualified sub editor (I've got a certificate and everything ;) ) with an interest in wargaming rules, the offer is there.

Cheers for your time and thoughts gents.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Net Epic - consolidating language for future rules?
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:12 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
dancingmonkey wrote:
MagnusIlluminus wrote:
This all makes sense, and basically mirrors another fairly recent discussion about Pinning Classes. At least, I think it does.

I agree that the language needs to be cleaned up and clarified in several places. One specific thing that a bunch of us decided on a while ago (though it appears to have not been implemented as yet) was to replace all uses of the word "unit" with either "model", "detachment", or "Formation" (IE, card) where appropriate, as there are places in the rules where the meaning is a bit obscure.

Aside from that, this looks good.


First up, thanks for both replying (both here and the other two threads ;) Appreciate I can be a little verbose at times, but I just like talking about toy soldiers I guess.

The unit = model/detachment/formation is spot on. There are a few cases across the various documents where this slight ambiguity has crept in, so by codifying any and all references to a key word, that would be great.

It will be a bit of a task getting any edits made, and of course getting people to adopt terminology can be a tricky one, but I believe it will help.

primarch wrote:

Hi!

I agree with both of you.

The lack of clarity in certain words is something we have dragged from version 1. I'm not quite sure why it has not been remedied, beyond the usual inertia to change.

As I have had time on my Christmas vacation to ponder many things. I am increasingly coming closer to the decision of really cleaning up net epic gold.

No rules changes, add-ons or anything of the sort. Only stuff like these things dancingmonkey has posted. Purely organizational, clarifications and efficiency on how the info is presented.

Platinum can remain its own "evolutionary thing" and Gold can become more "clear" within its own restrictions.

More work for sure, but worth it in the end.

Primarch


Like any fan based, not for profit, work of passion, A: Its hard to see the need for change (and change for change sake is bad!) and B: having the time and energy to make amendments is a hard task at times, but I think an edit would be a boon.

Of course, there are a few key issues.
A - finding the time and resources to do it
B - being able to re-design any pages as needed to include amendments (not sure who your graphic designer is and if they would want to go back and re-jig stuff... that's a big job right there)
C - agreeing on what amendments are actually needed. This is where the community comes in of course.

The good thing is Gold is not going anywhere, so its not a pressing need, and would be a 1.5 rather than a 2.0 I think.

I guess I'm sort of offering my assistance if its wanted in my thinking. Not looking to steal any glory or anything, but if you need a vaguely qualified sub editor (I've got a certificate and everything ;) ) with an interest in wargaming rules, the offer is there.

Cheers for your time and thoughts gents.


Hi!

An offer to edit is for me at least a wondrous and cherished thing.

Believe it or not I don't get a lot of offers like that since editing ANY net epic version can likely crush the enthusiasm out of most.

However we have had a handful of editors whom have made their impact felt.

I will definitely keep you and your kind offer in mind when the time comes. It is quite generous to offer your time.

We definitely will need the help. :)

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Net Epic - consolidating language for future rules?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:27 pm
Posts: 34
Hi all! I'm new to NetEpic, but reading the rules as a first time player it is quite clear that the ambiguous use of the words "Unit" and "Model" is outright frustrating. (same goes for unit / detachment)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Net Epic - consolidating language for future rules?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1476
Agreed, I thought that all uses of the word 'unit' were to be removed in one of the recent errata passes, but some must have been missed.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Net Epic - consolidating language for future rules?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
MagnusIlluminus wrote:
Agreed, I thought that all uses of the word 'unit' were to be removed in one of the recent errata passes, but some must have been missed.


Hi!

Those words were overused so much, its like stamping out roaches. ;D

At some point I have to do another errata update, so I'll go "bug" hunting again.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net