Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Alternative Rules Forum

 Post subject: Alternative Rules Forum
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 26976
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

This sub forum is to post about anything regarding new units, alternate rules, systems and the like.

Primarch


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alterante Rules Forum
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
What I propose is to play a game of NetEpic as normal but make the game more fluid by ripping off E:A's excellent move and fire / close combat all in the one activation.

Orders Phase: As all movement/combat is all assumed to be happening at once, players would still place orders in the Order Phase. As usual, they will be bound to these orders when the turn gets underway. Players will still be able to react to their opponent's movement but because they are committed to a particular order, they will won't have carte blanche to react in any way they see fit (which is a bit of a shortcoming with E:A's system in my humble opinion).

Action Phase: The action phase brings together the old movement, first fire, close combat and advance fire phases. Players take turns at moving and firing one unit at a time. Unit orders affect movement in the usual manner, ie no movement on First Fire, units can move up to their move rate on Advance, and double move rate on Charge orders. At the end of their movement, units may fire there and then as orders allow. Units on Advance orders have the usual rolls to hit, while those on First Fire gain a +1 to their to hit rolls (harking back to 1st edition NetEpic). Units on charge who engage enemy units in close combat resolve these battles there and then. See below for more.

Once all units have been activated, play proceeds to the End Phase as usual.

Special rules:

Snap Fire: As per existing NE Gold Core Rules, with some minor changes: Because of the reactive nature of snap fire, the +1 to hit modifier for being on First Fire orders is lost. Units being engaged in close combat also suffer this loss and make unmodified rolls to hit roll their attackers.

Pinning: Again, as per existing NE Gold Core Rules, with the following notes: When a unit engages an enemy in close combat that it cannot pin, the unit being attacked may opt to move away from the assault there and then (orders permitting). If they opt to do so, the movement for the smaller unit is completed, and no close combat takes place. However, as play reverts back to the other player, he/she must activate, move and fire the unit that was attacked. This may only be done once per turn, meaning that a unit cannot continue moving away if is attacked by smaller units who cannot pin it.

For example: Ork boyz Charge an Imperial Guard Stormhammer tank which is on Advance orders. As the Stormhammer cannot be pinned by infantry, the IG player has the option to break the pin. He opts to do this, the Ork boyz finish their move immediately and play reverts back to the IG player who now must move the Stormhammer rather than any other unit. After the Stormhammer has moved, it is attacked again in the action phase, this time by Ork Boarboyz. Even though it cannot be pinned by the Boarboyz, the Stormhammer cannot avoid being attacked by the Boarboyz and Close Combat is instigated and fought there and then.

Close Combat: This is resolved as normal but with the following additional notes: Every unit engaged in close combat must fight until there is a resolution of the melee. This means that units whose rolls result in a draw must fight again until one side is victorious, ie dead/destroyed. This may very well leave both sides with a few stands left over at the end of the assault, but none of them should still be fighting an opponent. Note that this rule does not apply to Titans in close combat as close combat is no guarantee of being able to destroy these huge war machines outright. If a Titan loses a close combat roll, roll on the relevant damage table as usual. Once close combat has been completed, place a counter next to the detachment that has fought. This counter signifies that the unit has fought one wave of close combat. If such a unit is attacked again, both players roll their dice as usual for close combat, except that the attacking unit rolls an additional die for each wave counter his/her opponent has. This represents the fact that a unit who faces several waves of assault in the one turn are increasingly worn down and find it harder to survive each wave of assault.

Point Defence: Units which have more than one Point Defence weapon may fire as many or as few of these as the player sees fit. For example, the IG Stormhammer has a massive PD of 14. Anticipating that it is above to come under several waves of attack, the IG player decides to commit 4 PD dice to the first wave attacking. It survives but comes under attack again, this time assigning 6 PD dice to the second wave of attack. Assuming it survives and is attacked a third time, the IG player will still have 4 PD left at his/her disposal. Note that this rule only applies to weapons marked with PD and not the unit's main armament which cannot be fired after having been attacked in close combat.

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alterante Rules Forum
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 26976
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

Regarding point defense and your rules modification, I think its best you sit down and overhaul the amount of dice PD gives in one "assault". Keeping track of what is used and what is not can be a lot of work in games (particularly large games).

Its best to decide what is a "fair" amount of PD dice to be rolled every time it gets assaulted. Also I'd add your close combat rule (in reverse), that every assault a unit with PD suffers in a turn it loses 1 PD die.

For example a rhino with PD of 1 gets assaulted and fires its one die eliminating its attacker. However later the same turn it gets attacked again and since it used PD earlier in this turn its PD is reduced to "zero", thus it gets not shot this time and close combat ensues normally.

PD values would need to be scaled downwards, since even a PD of 5 means it takes 5 separate assaults to bring it to zero. But that is okay as certain units should be next to impossible to swamp with infantry swarms.

Regarding close combat, what happens when a unit is assaulted by another unit with more models? Do the extra models gang up and get extra dice (as in the standard rules)? If so it will be too easy to accrue extra dice using numerically superior, but CAF inferior troops (Like IG for example). This is a significant problem since it will be easy to eliminate high CAF troops that are few in number (making terminators and aspect warriors useless).

There might be a way to remedy this. One may be that extra combatants get some kind of CAF bonus (+1 per additional attacker or something like that). So you roll 2d6 + CAF + numerical superiority bonus +1 CAF per model engaging just one. It gives units with a high number of models a chance to outnumber and potentially win, but they will suffer higher casualties.

I confess I was somewhat dubious this could work on the old second edition chassis, but it seems that it is workable. Much more than I suspected. :)

Primarch


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alternate Rules Forum
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Thanks Primarch, appreciate the kind words! It's still early days on this one - the proof will be in the pudding when I playtest it! I just hope that I don't end up with a rather gloopy pudding all over my face!

Ok, so picking up on the points raised:

The close combat conundrum you raised is an interesting one that I hadn't considered. It's always been the case that weak units can gang up on more powerful CC fighters (and therefore have a decent chance of killing them), but at the same time I've never had a problem with it. It makes sense to me that when a unit is swarmed that they will eventually succomb to overwhelming odds. To weaken this might make Terminators/Scorpions etc into gods.

Just as a quick example, a squad of Scorpions costs 150 points, while an IG Tactical Platoon costs 200 points. When each face off against one another, I reckon that the IG should be the favourites to win because they are more expensive - but you know they are going to get punished when they attack! Both units are likely to be broken and I think that's fair enough when you consider the points values.

Anyway, because I am against changing the basic close combat rules about the extra dice and my new system could imbalance the rules as they are when it comes to multiple attacks and multiple combats, I think the best way to sort this would be to scrap my original idea and steal another from someone's excellent Heresy rules:

When units engage one another in close combat, the assault is not fought until after all other units for both armies have finished moving and firing. Units on First Fire orders may withhold their First Fire until the Close Combat phase, depending on which is more desirable to them.

This gives players the option to gun down attacking enemies in the action phase if they wish, or "take cover" by being hopelessly intermingled in Close Combat for the remainder of the turn, subject to the usual pinning rules; which sorted out the old problem of a Titan using attacking infantry to hide from incoming fire.

This would mean that while units can still be outnumber by surrounding them with multiple opponents, it means that they do not have to fight round after round of this in one turn, thereby preserving the balance of the original rules.

At the start of the close combat phase, any remaining First Fires and Point Defence attacks should be resolved before close combat begins. Once this is done, the close combat is resolved as per the standard rules.

Your PD idea was an excellent one, but if the combat is played like this, there is no need for counters and the monitoring of PD, that will be fought as was previously the case.

What do you think, any better? I do like the idea in your rules about supporting fire for close combat, but I'm thinking not to go that way as I'm trying my best not to alter the system too much from where it already stands. If you think this is an improvement, I'll repost the suggestion with these modifications.

Cheers!

EDIT: The alternative would be to keep my original close combat rules as they stand above but forget about the counters and bonuses for units attacking a unit that has already fought in Close Combat this turn. PD would be restored for each subsequent assault in the one turn. Every time a CC would be fought, it would be treated as a fresh combat. A second wave of attackers would have no bonuses unless they outnumbered the unit being attacked. This would have the effect really of several turns attacks being fought in the one turn but not really do anything further to change the rules as they currently stand.

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alterante Rules Forum
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
After a couple of games of E:A we're playtesting my alternative rules for NetEpic.

It's a case of so far so good with the exception of one MAJOR problem: whoever gets to go first on the first turn can cause substantial damage! Because range is longer in NetEpic that first unit can get into firing range and hit transport vehicles carrying infantry before they have had a chance to move at all. That would explain why firing ranges are shorter in E:A! The problem would be worse were there Titans in attendance or Tempests. Imagine how much damage a Tempest Host popping up first could cause! 12 Rhinos & 24 stands of infantry possibly vapourised before the player has had a chance to do anything.

The only way around this would to be to make the deployment zone impervious to enemy fire, deepen the deployment zone so that transports could start the game out of range, or shorten the ranges. Back to the drawing board! :-\

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alternative Rules Forum
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 26976
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

I'm telling you Bissler you GOT to play Heresy. I think you'd like it. ;)

I would think making an assault phase that goes last, thus no major rule changes, is the way to go. Resolving it immediately introduces a host of problems and unforeseen consequences.

Regarding the other problem, it is very "game board" dependent. For example my board is FIVE feet wide (over 150 cms), so this is never an issue because the separation is over a 100cm. On a smaller width game board it is most definitely a problem.

One idea I had for a long time for net epic is "no deployment". In other words nothing starts on the table and EVERYTHING needs to move onto the board on the first turn through designated deployment zones. Makes for an interesting game, because there is no "sit and shoot" on that first turn (no first fire).

You are indeed correct to state that is why they made ranges shorter in later epic rules. It forces you to move to get within firing range. I never liked that solution much, it strains my suspension of disbelief that a defense laser can not fire across the battlefield, it supposed to shoot spacecraft in orbit!

There is only so much you can do with the old second edition chassis. Certain things (suppression, one activation resolutions, etc), that either don't fit well or are difficult to balance. This is why I don't try to make it into what it is not. It is what it is, love it or hate it. :)

That's why I made heresy. ;)

Primarch


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alternative Rules Forum
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Hi,

In my haste to test out my alternative rules I've done a very bad thing... My friend instantly loved NetEpic and declared "this is what we will be playing from now on". I'm sorry, I will try to talk him around to trying Heresy but at the moment it isn't looking hopeful (even though I have spoken very enthusiastically of your system as I do think it looks great and is worth a go)... So my flirtation with E:A is dead in the water and I expect any suggestions of trying other rulesets will be resisted.

On a minor plus point after that bombshell, he came up with a solution to the problem I outlined above. It's simply this:

The deployment zone is "clouded" by a fog of war. In practice what this means is that no units are visible until they move or fire (I'm deliberately mentiong "or fire" because those Tempests could conceivably fire from the deployment zone - I always do the standard "start 80cm apart". The first person to move will have nothing to fire at (as is the case with E:A) but it also protects units from being taken out of the combat before they have entered the field of play proper, and therefore have the chance to safely deploy their troops before being fired upon.

What do you think? Is this worth persevering with? For what it's worth, it actually worked out pretty well. I am likely to be biased though...

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alternative Rules Forum
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 26976
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
The Bissler wrote:
Hi,

In my haste to test out my alternative rules I've done a very bad thing... My friend instantly loved NetEpic and declared "this is what we will be playing from now on". I'm sorry, I will try to talk him around to trying Heresy but at the moment it isn't looking hopeful (even though I have spoken very enthusiastically of your system as I do think it looks great and is worth a go)... So my flirtation with E:A is dead in the water and I expect any suggestions of trying other rulesets will be resisted.

On a minor plus point after that bombshell, he came up with a solution to the problem I outlined above. It's simply this:

The deployment zone is "clouded" by a fog of war. In practice what this means is that no units are visible until they move or fire (I'm deliberately mentiong "or fire" because those Tempests could conceivably fire from the deployment zone - I always do the standard "start 80cm apart". The first person to move will have nothing to fire at (as is the case with E:A) but it also protects units from being taken out of the combat before they have entered the field of play proper, and therefore have the chance to safely deploy their troops before being fired upon.

What do you think? Is this worth persevering with? For what it's worth, it actually worked out pretty well. I am likely to be biased though...


Hi!

If your friend loves net epic, play that instead. I really don't think its worth the time investment and if you really want to try something "different" try Heresy instead. It has all the features your looking for.

In the short term play net epic and enjoy yourself!

Primarch


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alternative Rules Forum
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
He had played NetEpic once or twice about 10 years ago and wasn't that fussed - but it was playing my modified version that he really enjoyed yesterday and wants to continue with. So, short term, until I can convince him to try Heresy that is what we'll be playing.

I'll draw a line under it here, but you may notice me update the other thread I started this on. This really will for my own reference, as I need to refine the rules for future games that I'll play.

Do you want me to delete out all of the posts here to tidy up this thread?

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alternative Rules Forum
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 26976
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
The Bissler wrote:
He had played NetEpic once or twice about 10 years ago and wasn't that fussed - but it was playing my modified version that he really enjoyed yesterday and wants to continue with. So, short term, until I can convince him to try Heresy that is what we'll be playing.

I'll draw a line under it here, but you may notice me update the other thread I started this on. This really will for my own reference, as I need to refine the rules for future games that I'll play.

Do you want me to delete out all of the posts here to tidy up this thread?


Hi!

No, you can leave all the post here. Someone else may read it and come up with a interesting fix to it. ;D

Primarch


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alternative Rules Forum
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
I've got a fix sorted. I'm away at the weekend but I'll try and knock these into some kind of shape and share them next week.

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alternative Rules Forum
PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Updated rules for dynamic NetEpic:


Orders Phase:

Players place orders in the Order Phase. As usual, they will be bound to these orders as the turn progresses.

Orders:

First Fire: Unit may not move but gains a +1 on to hit rolls when firing. This bonus is negated when using snap fire which has a standard -1 to hit roll penalty. Units who fire at units engaging them in close combat do not suffer the snap fire penalty (ie still have +1 on to hit rolls). Units firing at close combat attackers may opt to do so in the action phase OR at the start of the Close Combat phase. Skimmer units may make pop-up attacks as usual, but only during the Action Phase. Any units which use snap fire may not be activated later in the turn (ie may not fire a second time).

Advance: Unit may move up to move rate in cm. Units may fire weapons as normal. They may make snap fire shots but with a -2 to hit roll rather than -1. If they use snap fire, advance units lose their right to movement or fire later in the turn. Units ordered on Advance may snap fire attacking units, but still do so with the -2 modifier. In addition, such attacks must be made in the Action Phase and not in the Close Combat phase (as is the case for units on First Fire).

Charge: Units on charge may not fire at all but can move double their move rate and engage enemies in close combat.


Action Phase:

The action phase brings together the old movement, first fire, and advance fire phases. Players take turns at moving and firing one unit at a time. Both players should take turns at making any compulsory movement first. Thereafter, all other movement and firing takes place.

Unit orders affect movement and firing in the manner as outlined above. Note that vehicles on advance may fire at any point during their movement, and that they can then move the rest of the distance they have left to travel after shooting rolls have been resolved.

Units may snap fire as usual, but any unit that does so forfeits its right to move or fire later in the turn.


Close Combat Phase:

Players on first fire orders may fire at their attackers on the condition that they did not fire earlier in the turn. Thereafter, resolve close combat as per normal NetEpic rules.


End Phase:

Run through standard End Phase procedures.


Special Rules

Deployment: All units start 80cm apart as is usual in a game of NetEpic, with deployment zones behind that point reaching as far back as you have table.

Fog of War: At the start of the game there is a fog or war which means both forces are "invisible" to one another until they are activated. Units which have not been activated cannot be attacked, even by scattering barrage templates. Order counters are placed as normal for units concealed by fog of war. While units are ordered each turn, there is no compulsion for the units to be activated, and therefore players may keep units hidden by fog of war for as long as they so desire. If no orders are placed for a unit which is still concealed by fog of war, it may not move but can fire as if on advance orders. To do so would mean the unit is still activated and therefore no longer concealed by the fog of war. Once fog of war has been lost by activation, it cannot be regained.

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Last edited by The Bissler on Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alternative Rules Forum
PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Thoughts?

The one area where I had a "I'm not sure" feeling was about Charge orders. I was very tempted to give charge vehicles the opportunity to fire but with a -1 on to hit rolls (as per 1st Edition AT/SM) or maybe even a standard -2 to hit. Still not sure, what does everyone else think?

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alternative Rules Forum
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
I'm going to playtest these and the Titan plasma rules next weekend.

If anyone has any opinions for or against charging vehicles being able to fire, please let me know before then. I'm interested to know whether people think allowing units on Charge be allowed to fire would be a step too far, even with a -1 or -2 to hit modifier. I'm still undecided as to whether to play it that way or not and I value the opinions of everyone here!

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alternative Rules Forum
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11093
Location: Canton, CT, USA
An optional rule I've had in my head for years involves fire arcs for Titans. Just looking at Warlords, Reavers, Phantoms and Warlocks, you would think that the arm weapons would have the capability of swiveling around to fire behind the Titan. That being said, I propose an optional rule: arm weapons for Warlords, Reaver, Phantom and Warlock Titans have a 270 degree fire arc, basically combining forward fire arc with swivel left or right. Perhaps in fairness for Orks, this could be extended to Great and Slasher Gargants.

Thoughts?

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


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