Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?

 Post subject: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Fuelled by discussions on other threads, if we were to create a new Net Epic rules system which changes would you be willing to accept?

Changes to weapon ranges?

Changes to other unit stats in terms of values - (not proposing to change stat categories such as Move, To Hit, CAF, etc)?

An activation system where moving and firing occurs simultaneously?

A change to the D6 system? If so, what? D8, D10, D12, 2D6, D20?

Others should feel free to add to this list...

_________________
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 Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Here's my answers:

Ranges - yes

Other stats - only if there had to be some change in the system that would require it, otherwise no.

Activation - yes, I don't care for the movement and firing being kept separate. It slows play down.

D6 system - either keep D6 or move to D10

_________________
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: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:47 am
Posts: 149
Ranges: No, like being able to reach across the entire table with some arty, and bolter range feels about right. Everything else falling somewhere ibetween is good enough for me. If ranges were extended I might be for that.

Other Stats: What The Bissler said.

Activation: Yep gotta agree with TB again.

D6: I would Looove to see a D10 and percentage dice system. Every other system I play uses D10 and again just feels right.

But, if Netepic Gold continues as an entity. truth be told I'll probably stick with it...

Pat


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1474
Good question(s).

As to your first two questions, do you mean "Should we change the values of the stats that a given model has" or do you mean "Shall we change the stats that models have"? The second meaning that the basic function of the stat in the game is changed or removed.

(Assuming the first meaning)
Personally, I see your first two questions as very tightly linked. And irrelevant. As the Points Formula is being used for Platinum, if someone does not like the stats as presented they will be able to tweak them as they like or make their own from scratch and be able to use their newly stated model alongside existing ones with a reasonable belief that it's cost is fair.

Activation. Not sure about this one, as I have not played it yet. Well, then again, I kind of have. In other game systems. Heck, I have yet to actually play a game the way NetEpic Gold does things. The last actual table-top game of Epic I was in was back in 2nd edition (Titan Legions) days. Thus I really don't have a strong opinion on this one.

I'm fine with the d6 system in use, but it does have it's issues. Lack of granularity being the biggest one. Personally, I'm a big fan of the D20 system games and D&D 3.5 in particular, so if it were to change die size I'd choose d20. I know someone is working up a 2d6 system, but that changes the probability spread from flat to curved and I feel that that would be detrimental to NetEpic. It's also very hard to put values to modifiers in a curved spread system, as the modifier has more value when the roll is closer to an end than it has in the middle.

As an additional question, how about Model types / pinning classes. Specifically are there enough? Should we trim them down, say by merging Infantry and Light Artillery (with a few LA becoming Vehicle perhaps)? Should there be more? For example, Infantry could be divided into Light, Medium, and Heavy. As could Vehicle.

To answer the additional question, while I am mostly fine with the existing types, I'd also somewhat like to expand Infantry and possibly Vehicle into Light, Medium, and Heavy. It would allow for greater detail in the system. Among other things, it would eliminate the need for the 'Bulky' ability for Infantry, and could be used to specify more 'realistic' recommended limits to Transport capacity based on the relative sizes of all participants. Yes, it would add more detail and fiddly bits. I like detail and fiddly bits.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Hi Magnus, thanks for pointing out that my stats question wasn't clear. I've edited the original post.

So far as changing the stats goes, I'm mainly thinking of weapons ranges being reduced for use with an alternating activation system. If you look over today's posts on my Evolution discussion you'll get the jist of why this is coming up as an issue...

Your questions about Pinning classes and vehicles are interesting ones. To be honest, they don't worry me particularly (probably because I don't like detail and fiddly bits!) but I'd be open to new ideas on these subjects.

_________________
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: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

Many interesting things you bring up Magnus!

MagnusIlluminus wrote:
Good question(s).
As to your first two questions, do you mean "Should we change the values of the stats that a given model has" or do you mean "Shall we change the stats that models have"? The second meaning that the basic function of the stat in the game is changed or removed.(Assuming the first meaning)


In the case of Mattman and Bissler, they mean change the stats the models have. Not change the meaning that will alter the formula.

In my case probably alter the function as well as value, although I may have a change of heart due to something you said further down. ;)

Quote:
Personally, I see your first two questions as very tightly linked. And irrelevant. As the Points Formula is being used for Platinum, if someone does not like the stats as presented they will be able to tweak them as they like or make their own from scratch and be able to use their newly stated model alongside existing ones with a reasonable belief that it's cost is fair.


So far as the underlying assumptions on how the stats work and are not changed, this would be correct.

Quote:
Activation. Not sure about this one, as I have not played it yet. Well, then again, I kind of have. In other game systems. Heck, I have yet to actually play a game the way NetEpic Gold does things. The last actual table-top game of Epic I was in was back in 2nd edition (Titan Legions) days. Thus I really don't have a strong opinion on this one.


It plays well enough, there are some things to streamline in the rules that wouldn't make sense in the context of such an activation method, but it doesn't put an undue burden on things.

Quote:
I'm fine with the d6 system in use, but it does have it's issues. Lack of granularity being the biggest one. Personally, I'm a big fan of the D20 system games and D&D 3.5 in particular, so if it were to change die size I'd choose d20. I know someone is working up a 2d6 system, but that changes the probability spread from flat to curved and I feel that that would be detrimental to NetEpic. It's also very hard to put values to modifiers in a curved spread system, as the modifier has more value when the roll is closer to an end than it has in the middle.


I find your opinion on this VERY interesting. ;D

Now, Bissler and others seem to like using one die, but I found the d6 or d10 to be "not quite enough", that is why I have tinkered with 2d6. However Bissler once mentioned to me about using a d12 (which I still don't think it has suitable granularity), but a d20, now that I'd like. I never mention it since I think most tabletop players associate that with RPG's.

I would totally toss out my 2d6 idea for use of the d20. That die has enough granularity in it to satisfy me.

Now, how does this change the formula? Does it change it? Can the actual values be projected to what they'd be on a d20?

Suffice to say, if one die is to be used I'm firmly behind using the d20. So much so I will modify what I have done to reflect this. :)

Quote:
As an additional question, how about Model types / pinning classes. Specifically are there enough? Should we trim them down, say by merging Infantry and Light Artillery (with a few LA becoming Vehicle perhaps)? Should there be more? For example, Infantry could be divided into Light, Medium, and Heavy. As could Vehicle.


Actually, as I developed my variant I used an offshoot of the idea that was discussed regarding eliminating titan hit location tables and perhaps assign DR (/damage rating/wounds) to certain units. In the system I have devised "pinning" is based on DR (damage rating), so you pin units of equal of less "DR" , those of more DR can't be pinned. It cleans up the pinning rules quite a bit.

Of course the introduction of a generalized DR system may be more than what players are willing to bear and I don't know what the formula impact is. The old system is just to clunky for my tastes, so I'm not that enthused with expanding it further.

Quote:
To answer the additional question, while I am mostly fine with the existing types, I'd also somewhat like to expand Infantry and possibly Vehicle into Light, Medium, and Heavy. It would allow for greater detail in the system. Among other things, it would eliminate the need for the 'Bulky' ability for Infantry, and could be used to specify more 'realistic' recommended limits to Transport capacity based on the relative sizes of all participants. Yes, it would add more detail and fiddly bits. I like detail and fiddly bits.


Then perhaps DR may be the way to go, since I envisioned certain units that are currently of the same pinning class but would be "bulky" would get more DR to simulate their larger size (thus making them harder to kill), I think it could be a easy way of doing it.

Regardless of how its done, I agree more stratification of certain unit types is probably needed.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:17 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
Char B1 bis wrote:
Ranges: No, like being able to reach across the entire table with some arty, and bolter range feels about right. Everything else falling somewhere ibetween is good enough for me. If ranges were extended I might be for that.

Pat


Most of the weapon ranges in NetEpic/SM2 are about 3 times longer than what they should be. I have done the scale calculations from 40k to epic and bolters should only reach about 15cm.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Mattman wrote:
Char B1 bis wrote:
Ranges: No, like being able to reach across the entire table with some arty, and bolter range feels about right. Everything else falling somewhere ibetween is good enough for me. If ranges were extended I might be for that.

Pat


Most of the weapon ranges in NetEpic/SM2 are about 3 times longer than what they should be. I have done the scale calculations from 40k to epic and bolters should only reach about 15cm.


Hi!

Agreed. Not coincidentally those value are similar to first edition ranges. That got that spot on in that edition.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:47 am
Posts: 149
Hello MattMan,

I play a lot of historical and the Epic ranges seem about right to short when compared to what I feel a weapon produced forty thousand years after a tiger tank should be able to reach out to.

As far as trying to duplicate the 40k parking lot you may as well just put everything in hand to hand and call it a day.

I've been gaming for 30 years and have yet to see a game of 40k that looked proper.

I guess that's why I game 10mm and 6mm.

Honestly, please let me know if your trying to duplicate the WH40K experience and I'll save us a lot of grief and drop out now.

Pat


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Char B1 bis wrote:
Hello MattMan,

I play a lot of historical and the Epic ranges seem about right to short when compared to what I feel a weapon produced forty thousand years after a tiger tank should be able to reach out to.

As far as trying to duplicate the 40k parking lot you may as well just put everything in hand to hand and call it a day.

I've been gaming for 30 years and have yet to see a game of 40k that looked proper.

I guess that's why I game 10mm and 6mm.

Honestly, please let me know if your trying to duplicate the WH40K experience and I'll save us a lot of grief and drop out now.

Pat


Hi!

I remind you that Gold is and will always be available if variant offerings are not to your liking.

The variants are to explore other ways of doing things for those of us not entirely happy with the standard rules.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:47 am
Posts: 149
Thanks for that guys!!!!!

Pat


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:31 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:57 am
Posts: 879
Location: Noblesville, Indiana
The Bissler wrote:
Fuelled by discussions on other threads, if we were to create a new Net Epic rules system which changes would you be willing to accept?

Changes to weapon ranges?

Changes to other unit stats in terms of values - (not proposing to change stat categories such as Move, To Hit, CAF, etc)?

An activation system where moving and firing occurs simultaneously?

A change to the D6 system? If so, what? D8, D10, D12, 2D6, D20?

Others should feel free to add to this list...


Do titans use a to-hit chart determining where they apply damage? If so, drop that and just give all WE and titans a damage capacity. If not, then nevermind.

I like an activation system where moving and firing occurs as one activation of the unit/model. I don't like phases (movement phase, shooting phase, etc).

D6 is fine, but so is d10 and 2d6.

_________________
http://thorvirshobbydumpster.blogspot.com/

Tau Empire, Mymeara Eldar, Tallarn Desert Raiders


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
splash wrote:
The Bissler wrote:
Fuelled by discussions on other threads, if we were to create a new Net Epic rules system which changes would you be willing to accept?

Changes to weapon ranges?

Changes to other unit stats in terms of values - (not proposing to change stat categories such as Move, To Hit, CAF, etc)?

An activation system where moving and firing occurs simultaneously?

A change to the D6 system? If so, what? D8, D10, D12, 2D6, D20?

Others should feel free to add to this list...


Do titans use a to-hit chart determining where they apply damage? If so, drop that and just give all WE and titans a damage capacity. If not, then nevermind.

I like an activation system where moving and firing occurs as one activation of the unit/model. I don't like phases (movement phase, shooting phase, etc).

D6 is fine, but so is d10 and 2d6.


Hi!

My variant based on 2d6 has a single activation method like evolution with a unified combat phase (combined move and shooting) and an assault combat phase with a tie in for support fire. I have also developed a damage capacity mechanic for all units in general, in particular titans with an "optional" shell of critical damage, but can be omitted in lieu of just using damage capacity.

We'll see how it goes. :)

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1474
As to "... a weapon produced forty thousand years after a tiger tank should be able to reach out to."

Keep in mind that most technology in the W40K game (at least, in the Imperium and forces based on it - such as Chaos) are not much better than WWII Earth tech and in any event are almost entirely worse than modern day tech. With a few obvious exceptions such as Laser and Plasma weapons.

On the other hand, weapon ranges in 40K are often very short. I agree that it seems to be more so than they should be. However, they have to be short as otherwise there would be no movement at all in a 40K game. Unless playing "Unbound" there just isn't enough space on the table for proper ranges.

Thus I guess that my opinion on ranges really is that they are fine for what Epic, as a tabletop game, is trying to do. Yes, they are a bit different than 40K ranges for the same weapons, but the 40K ranges are arbitrarily shortened so that that game is playable. Perhaps a few weapons could be reduced somewhat, but not across the board please.

Then again, as was said above, it really doesn't matter what the default ranges are set to for Platinum. For two reasons. First, people can use the Gold rules with Platinum via the Points Formula values. Second, people can alter the listed stats, or make their own, using the Points Formula if they are unhappy with all supplied options.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What Changes To Net Epic Could You Stomach?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:12 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:47 am
Posts: 149
@MI
Hello,
Did a little research and was surprised. Arty is short in EpicGold, Tanks are about on, just a bit short but not much, and a bolter compared to an mp44 or Thompson M1A1 is a bit long!
So shortening bolter ranges, adding maybe 5%-10% to tank ranges, and keeping arty same for scaling issues does sound about right for mimicking WWII.
And I agree that the fluff indicates the technology freeze and makes WWII the parameter for comparison.

Who knew?!

Pat


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  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