Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

Three proposals to consider for Platinum

 Post subject: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:39 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:49 pm
Posts: 158
Location: London (UK)
Three things I have been musing on adding (or in one case already have) to my games of Net Epic, which might be interesting to you folks?

One is pretty simple.
Quote:
Use the plastic GW templates where relevant for Barrage/AOE.

They are ever so slightly different to the sizes in "classic" Epic or Net:Epic. But not so far as to be particularly game breaking. The flamer is the most different, but I do feel the large flame template in Epic might be a little too much, given the scale being used. Of course, there is no small plastic flame template, so that is the one issue here.

The thinking here is that unless you are a "legacy" player, you might not have the card templates from the old boxes. Of course, Net:Epic does include paper cut outs, which are absolutely fine, but the plastic templates are a lot more durable.

Other option is to remain as is and get some laser cut acrylic or similar as we live in interesting times for wargamers and this is now quite feasible!

Two is slightly more involved. All models touched by a template are eligible for damage. Currently you have to have at least 50% of a model covered to be eligible. This was a "legacy" rule from GW, that has been removed in more recent editions of their games (not that they are necessarily better).

The reason I think this is a positive, is
A: It makes Barrage and Template quite nasty, and stops it being limited by detachments spreading out to make a template little more than a "standard" shot in only being able to hit one model
B: It removes any and all conflict about what is 50% of a model. I don't like anything that needs "debate"

As a follow up to this, and to in part reflect the traditional reading, it could be worth further tweaking the rule to bring a more "PP" concept to templates. In Warmachine/Hordes, if you fire a template, the model directly hit by a template (the one being attacked) suffers the full effect of the weapon, anything else covered in part or full suffers damage equal to half the weapon's effect.

This could translate into the following:

Quote:
All models fully under a template that are hit must make an armour save using the TSM of the weapon, all models only partly under a template that are hit must make an armour save with 0 TSM.


This is nice and easy to work out, as everyone touched is hit, but those not fully covered suffer more of a "glancing" blow so get the full effect of their armour.

The final idea is the most involved, and possibly the biggest departure. This idea stem from one of my biggest pet hates with GW rules and is all about clarity.

I loathe true LOS, in particular how is relates to "modelling for advantage" and scenery. All miniatures are representations. They are really kickass little sculptures of the amazing men and machines we know and love.

What they don't reflect is the dynamic movement of a living creature, or the space they might take up in the world.

In the same way, scenery (in particular area terrain such as forests) is by necessity often abstracted. Forests are more a guideline than a true 1:1 representation of a given area of trees.

As such I would favour something like this:
Quote:
Models/stands represent the rough area of control within reach of each unit. Line of sight can be drawn from any part of a miniature/base within its firing arcs (its why I like based vehicles, and dislike measuring from centre to centre as its ambiguous), to any part of an enemy miniature/base.

To prevent abuse or "banner sniping" (where a miniature can be targeted because it has banners/weapons that protrude outside of its base area) all models have a "volume" as per this table:

Infantry & Light Artillery = (x)cm
Cavalry & Walkers = (x)cm
Vehicles & Heavy Artillery = (x)cm
Superheavy Vehicles & Knights = (x)cm
Titans & Praetorians = (x)cm

Volume extends from the any part of the base of the model, to the height specified.

If a model's base is blocked by a piece of scenery, you can only target it if the scenery height is less than the volume of the target. Banners and weapons are not able to be targeted if they extend beyond the volume of the model. It is imagined a model will keep its weapons down/out of sight when not shooting, and attacking banners will do nothing to harm a model beyond its pride.


As yet, I haven't worked out the exact heights for volumes, and I may need to extend it beyond the pinning classes (though that seemed like a good jumping in point as it keeps it simple and relates to something already in existence).

if you play Infinity or WM this will feel pretty familiar.

I think it has worth, as the Epic scale miniature size has always been "fluid" and with the expansion of non GW miniatures, it gets even more interesting.

If we are to believe our games represent "reality" (as much as possible when you consider what it going on each battle) then I think this helps create a more believable, yet simultaneously cleaner game state. Unless everyone moves about in the fixed rigid poses they are sculpted in, like the Army Men in Toy Story?

This could be further expanded to scenery pieces, declaring their given height (like in 4th ed 40K I think), but this might be unnecessary.

Any thoughts or feedback?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 8:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
dancingmonkey wrote:
Three things I have been musing on adding (or in one case already have) to my games of Net Epic, which might be interesting to you folks?

One is pretty simple.
Quote:
Use the plastic GW templates where relevant for Barrage/AOE.

They are ever so slightly different to the sizes in "classic" Epic or Net:Epic. But not so far as to be particularly game breaking. The flamer is the most different, but I do feel the large flame template in Epic might be a little too much, given the scale being used. Of course, there is no small plastic flame template, so that is the one issue here.

The thinking here is that unless you are a "legacy" player, you might not have the card templates from the old boxes. Of course, Net:Epic does include paper cut outs, which are absolutely fine, but the plastic templates are a lot more durable.

Other option is to remain as is and get some laser cut acrylic or similar as we live in interesting times for wargamers and this is now quite feasible!

Two is slightly more involved. All models touched by a template are eligible for damage. Currently you have to have at least 50% of a model covered to be eligible. This was a "legacy" rule from GW, that has been removed in more recent editions of their games (not that they are necessarily better).

The reason I think this is a positive, is
A: It makes Barrage and Template quite nasty, and stops it being limited by detachments spreading out to make a template little more than a "standard" shot in only being able to hit one model
B: It removes any and all conflict about what is 50% of a model. I don't like anything that needs "debate"

As a follow up to this, and to in part reflect the traditional reading, it could be worth further tweaking the rule to bring a more "PP" concept to templates. In Warmachine/Hordes, if you fire a template, the model directly hit by a template (the one being attacked) suffers the full effect of the weapon, anything else covered in part or full suffers damage equal to half the weapon's effect.

This could translate into the following:

Quote:
All models fully under a template that are hit must make an armour save using the TSM of the weapon, all models only partly under a template that are hit must make an armour save with 0 TSM.


This is nice and easy to work out, as everyone touched is hit, but those not fully covered suffer more of a "glancing" blow so get the full effect of their armour.

The final idea is the most involved, and possibly the biggest departure. This idea stem from one of my biggest pet hates with GW rules and is all about clarity.

I loathe true LOS, in particular how is relates to "modelling for advantage" and scenery. All miniatures are representations. They are really kickass little sculptures of the amazing men and machines we know and love.

What they don't reflect is the dynamic movement of a living creature, or the space they might take up in the world.

In the same way, scenery (in particular area terrain such as forests) is by necessity often abstracted. Forests are more a guideline than a true 1:1 representation of a given area of trees.

As such I would favour something like this:
Quote:
Models/stands represent the rough area of control within reach of each unit. Line of sight can be drawn from any part of a miniature/base within its firing arcs (its why I like based vehicles, and dislike measuring from centre to centre as its ambiguous), to any part of an enemy miniature/base.

To prevent abuse or "banner sniping" (where a miniature can be targeted because it has banners/weapons that protrude outside of its base area) all models have a "volume" as per this table:

Infantry & Light Artillery = (x)cm
Cavalry & Walkers = (x)cm
Vehicles & Heavy Artillery = (x)cm
Superheavy Vehicles & Knights = (x)cm
Titans & Praetorians = (x)cm

Volume extends from the any part of the base of the model, to the height specified.

If a model's base is blocked by a piece of scenery, you can only target it if the scenery height is less than the volume of the target. Banners and weapons are not able to be targeted if they extend beyond the volume of the model. It is imagined a model will keep its weapons down/out of sight when not shooting, and attacking banners will do nothing to harm a model beyond its pride.


As yet, I haven't worked out the exact heights for volumes, and I may need to extend it beyond the pinning classes (though that seemed like a good jumping in point as it keeps it simple and relates to something already in existence).

if you play Infinity or WM this will feel pretty familiar.

I think it has worth, as the Epic scale miniature size has always been "fluid" and with the expansion of non GW miniatures, it gets even more interesting.

If we are to believe our games represent "reality" (as much as possible when you consider what it going on each battle) then I think this helps create a more believable, yet simultaneously cleaner game state. Unless everyone moves about in the fixed rigid poses they are sculpted in, like the Army Men in Toy Story?

This could be further expanded to scenery pieces, declaring their given height (like in 4th ed 40K I think), but this might be unnecessary.

Any thoughts or feedback?


Hi!

Hehe, another "hot topic" from back in the day. ;)

I believe not too long ago it was discussed in a similar vein.

I am for some kind of standardization, since you are indeed correct that it is simple to have custom acrylic template made nowadays.

The crazy array of templates not only makes it confusing, but it also sometimes throws Magnus' formula calculations off since some templates are enormous, while the game impact may not correlate as well.

Of course convincing people to let go of all those weird templates may be troublesome. ;D

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 8:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Making the Flamer templates hit anything even partially under them ludicrously powerful.

I'd point out also that while I like the idea about the barrages and surrounding units that a lot of barrage weapons do have a zero modifier in the first place. How about the primary target is hit for the normal hit to roll but all units even partially under the template are hit at -1?

I remember you talking about templates some time ago Primarch, you had a plan to get a supplier to make customs templates, is that something you are still considering?

_________________
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: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
The Bissler wrote:
Making the Flamer templates hit anything even partially under them ludicrously powerful.

I'd point out also that while I like the idea about the barrages and surrounding units that a lot of barrage weapons do have a zero modifier in the first place. How about the primary target is hit for the normal hit to roll but all units even partially under the template are hit at -1?

I remember you talking about templates some time ago Primarch, you had a plan to get a supplier to make customs templates, is that something you are still considering?


Hi!

I would consider it, but there seems to be no clear consensus on what the templates should be.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Well, the way I see it, if we were going to make up special templates they should be the ones we are used to. If we were to change the templates to the GW standard there would be no point I. Is bothering as most people would source them from there or other suppliers of such templates. ;)

_________________
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: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:31 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:49 pm
Posts: 158
Location: London (UK)
The Bissler wrote:
Making the Flamer templates hit anything even partially under them ludicrously powerful.


That's fair, though(without wanting to go too far down another rabbit hole), could it be considered the flame templates might be overly large anyway? In particular the large template, considering the scale?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
I wouldn't disagree but to perhaps reduce them to the smaller flame template would require readjusting points values (mostly because you'd have to endanger your Flamer units by getting so close to enemy units to be in range). I wouldn't be against the likes of Titan weapons such as the Inferno Gun keeping the larger template because of the height Titan weapons are wielded and potentially how much fuel it could carry in comparison to some vehicle & infantry units.

_________________
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: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1469
I seem to recall Mattman saying that, for Platinum, he was planning on converting many Flamer-type weapons (especially Infantry based ones) away from being Templates. Whether this is still his plan is debatable, but probably a good idea.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:49 pm
Posts: 158
Location: London (UK)
MagnusIlluminus wrote:
I seem to recall Mattman saying that, for Platinum, he was planning on converting many Flamer-type weapons (especially Infantry based ones) away from being Templates. Whether this is still his plan is debatable, but probably a good idea.


That's certainly an idea I could get behind.

Have the PP style (sorry!) templates been looked at also? They do a 6"/8"/10" spray that is a little narrower than the classic GW style with the round end. That would again lessen the impact of sprays by reducing the surface area affected.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:21 am
Posts: 184
Location: United Kingdom
Wait a minute here. Do flame weapons use templates in the Gold rule set? I did not know that.

It seems a bit absurd to give anything other than Titans a flamer range of anything over an inch or two though surely? I mean a 40k flamer template is just under 21cm x 8 cm at widest point, that's crazy madness even for dedicated flame units like hellhounds.

In 3rd edition 40k city fight rules they resolved flamer and blast damage with a D3 to 6, or whatever, roll off. Maybe that could work here too? I gets rid of the uncertainty of template sizes mentioned above at least.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1469
Many Flamer-type weapons in NetEpic Gold do use templates, but a few don't. Space Marines, Guard, and other 'classic' Factions mostly use templates, while the 'newer' ones (Sisters primarily) mostly don't.

I'll see if I can work up a list of just Flamer-type weapons for comparison.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
MagnusIlluminus wrote:
I seem to recall Mattman saying that, for Platinum, he was planning on converting many Flamer-type weapons (especially Infantry based ones) away from being Templates. Whether this is still his plan is debatable, but probably a good idea.


Yeah, that was something I was considering, but haven't touched or thought about epic over the last year.
But basically I was proposing that any spray type weapons smaller than a titan grade weapon should not use a template. Currently things like hellhounds could hit half a dozen stands which would represent dozens of men in games of 40k, which isn't possible. Instead I was just going to give those weapons one or two attack dice, a shortish range and the ignores cover rule, and basically treat them like normal weapon attacks.

Matt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Three proposals to consider for Platinum
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 9:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1469
The following are all of the Flame/Fire type weapons currently in NetEpic Gold, along with the few other weapons that use the large or small teardrop templates. In other words, these are the weapons that would be affected by any changes made to such templates. I have left out Psychic abilities.

It is interesting to note that there are already a large number of non-template Flamer type weapons in play.

Format and abbreviations are as per the 'Weapon costs' thread.

_ Cost ____ Weapon ___________________ stats _____________ Faction (Stand / Model)
__ 2.025_ Hand Flamers ______ 15, 1, 4+, -1, IC, 360 _____ SB (Seraphim)
__ 2.25 _ Flame _____________ 25, 1, 5+, 0, IC, 360 _______ Tz (Flamer)
__ 2.25 _ Flamespurt ________ 25, 1, 5+, 0, IC, 360 ________ Ty (Gargoyle)
__ 3.375_ Flamethrower ______ 25, 1, 4+, 0, IC, 360 _________ FM (Zealot), SB (Punisher)
__ 4.5 __ Flamer ____________ 25, 1, 4+, 0, IC, 360 __________ SM (Flamer)
__ 8.4 __ Scorcher Turret ___ 35, 2, 3+, 0, IC, 180L/R ________ O (Gargant Weapon: Great: Turret)
__ 9.45 _ Heavy Flamers _____ 35, 2, 4+, 0, IC, 360 ____________ FM/SB (Penitent Engine)
_ 10 ____ Thermal Gun _______ 25, 1, 4+, -2, IC, 360 ____________ E (Fire Dragon)
_ 11.25 _ Scorcher __________ <), 1, 4+, 0, IC, 180 ______________ O (Scorcha)
_ 12.6 __ Mork Head Scorcha _ 35, 2, 3+, 0, IC, 360 _______________ O (Gargant Weapon: Great/Slasha Head)
_ 15 ____ Thermal Gun _______ 25, 1, 4+, -2, Cm, IC, 360 ___________ E (Fire Dragon Phoenix Lord)
_ 16.9 __ Toxic Breath ______ <), <), 4+, 0, IC, 360 ________________ Ng (Shambler)
_ 20.25 _ Sound Blaster ____ <=), <=), 4+, -1, IS, noOrders, 1S, 180 _ O (Goffik Rokker Tour Wagon)
_ 22.5 __ Flamer ____________ <=), <=), 5+, 0, IC, 180 ______________ PDF (Salamander)
_ 22.5 __ Heavy Flamer ______ <=), <=), 5+, -1, noFF, 180 __________ Kh (Defiler)
_ 22.5 __ Web Spinner _______ <), <), 3+, 0, FotF, 360 ____________ E (Warp Spider)
_ 24.3 __ Flamer ____________ 20, 2, 3+, 0, Battlesuit, IC, 360 __ T (XV-8 Mk2)
_ 33.75 _ Blood Cannon ______ <=), <=), 4+, -1, IC, noFF, 180 ___ Kh (Cauldron of Blood)
_ 33.75 _ Fire Thrower ______ <=), <=), 4+, 0, IC, 180 _________ G/TL (Hellhound)
_ 33.75 _ Inferno Gun _______ <=), <=), 4+, 0, IC, 180 _________ TL (Titan Weapon)
_ 33.75 _ Web Spinners ______ <), <), 3+, 0, Cm, FotF, 360 _____ E (Warp Spider Phoenix Lord)
_ 47.3 __ Snapper Steam Blast \15/, \15/, 2+, 0, IC, 90 ________ O (Gargant Weapon: Great/Slasha Belly)
_ 50.625_ Flamer ____________ <=), <=), 4+, 0, IC, 360 _________ SB (Land Speeder Justifier), SM (Combat Scatolo)
_ 50.625_ Firethrower _______ <=), <=), 4+, 0, IC, aFF, 180 ____ SQ (Dragon Battlecar)
_ 50.625_ Heavy Flamer ______ <=), <=), 4+, 0, IC, Turret ______ SB (Immolator)
_ 50.625_ Scorcha ___________ <=), <=), 4+, 0, IC, Turret ______ O (Bowelburna)
_ 67.5 __ Meltacannon ______ <=), <=), 4+, -1, IC, 180 _________ SQ (Hellworm)
_ 75.9375 Heavy Flamer _____ <=), <=), 4+, 0, Cm, IC, Turret ___ SB (Immolator HQ)
_ 90 ____ Flame Cannon _____ <=), <=), 4+, -1, DstBld, 180 _____ Tz (Doom Wing,Firelord)
_120 ____ Stream of Corruption <), <), 3+, na, Cm, 180 _________ Ng (Great Unclean One)
_184 ____ Pyro-Acid Spray __ <$), <$), 3+, -2, DmgBld, IC, 180 _ Ty (Scythed Hierodule, Titan Weapon: Arm)
_270 ____ Breath of Nurgle _ <=), <=), 4+, na, IC, 180 _________ Ng (Breath of Nurgle)
1215 ____ Sonic Disruptor __ LOS, <=), 2+, na(5+), Cm, IC, 180 _ G/TL (AMO Mars)

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 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