Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor

 Post subject: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:54 pm
Posts: 1134
Location: Southampton - UK
So one of the things I've always found weird with Epic in general was the close assault factor. No matter what your opponent was you were always that good again them. No variance, no weakness or no strengths..

A close combat terminator with lightning claws was equally good against a titan as it was a grot..

Suggestion -

Close assault factors for different unit types.

So each model would have more than one CAF factor. I would suggest initially it be limited to infantry and vehicles but you could extend it to Knights/Titan etc.

So a lightning claw terminator would be -

CAF Infantry - +7
CAF Vehicles - 0

So onto the next set of thoughts for close assault..

Vehicles especially super heavies had really good close combat abilities, but actually they don't! They have really good close in fire fight abilities, but we already represent that in the point defence and their guns. It's almost like we are giving them two bites at the cherry, especially things like storm hammers! I shoot you with my massive amounts of point defence then hit you with a silly high CAF as well.

We've recently been seeing rhino rushing from marine players. Just take the 10 rhinos from a company and charge them at units, the base 0 CAF and out numbering wears down even elite combat units.. I find it very difficult to see how a rhino would beat up on troops apart from ramming them or shooting them. Other things like ork and dark eldar vehicles will have spikes to hurt infantry.

I'm not sure what to do about this to be honest, perhaps have a firefight ability to replace CAF on vehicles which incorporates the point defence value and any extras it might have to aid its defence (electrified hull, tank commander sticking head out of turret and swinging power sword) that is measured against the CAF of the attacking unit.

Anyway food for thought!

Does CAF make sense to people? I know it's abstracted but it just doesn't feel right a lot of the time.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

What you suggest is mechanically similar (although for an entirely different reason) to what was done in SM1. Where mostly vehicles had to CAF values. One when overrunning infantry and another for when it was attacked by infantry (not overrunning).

Titans and Praetorians were "fixed: in this sense making them virtually immune to close assault from infantry (point defense weapons). However the concept was never extended beyond that.

I'll see what others have to say, since I am all too eager to "scrap" the old system for something totally "new". ;)

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1469
Interesting thoughts.

Perhaps a simpler way to do that would be to apply a penalty to the CAF value for each Pinning Class the target is above the attacker's. For example, if the penalty was -2 per step, then a Terminator (PC1) attacking a Titan (PC5) would take a -8 to it's effective CAF value. On the other hand, a Titan attacking a Terminator would suffer no penalty.

This would also allow the actual CAF values of high Pinning Class models to be reduced to more reasonable values, which would lower their costs.

A slightly different method would be to apply a penalty to effective CAF for every step of Pinning Class different than the attacker's, regardless of direction. Possibly with different values based on direction. For example, the values could be -3 per step above & -1 per step below. In this method, a Titan would take a penalty when attacking a Terminator stand. This would encourage players to mostly Close Assault targets of similar Pinning Classes.

We could also create one or more new Special Abilities to allow for ignoring the penalty for special characters. For example, a character known for their expertise in battling Vehicles could have a "Tank Hunter" ability which allows the model to ignore the CAF penalty when attacking Vehicle class models. Such an ability could also be useful for the Ork Tankbusta troops (I've forgotten their Ork name at the moment).

I find it odd that you specifically mention the Lightning Claw, as that weapon is specifically built for ripping through armored targets with ease. Personally, I'd be inclined to give such troops a SA that at least reduces - if not ignores - any CAF penalty for attacking armored targets.


As a different idea, we could separate CAF up into two values: Assault and Defense. This would allow for giving each rating a type and different Assault types could have modifiers when used against various Defense types. For example, Assault could have types of: Ballistic (pistols), Slam (Power Fist, etc), Rip (Claws, swords, etc), Power (modifies other types), etc. Defense could have: Armor, Force (fields, etc), Skin, Warp, etc. As an example of modifiers, the combination of Power & Rip (for Lightning Claws, Power Swords, etc) could get a bonus vs Armor type Defense to show it's heightened ability to deal with that.

That may be too much detail for many people.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:54 pm
Posts: 1134
Location: Southampton - UK
MagnusIlluminus wrote:
I find it odd that you specifically mention the Lightning Claw, as that weapon is specifically built for ripping through armored targets with ease. Personally, I'd be inclined to give such troops a SA that at least reduces - if not ignores - any CAF penalty for attacking armored targets.


I'm basing lightning claws off my last 40k view on them. Essentially the models that had them equipped were S4 on the whole so had minimal chance of damaging vehicles (AV10 on the rear) or no chance at all (Anything with AV11+) You needed to take thunder hammers in the unit to ensure you could deal with heavily armoured vehicles.

Infantry armour they excelled at punching through, but only up to marine equivalent, not terminator equivalent.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1469
Oh? Hmm. Well, your knowledge of W40K is probably more recent than mine (1st to 3rd editions). I was basing my assessment of the Claws on their Dawn of War appearances, which is possibly not the best reference.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:27 pm
Posts: 34
Just my few cents:

The speed and ease of which NetEpics close assault phase is resolved is one of the best things in the game. Therefore, I think you should be cautious about adding further complexity to the rules. If you have to look up things such as to hit modifiers etc. in each assault phase, that would slow down the game.

As a second note, I think infantry stands should rip vehicles apart with ease in close assault. Ask any tank commander now or 40K years from now, the last thing you want is infantry stuffing grenades down your exhaust pipes. As the rules are now, higher pinning classes can just move out of c.c. - but if they chose not to do so, or get stuck in by accident - they should be punished.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:41 pm
Posts: 190
Hi guys
Here is my house rules system to figure out CC values based on 40k
edited to change down to a d6

Close combat 2d6
MODIFIERS (All stack)

Elite/veteran troops/command +1
Orcs +1
Marines +1
Marines vehicles +1
ImpGuard/eldar +0
Tyranids +1
Deamons +1
Khorne +1
Tau/gretchen -1
Special attack +1
1 cc pistol weapon +1
Armed with only cc weapons +2 ( X 2 for superheavy walkers)
Force/power cc weapon +2 ( X 2 superheavy walkers)
Two power weapons +2 ( X 2 superheavy walkers )
Bigger than human +2
Two wounds per model +1
Three or more wounds per model +2
Vehicle sized (rhino) creature +4
Gargantuan creature +8

WALKERS
Dreadnaught +1
Heavy dreadnaught +2

SUPERHEAVY WALKERS
Knights +4
Light scout titans +8
Scout titans +10
Reaver/slasha/Phantoms +15
Warlords/greatgargant +20
Imperator +30


VEHICLES
small guns / arty platforms -2
Small (bike) +0
Rhino/chimera/ +0
Med tank Leman Russ Predator +1
Hvy Tank (landraider) +2
Super hvy tank +6
1+ armour all round +3 ( hard to kill in cc )
1+ frontal armour +1

Samples
Ogryn
ccweapon (shotgun/club) +2
large +2
Three or more wounds per model +2
= +6

Banshee
eldar +0
elite +1
cc weapon +2
special attack +1
power weapon +2
= +6

Terminator
marine +1
elite +1
cc weapon +2
power weapon +2
two wounds +1
= +7 (+9 with lightning claws/+7 with stormhammer)

Orc Nob
Orc +1
2 wounds +1
veteran +1
ccweapon +2
=+5

Grazghkull thraka
orc +1
3 wounds +2
vet +1
cc weapon +2
power weapon +2
Big +2
= +10

spacemarine dread with a power fist
marine +1
vet +1
ccweapon +2
dreadnaught +1
power weapon +2
=+7
Reaver titan with a powerfist
reaver +15
ccweapon +4
power +4
= +24

Landraider
marine +1
hvy tank +2
all around armour +3
= +6

What do you think?


Last edited by SquatWarlord on Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:40 am, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1469
Interesting. Definitely has potential to be useful for converting.

I'm not sure I agree with the penalty when attacking, but I'll keep an open mind. Can you explain your reasoning behind that?

Did you see the other thread about converting from W40K?

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:41 pm
Posts: 190
Hi
I reduced the cc in half based on 40k 7th and 8th editions rules that make vehicles poor cc troops
in 7th vehicles can ram other vehicles or tankshock infantry.

Ramming and tankshock both have to charge in straight no turns.
Rams use armor values and speed to determine armor penetration each vehicle can take hits at the same time.

Tankshock (not all vehicles can do it) vrs infantry makes them take a moral test if passed one model can cc the tank while the rest avoid it.
That single model can try to blow up the tank (death or glory) if he fails he dies(only one guy)
If the infantry fail the moral test they fallback.
So not much cc going on here.
Epic has 5 infantry models per stand so not much will happen.

In 8th edition they give vehicles Weapon skill
A tactical spacemarine hits with his weapon skill at 3+ on a D6
A landraider,rhino, whirlwind, stalker,predator,vindicator, all hit on a 6+
bikes hit on a 3+ as they are considered mobile infantry.

Imperial guard infantry, sentinals,roughriders all hit on 4+
superheavy tanks on 5+
lemun russ and arty hit on 6+

So for house rules I gave them 1/2cc if they try to charge.
I only gave points to cc values for weapons that affect infantry flamers ,bolters, autocannon, assault cannon, etc .
These weapons can track small targets larger weapons like battlecannon plasma cannons take longer to charge/ aim so are not included in cc values.
This is why


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1469
Your first sentence makes sense to me, but the rest of it really does not. This is probably because I am unfamiliar with current W40K rules though.

Ramming and Tankshock are too detailed for Epic to worry about, these are just generalized into the CAF.

CC is not only about fighting Infantry. It is about any model fighting any other model in close quarters. Still, most weapons should not be included in the CAF as they have their own stats. Probably the only weapons that should be counted toward it would be those that would be converted into PD. Probably just "Bolter" or equivalent, and not anything more powerful like Autocannon, Assault Cannon, Flamers, etc. In my opinion anyway.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:41 pm
Posts: 190
"Ramming and Tankshock are too detailed for Epic to worry about, these are just generalized into the CAF."

I was just trying to show how bad tanks are in cc

If a spacemarine landraider attacks in cc it can only hit on a d6 with a 6
A spacemarine will hit on 3 or higher = 4 times better

I you don't like counting 1/2 I will just drop all the cc modifiers to start.
Lets use 2 barrels on the model instead of one the result is

Landraider standard
marine +1
hvy tank +2
1 hvy bolter +1
=+4

Landraider Redeemer
marine +1
hvy tank +2
2 flamers +2
2 assault cannon +2
= +7

Flamers, bolters, assault cannon, hvy stubbers are anti infantry so should be counted.
Auto cannon think a 40mm bofors WW2 aa gun it was a bertter antitank gun than a 2lb and with he shell a devastating anti infrantry ( at least this is how I view an auto cannon for 40k)

PD I don't use PD you can only fire in cc (in defence) on first fire orders or command units with my house rules
PD was a generic way to represent anti infantry weapons.


Baneblade (Netpeic gold)
10 cm
Save: 1+
CAF: +8
Weapon Range Shoot
Battlecannon* 75cm 2d 4+ (-2)
Lascannon 75cm 2d 5+ (-1)
PD 10

My house rules
Baneblade Hull points 3

Move 10cm
Armour 1+ (d12)
CAF +8 (reduced like above examples)
Hull points 3
Weapon range shoot All hit on 8+(d12)
Baneblade cannon 72cm Save -3 6cm template
Co-axial autocannon 48cm Save -2( has to hit same target as maingun)
Demolisher cannon 24cm Save -4 6cm template
2 x Lazcannon 48cm Save -3
3 x Heavybolter 36cm Save -1
Heavy stubba 36cm Save 0

I use more detail and I use the exact 40k weapons ranges.
EDIT
Or for Netepic with d6

Move 10cm
Armour 1+ (d6)
CAF +8 (reduced like above examples)
Weapon range shoot All hit on 5+
Baneblade cannon 72cm Save -2 6cm template
Co-axial autocannon 48cm Save -1( has to hit same target as maingun)
Demolisher cannon 24cm Save -2 6cm template
2 x Lazcannon 48cm Save -2
PD 7


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1469
SquatWarlord wrote:
Flamers, bolters, assault cannon, hvy stubbers are anti infantry so should be counted.


Why exactly do you think that CC is only about fighting against Infantry? Seriously, why? And no, those weapons are not "anti-Infantry" as they can be used against - and can destroy - any model in the game, depending on TSM vs Save.

If a tank, or any model, is bad in CC is reflected by its assigned CAF score. Of course, tanks and other armored targets have an added vulnerability in CC that they cannot make an Armor Save to avoid a hit in CC. Thus they already have that downside. Adding more downsides is really not necessary.

How can you not use PD? It is an integral part of NetEpic. If you aren't using PD, you aren't playing NetEpic. Wait, first you say you don't use it, then you say that you use it in a limited way. Make up your mind. Either you use it or you don't. You cannot both use it and not use it.

One other thing. Would you please use punctuation in every sentence. Some of your sentences are very difficult to interpret without it.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:41 pm
Posts: 190
Why exactly do you think that CC is only about fighting against Infantry? Seriously, why? And no, those weapons are not "anti-Infantry" as they can be used against - and can destroy - any model in the game, depending on TSM vs Save.

CC represents vehicles either ramming or tankshocking or using a crap weaponskill statistic depending on what version of 40k you reference.
Vehicles don't have a weaponskill statistic until 8th edition 40k only things with arms and legs have a weaponskill.
So that means only infantry and walkers can fight in cc.
Yes flamethrowers and machine guns are used primarily to kill infantry.
In a game we let them shoot anything because it wouldn't be much fun otherwise.

Yes I keep quoting 40k because it is current, up to date and the source of inspiration for epic.

If a tank, or any model, is bad in CC is reflected by its assigned CAF score. Of course, tanks and other armored targets have an added vulnerability in CC that they cannot make an Armor Save to avoid a hit in CC. Thus they already have that downside. Adding more downsides is really not necessary.

This is how its played in netepic in 40K even if the vehicle gets cc it will get an armour save.
I use this system.
do cc as normal CAF + 2D6
For every 2 points (round up) you win the fight = -1 to armoursave
so if a landraider caf 3 rolls 4 =7
and an ork boy caf 1 rolls a 11 =12
12-7=5 =-3
the landraider makes an armour save with a -3
This represents 40k much better than the current system

How can you not use PD? It is an integral part of NetEpic. If you aren't using PD, you aren't playing NetEpic. Wait, first you say you don't use it, then you say that you use it in a limited way. Make up your mind. Either you use it or you don't. You cannot both use it and not use it.

I use a modified version of net epic its basically 40k in epic scale it is much more detailed.
I said I don't use PD as written I consider it too generic.
I have added specific weapons values so these can shoot as normal or be used only in firstfire like the original spacemarine.
It is easy to switch these back to PD if that is what you like, it is simpler and easier to use for large games.

I'm confused since early 2015 you guys have been talking about updating this game and using 2d6 systems or d20's now you say only d6 and it seems now that you don't want to change alot of things .
There is alot of debate.

I'll see what others have to say, since I am all too eager to "scrap" the old system for something totally "new". ;)

Primarch



Do you want change? (The last post above mine was in 2016)
Do you want updated formations and unit stats?
I have it done already tell me what dice you want to use I can convert my formulas to fit.
If you want a d10//d12/d20 no problem
If you want a d6 it can work but not ideal due to the limited range.

I have updated netepic myself to include all of the new formations and units.
I have an extensive forgeworld/gamesworkshop book library for reference.
I have worked on a published ruleset
I am not touching the turn sequence or core rules.
I don't even want to look at your points system.
If you want to keep PD I can make it work.
I will change/add all ranges, CAF, armour saves and unit formations to current 40k information.

Please let me know.
Cheers


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core rules suggestion - Close Assault Factor
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1469
Ah, well, I guess we are done here then. As you admitted to above, you are no longer playing NetEpic, as you have heavily modified several things. Thus whatever you have is not NetEpic, and not relevant. In my opinion anyway.

There WAS a lot of debate. Was. As you should have noticed, all of the various debates eventually resulted in a "no change" consensus. While primarch did post that specific bit, nearly everyone else who has ever voiced an opinion here has stated that they like NetEpic Gold just the way it is, D6 and all.

Another issue is that 2nd edition Epic, and thus NetEpic, is not intended to be W40K in a different scale. That was the focus of 3rd edition Epic, and that system was almost universally reviled by Epic players. While W40K is focused on a couple of squads fighting against a couple of enemy squads, Epic is focused on large armies clashing. As such, some of the nitty gritty details in W40K get generalized in Epic. This is fine and is working as intended.

Personally, I don't want to be playing W40K in a different scale. If I want to play W40K, I will play W40K. I play NetEpic to play Epic. I would hazard to say that the majority of the people who post in this section of the forum would agree with that, as otherwise they would be playing 3rd edition Epic instead.

If you would like to post the formations and models (in a D6 compatible format) that you have converted, please go ahead and do so. People can then look at them and determine whether or not they should be used for NetEpic Platinum. It would be appreciated if you were to determine the points values for said models and formations by using the Points Formula, as that is intended to be the standard for Platinum, but if you are unable to do so, then I should be able to do that myself.

If you do post any further house rules or converted models and formations, please start new threads for them. Thanks.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 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