Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

If you could change the rules...

 Post subject: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:59 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3225
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
That the community can produce new lists even if the game is not supported anymore is very obvious. But something that seems to be very taboo is the changing of the rules. That's often reffered to as a can of worms that shouldn't be opened. But I'm just curious what rules people around the globe think should be changed and/or clarified in order to make epic better (in their view).

Not so much interested in a heated debate where I tell you that your suggestion is crap and that i know best. Just interested in peoples ideas about what rules are bad/wrong/unclear and what their sollutions to the particular rule would look like. I've seen some really clever suggestions and ideas from time to time on this forum and it would be great to see them gathered in one thread.

So please share your ideas ladies and gentlemen!

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:00 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3225
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
I can start:

I think the following rule...

"A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly
towards the closest enemy unit. It may move into base contact
if close enough, and as long as the enemy is not already in
contact with two defending units. Units can choose not to
counter charge if they wish, but if they do counter charge they
must head towards the nearest enemy"

Should be changed to:

"A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly
towards the closest or the assaulting enemy unit. It may move into base contact
if close enough, and as long as the enemy is not already in
contact with two defending units. Units can choose not to
counter charge if they wish, but if they do counter charge they
must head towards the nearest enemy or the assaulting enemy unit.

Why? Because i think this rule creates some irritating scenarios where one side has no chance at all to defend itself in assaults and the outcome is almost automatic. I get that clipping assaults is a tactic widely used, i just dont think it's very good since it hurts CC-orientated units alot more than FF-units and CC-units is already significally worse than FF units i the game.
With the changed wording i think CC-units would be a little more dangerous to assault.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:14 pm
Posts: 434
Location: Galicia, Spain
In order to declare enemy formations intermingled, all of them must have at least one unit in range (15cm) and LoS.

Or... just get rid of intermingled completely.

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:45 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:42 pm
Posts: 673
Location: Bundaberg, QLD, Australia
Hi All..

First off thank you mordoten for doing this..Yes it was on my to do list..

Rule sets need to evolve to remain "fresh" and we don't need to do a complete rewrite..Look, I think the main rule book can tweak to be clearer and less ambiguous..So small changes etc..

I have sticky the page for you..so that it easy to find..

I will also say treat each other with respect..when replying...

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 7:56 pm
Posts: 507
Location: Lancaster, PA
The 5 minute warm up should be extended to 10 minutes. And a two beer minimum requirement.

handicaps

winners pay for the beer the next time

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2379
Location: UK
Oh I would first just rewrite the rulebook not to change rules, but to write them in formal description logic axioms.


Kidding! Ish.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:08 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8600
Location: Manalapan, FL
I'd start with rewriting everything in ancient Sumerian to remove language bias. Ok no... that's just dumb. We should use Esperanto ;)

Jokes aside:

I don't think there's much that should be changed. They definitely could use rewriting for clarity. Supposedly they were written by English native speaker but...

If I was to change something by Fiat/handwavium then stuff like=>
-Far more special keywords and redaction of existing ones. Examples like Totem (nearby rally bonus) or Stable Platform (weapon doesn't havealty on double shooting). RA and IS should have the (re)roll value specified on the ability. eg IS(5+)

-D10 or 12's. Resign the d6 to the dustbin of history. Dice roll apps are everywhere nowadays.

-douche the aerospace rules. They're terribad. Use a tried a true idea like line strafing (it works)

-Sime type of CC oriented transport rules, like Assault Transport sorta but in epic. Those poor 'zerkers need a boost :)

-oh and something that actually uses the area effect template that the rulebook hinted would be used in the future.

_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As Marine Army Champion

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:03 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:42 pm
Posts: 673
Location: Bundaberg, QLD, Australia
OK, the following...

1) Counter charge move, so I do like want mordoten has put forward….
2) Fliers …In fact the whole section could really do with work over…..
3) Transport rule…remove the restriction on embarking and disembarking in the same move (entirely)…so some kind of movement penalty maybe…. 5cms of movement to both the transport and element when embarking or disembarking. …
4) Limit the range on hack downs…I actually think hack downs should only be limited to engaged units (i.e. within 15cm)…this more to do with the clipping assault.
5) Broken Fearless units and hack downs....1 fearless unit lost for every 2 hack downs…W/E engines (Fearless) are the sticky point, so maybe they are not affected….

thanks for reading..

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:38 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3225
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
I'm very interested in hearing how you guys would do the flyer rules.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:09 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:42 pm
Posts: 673
Location: Bundaberg, QLD, Australia
mordoten wrote:
I'm very interested in hearing how you guys would do the flyer rules.


"In fact the whole section could really do with work over".. Sorry general Statement that can taken couple ways. When I wrote it, I was think " lets make the section clear"...Now that you have ask the question, I will add the following...

I do like some of the options that are in the EPIC Fathomless Destruction (ver 2.0), that cover aircraft and Air Transport… I believe he is on a newer version at the moment and so there may have been some changes on the aircraft again. He has not made that available in English yet…

He has many interesting ideas, which I would like to test….

Link…..Four page thread…

viewtopic.php?f=69&t=28874&hilit=Fathomless+Destruction

If you read through, you will find, want I gather is Jimmy’s idea..…although he may have tweak, since then…

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 739
Location: San Francisco, CA
I'd like the shooting player to be able to choose whether tanks or personnel get hit by MW weapons. Semajnollissor suggested in a previous thread that MW be turned into a weapon attribute that could be applied to AP, AT, or both (e.g. "AP4+ (MW), AT5+") and that would have a similar effect and would allow split AP/AT values.

Help CC. The proposed counter-charge change and the idea of reducing (or even eliminating!) hackdowns from units in FF range would help with that.

Scouts' zone of control has been a topic of discussion but I don't have a solution to that myself. I haven't been a victim of scouts hiding 10cm in terrain yet…

I'd like to drop the blast marker for coming under fire. I like the -1 to activate, and I realize that coming under fire should be important, but there are a ton of 3-unit formations in this game and they break after one casualty. They're not much fun but there are so many that it's easier to change the rule than the lists. (Also, it's difficult to get more minis.)

Each turn, let armies 'pass' instead of taking an activation for every formation worth more than 500 points at the start of said turn. Make large companies, and company upgrades, worthwhile for once.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2379
Location: UK
I quite like the hackdowns idea. Feels right that to get the huge swing benefits of assaults you need to CC. This way it will be tiered:

Shoot and you will do more limited damage but at no risk.
Firefight and you can do a decent amount of damage and break the enemy, but some risk of sustaining damage and being broken yourself. You control the risk/reward.
CC and you can wipe out the enemy, but your units are all at risk so likely to take damage yourself.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:28 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8440
Location: Worcester, MA
carlisimo109 wrote:
I'd like the shooting player to be able to choose whether tanks or personnel get hit by MW weapons. Semajnollissor suggested in a previous thread that MW be turned into a weapon attribute that could be applied to AP, AT, or both (e.g. "AP4+ (MW), AT5+") and that would have a similar effect and would allow split AP/AT values.


This is actually doable now:

Code:
WEAPONS   RANGE  FIREPOWER
------------------------------
Weapon X  15cm   AP4+/AT5+, MW
Weapon Y  15cm   AP5+, TK(6)
      or  15cm   AT5+, MW

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15 | Raven Guard 2018-04-23


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8600
Location: Manalapan, FL
Dave is right. Just AFAIK we don't do that anywhere (or do we?)

_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As Marine Army Champion

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2379
Location: UK
2.2.6:

Shooting Attacks: Macro-weapons that can be used for shooting attacks do not have AP or AT firepower values. Instead they have a macro-weapon value (abbreviated to MW). For example, the volcano cannon mounted on an Imperial Warlord Titan has a fire value of MW 2+. You should roll to hit normally when firing a macro-weapon. Macro-weapons can affect any type of target, so the volcano cannon mentioned above would hit any type of target on a roll of 2+.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


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