I think you and I are pretty much on the same page, for the most part. At least enough we could start to formalize a framework to put out for playtesting. Magnus has an interesting point which I will explore below.

Now as far as formations, aside from Hive Mind and Chain of Command are there any rules that force a support or special card to stick close to its company? Or even have the same orders?

I can't think of any (but I don't claim to be an expert in every army).
The existing structure still works and the orders can be per detachment, as most of the time, Arial combat units seem to be brought as Support cards anyway, but adding some Air companies would be a good thing as well.

_________________
MadMagician
Epic Tyranids

Magnus, I agree with you on restriction to roles overall, but am trying to eliminate one layer of complexity. Let me do some thinking out loud here.

Do you think it would be harder for players to remember the functions of say 7-9 orders vs 4-5 roles with 7-9 total interpretations of the normal counters?

The more I think about it (and by think I mean 'the closer I get to the bottom of my coffee cup this morning') the more I think just doing, say, 7-9 new "Flight orders" is the best way to go (the contextual clues in naming would decrease trips to the rulebook). Then we restrict the orders down to say, 4 or 5 max, based on unit type (defined in unit chart) so that each of the types has a few that are specific to it (Lets call them "In theatre"), and then the rest are generic (Out of theatre).

Tactical Bombers
"Interdict" (Bombers Only) - a deep strike bombing run, smart weapon etc. basically going after 1 target deep in enemy side of table.
"carpet bomb" (Bombers and Fighter/Bombers only) - barrage attack near to skirmish line

Fighter/Bombers (Includes Multi-role, Ground Attack)
"close support" (Fighter/Bombers Only) - Tank plinking, whatever you call it when an AC-130 uses its cannons to take care of business while circling around an objective.
"carpet bomb" (Bombers and Fighter/Bombers only) - barrage attack near to skirmish line

Air Superiority Fighters (Includes all non-bomb carrying fighters)
"Dogfight" (Or should this be the CC equivilant?)
"Intercept" (Air Superiority Only) - Fighter can call an intercept like a snap fire (with proper orders) Fighter will bail out of any other operation to intercept the flight path of whatever it is going after

Transports
"Land" (Transport only) - Land to drop off troops, some firing to suppress hostiles in the LZ
"Air Drop" (Transport Only) - low and slow flight to deploy paratroopers.

Any Flier (Out of theatre)
"strafe" (charge-esque)? - fast flight from one edge to other attack along flight path, limited turns
"Tactical Strike" (Advance-esque)? - moderately fast flight from one edge to other attack along flight path, limited turns.
"Surgical Strike" (Sort of like a First Fire) - "High flight" over the battlefield sort of like first fire?

In Theatre orders keep the unit above the table and subject to most fire ( I still like the high low concept too, just haven't figured how to integrate it fully) Out of theatre orders are only subject to interception and AA snap fire.

Moving from "in theatre" to "out of theatre" orders and vice versa would incur some sort of penalty (unit unable to act that turn or perhaps negative modifiers) as the unit assumed to be re-positioning or reforming for a new type of attack.

As far as the Forward Air control concept goes, lets table that for now. There really aren't suitable units in most armies for the aerial role and really it is mainly a modifier or command unit at the end of the day. We can revisit
it later if we want.

_________________
MadMagician
Epic Tyranids

Hi!

I've been thinking for some time in eliminating the forward observer and funneling all that into the HQ/command units. Increase their cost and get rid of redundant units. Thoughts on that?

The problem with restriction of operation missions is if you don't have any eligible missions, what do you do with those fliers? Unless one of the missions is generic enough to offer something to do most of the time.

Also, isn't it easier to just have all missions available instead of making lists of restrictions for armies or specific types of aircraft?

The 3 order structure in each air mission type is relatively easy to remember, I just wonder if restrictions are worth the time investment, or if people will even use them. Perhaps a default of all missions and an alternate option of restriction?

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Hi!

I think adding air companies would be helpful, my main thought right know if how many "air mission" orders does a army get to issue in a turn? As many as needed? One per company? Another ratio, like per points?

I think the ratio of one air mission order per company "may" be good. I don't necessarily agree that mission orders should be that "plentiful". Some rationing of them can lead to interesting and fun decision making if there aren't enough orders to go around and the player must prioritize.

You could even have them degrade as companies are broken and command and control suffers.

Thoughts?

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Hi!

You beat me to it.

My next step was to "prune" the original options list of actions per mission. Once the issue on how operational missions are assigned is dealt with, then fliers on those missions can be limited to one or two options to execute.

Let us expound more on this line of thought and see what we can come up with.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

This is odd for me to say, but I disagree about having Air Companies. The focus of the Epic game is on ground-based models and their interactions, and I feel it should remain so. Aircraft should remain a secondary concern at best, there to support the ground troops. While most of the above does just that, allowing companies of aircraft could begin to shift the focus of the game away from the ground troops. While a game centered around aircraft and their airborne combat interactions could be interesting, it is outside the bounds of Epic. Just my opinion of course.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

An opinion I happen to agree with.

I also agree with Primarch about getting rid of forward observers. I don't think I've seen anyone use them so I don't know if it's worth having them in the lists. Monitoring which units didn't fire so they can act as spotters is also a pain in the arse. I don't know if going back to the old system of anyone can spot and also fire would be palatable to the community though.

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Hi!

Problem with the old system was it really almost impossible for "something" not to have line of sight to a particular spot. So limiting them was the goal.

In my opinion, they should just go to command units as a command function. Hq/command units don't really act like such in net epic anyway, so at least this gives them some semblance of it.

As for air companies, well, there "companies" for almost everything in the game (even titans have Battlegroups), I see no real reason to have aerial ones as well. Given their ultimate cost though, I don't expect them to be "cheap".

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

+1 for this. Gives HQ a valuable function to perform, and adds a dimension to their role.

On flyers, I have no problem with the old orders, provided the fliers, and the aa ground units are costed appropriately.
But please continue with the discussion. I am interested in what you guys will come up with.

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/

I'm not sure how I feel about Forward Observers. One issue with giving the ability to all Command and/or HQ models is, does that include Imperial Guard / PDF Section HQ's? If it does, then they are right back to being able to see just about every spot on the battlefield. If not, then people will ask why not? They are HQ models after all, thus logically they should have it. I suppose that that could be an advantage to the Chain-of-Command rules. Specifically, that they CAN relay such info through their comm channels more easily than most other armies, and this would make IG / PDF artillery much more useful. As they are in the fluff. Hmm, this may just be a good idea after all.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

You'd need to retain forward observers for the Eldar since they don't have HQ units. Same possibly for Chaos although I know some units have Champions.

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

So much to respond to and think about and today is going to be a bit busy from a work perspective, so let me hit a few quick things

Forward Observers - I could take or leave them. From a game perspective, can we make them do a bit more to add flavor? Indirect fire? I definitely could see giving the F.O. Ability to HQ by default and adding in Forward Observers for Armies that are HQ light. I also still like the possibility of an HQ aircraft/AWACS/FAC type thing. and this could make that a simpler drop in.

Missions - How do you feel about the role based missions being considered "In theatre" and generic Missions being considered "Out of Theatre", in a similar fashion to what I laid out in my response to Mangus? 2 or 3 orders based on "Role" and 3-4 "Generic" orders (they don't all have to be "out of theatre" either. "Buzz 'round in circled and bomb 'em" would be a perfectly acceptable generic order!

I guess I get hung up on the details in a few ways, I mean could a Fighter/Bomber perform Transport/Air Drop Missions? On the other hand, Why couldn't you have a T-Hawk Dust off and start strafing?

What were your ideas for pruning? Was it along the lines of what I put put there?

Air Companies - I can argue both sides of this, TBH. I guess my main point is that anything done rule-wise should provide a framework and guardrails for future creativity and therefore be open. I know that my main goal here is to fix the orders framework and thus the utility and balancing of fliers, without making it too much of a metagame. I just know that since the thunderbrick was introduced, fliers haven't worked and at this point the cat is out of the bag.


For now, I would love to see a bit of brainstorming on the role specific orders. When my week frees up, I will do a re-write and post it up, in a more structured fashion.

_________________
MadMagician
Epic Tyranids

At first I read this as limited activation (which I hate BTW). As far as limiting the number of "air mission" orders, I could see it being per Card. If companies come to pass, then I wouldn't think that a commander would suddenly peel off fighters from the bombers they are escorting, however I could see a support card of fighters escorting in a few transports and peeling off once the drop happens, joining the air superiority fight while the transport starts providing CAS or strafing.

_________________
MadMagician
Epic Tyranids

I just realized another thing that has been bothering me about the proposed new roles and missions, but could not quite put to words. It is something that is core to the game that your new rules make Flyers immune to, and that just seems wrong to me. It is fitting for Flyers, but it just doesn't seem right for Epic. Specifically:

When a model leaves the board, it is out of the game and VP are awarded as if it were destroyed.

Your new missions have a lot of instances where this is ignored. Personally, I think that this is too big of a change from the standard rules and makes air forces even more powerful than they already are. We should not be making them more powerful, as they are already more powerful than standard models, and that is why they are considered broken as they are now. Adding to that just makes it worse.

In other words, I think that Flyers should not be allowed to return to play if they leave the board. They should be treated like other models and considered destroyed.
_____________

TheBissler has a good point. Many armies just do not have the plethora of Command models that the Guard or Marines do, thus eliminating the Forward Observer formation from all armies would be seriously harmful to many armies. Thus it is probably a bad idea.

On the other hand, I could see adding the FO ability to Command Aircraft specifically, and not just all Command/HQ models, for the purpose of giving the Command Aircraft more utility. On the other hand, at least in the modern day, most aircraft are commanded from ground locations generally well outside the theater of operations anyway, so likely even if aircraft do get Companies they would probably not include Command models as such. Any such Companies for Guard or PDF would of course be Independent, and thus ignore Chain-of-Command limitations.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Hi!

There is some rationale to limit it to company HQ/command and higher. Not section HQ's. Such command and control usually is at the upper echelons.

However this could be an "IG" advantage and thus we could give it to all HQ levels.

If push came to shove, I'd be okay with the IG chain of command having it right down to the section HQ's.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules