Hi all,

Well after a rather long gap in playing (5-6 years!) I'm back having managed to persuade one of my gaming group to give NetEpic another go.

We played a small couple of games yesterday and found we had a couple queries regards some rules..

1 - The 1 cm rule gap..

Unit A engages unit B in close combat. To do so unit A's models must end their movement within 1 cm of Unit C's models, unit C is not involved in the close combat. Is that allowed? With the spheres of influence optional rule being 3 cm these days I presume not? But does that lead to unassaultable units?

2 - pile in and consolidation moves

We've been playing 40k for years so were slightly confused around the close combat movement stages. Essentially I couldn't get my head around the way we are meant to get all the models into base to base contact.

I think we missed something which my friend pointed out later.

We couldn't find a pile in move (to bring models into b2b at the start of the combat) or a consolidate move (to bring them back into coherency and b2b at the end of the combat) but we now think that relates to the outnumbering moves? is that right?

3 VPs for objectives.

Now I thought Vp's for objectives were calculated each turn and then added to the kills, but the way the rules read its calculate each turn but exclude prior turns Vp's totals? I cannot remember playing it that way before but it definitely reads that way. Am I going senile in my old age, is that how we've always played it and I'm just getting confused?

Great to be back, hope to chat to some of the old timers again soon.

Hey Enderel, welcome back. I knew you had been gone for a while, but didn't realize it was 5-6 years. Sorry, no answers to your questions. just wanted to say hello.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Welcome (back) to NetEpic.


As I read those rules, model A would not be allowed to move up to model B if doing so would place model A within 1cm of model C. Unless of course, Model A does not mind model C being involved in the Close Combat as well. In other words, if model A is assaulting both models B and C it could end its move at that spot, otherwise not. Thus placing model C as a screen for model B is a viable tactic. Just watch out for barrages. [Replace 'model' with 'detachment' as needed in the preceding paragraph.]

On the other hand, according to the 'Outnumbering' section (also on page 20), you only have to have half of the base of model A touching the base of Model B, thus it might be possible after all. If it is still unclear, roll a D6 as indicated in that section.



There aren't any close combat movement stages in NetEpic. All movement happens during that phase and all close combat happens during the Combat phase. This is why the positioning of each stand/model is important. The player should only charge into CC when all of the models in the detachment can get there, as any models that cannot get to within 1cm cannot participate (unless counter-charged by the opponent with any remaining free models) in the resulting CC. See also the first non-boxed text in the right-hand column of page 20, which says: This shows that there is no 'consolidate move' during the CC phase.



Correct. VPs from objectives can be lost if the objective is lost. This is how it always has worked, as far as I am aware. At least from SM2/TL era rules it was, I was not involved with NetEpic 6 years ago, so cannot say about that, though I'm reasonably sure that NetEpic Gold is older than that.

In my opinion, the VP rules should be reworded slightly to say that all earned VP for each side should be recalculated each turn, as otherwise the current rules as written seem to imply that if you break an enemy Formation in turn 2 you get the VP then, and get the VP for that same Formation again in turn 3, and again in turn 4, etc. This should not happen. Each VP source should only be awarded once, except for specific rules for specific factions (IE, Necron & Tyranids).

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Thanks DS! Was wondering if you would be on here still. Nice to have a warm welcome from a fellow stunty.. :-)

Thanks very much, i love this game so its fantastic to get a few more games in. Dust off the old models and look for new ones. :-)



That is what we kind of thought, its a bit odd but seems fair. It was tank models so no bases but principles the same.





Does this mean you have to issue charge orders on the next turn to get extra models into close combat? Regaining coherency doesn't allow you to enter close combat in this instance?


[/quote]

Yeah reading over it again pretty sure I just mis remembered those rules and previously we had been playing with the correct VP / objective awarding rules!

Thanks MI.

If you wanted the model(s) to enter Close Combat again, yes they would have to receive Charge orders. If it is not desired, then Advance orders would suffice. Note that if you give the detachment First Fire orders they would not have to worry about regaining coherency, so long as they remain on FF orders. You probably noticed that.

Not intending to overwhelm you, but have you looked at the Points Formula values for NEG formations? In theory, those are more balanced than the arbitrary ones currently in the books, but they could use some play-testing.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

No problem MI I'll have a look through, trying to get the core rules interpreted correctly initially, but always happy to see new ideas on the game system.

One other thing I just remembered, snap fire. Depending on the way you read that section it could be one unit may fire or multiple units may fire..

So if a unit charges across the battlefield and appears into line of sight of multiple units who are on first fire orders, how many can snap fire? One or all of them?

Understandable, no rush.

I fairly certain that all models/detachments that gain LOS to the moving model/detachment are able to Snap Fire at them. I seem to recall that someone else asked about Snap Fire recently and there was a bit of discussion about it then, but I don't recall which thread it is in. You may want to poke around in a few threads, as there may be other things asked and answered that you don't even yet know that you need answered.

Most of the confusion in the Snap Fire (and other) sections comes from the use and misuse of the word "unit". In places, it means "Model", in places it means "Detachment", and in other places it seems to mean "Formation" or "Card". Personally, in the Snap Fire rules box, I would replace all uses of "unit" with "detachment" for additional clarity.

Note the third sentence under 3) 1) in the left hand column. Obviously, only one detachment would activate at a time so as to avoid confusion, but once the first has activated and Snap Fired a second could. Then a third, and so on.

Note also that while people tend to move one model at a time, the entire detachment would be moving simultaneously. Thus if a Snap Fire is declared at a moving detachment, all other models in the detachment should be brought up to the equivalent point. Probably by measuring distance - or to wherever the Snap Firing player can first target them. It may be wise to place markers in the positions where the models in the moving detachment began so as to avoid any disagreements there.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Thanks MI

We kind of went for the one unnit only firing (as per Jervis Johnson's old rulings on most games systems, if in doubt go for least powerful option) but we did wonder.

That will enhance first fire somewhat in our estimations!!