Hi!

I've been thinking about this. I agree with the 270, but how do you measure the extra 90 degrees (45 on either side) during play? An AT style template?

In the case of gargants they were suppose to be able to fire straight back! So their fire arc is 180 bisecting the model. This means you have to stay on a gargants flank so the other sides weapons can't target you. Being in front or behind is actually disadvantageous against a gargant.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

I was thinking overlapping the front 180 with the side 180, allowing a Titan to fire straight back like a Gargant.

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

Hi!

I was think more of a 90 degree blindspot in the rear, but none for the gargant with the shortcoming that weapons on each side only had and arc of fire for that side.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

I'd be okay with that. You'd could figure out that blind spot the same way you figure out rear armor facing.

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

Hi!

Bingo! That's the ticket!.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

So instead of a 270 arc, the current idea is for a 225 arc for each arm weapon? [Front 180 plus 45 to that weapon's side.] That could work.

Possibly more realistic, at least for the less agile Titans (Imperial and Chaos), would be a 180 arc that includes the front and side (that the weapon is on) armor arcs. I can see Eldar Titans being agile enough to fire the right-arm weapon directly to the left, but most Imperial based Titans would have to fire through their own body to do so. Thus:
Eldar get 225 degree arcs for each arm weapon.
Imperial/Chaos get 180 front & side armor arcs for arm arc.
Ork get 180 side arc, from directly in front to directly behind.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Magnus's method is makes the most sense from a logic point of view. I know looking at a warlord, my first thoughts were that it should be firing in the 90 degree front and 90'degree side arcs for a total of 180.

My only concern is the complexity. You start adding variant firing arcs you need to make it very clear what they are and very easy to calculate.

It is also a bit of a slippery slope. If titans have various firing arcs, what about praetorians? Super heavies? Vehicles?

_________________
Thanks,
Troy


Once Upon a Midnight Dreary....

I agree with this completely. Reading the proposals here is bringing back nightmares of 1st edition Epic where I remember a lot of arguments about what was and wasn't in fire arcs. Land Raiders were a particularly egregious example, because the lascannon were side mounted and had a 180 degree fire arc on either side, the Marine player would desperately be trying to line up Land Raiders so they faced directly face on to enemy units (so the lascannon on both sides could fire at the same target). This slowed the game down a lot with all the fidgeting about with the minis trying to place them perfectly and caused a lot of tension between players.

While I agree that 2nd edition Epic threw realism out the window, I have no desire to return to those dark days where weapons were anything other than front 180 degree or 360 degree firing... Sorry chaps, it's just how I feel about it!

But I know this is a proposed Optional Rule, so fill your boots!

_________________
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

Oh, when I say "Imperial based Titans" I am referring to the actual SM2 era "beetle back" Titans, not the newer Warlord that looks like a walking fortress or the Warhound that just looks... ugh. I'm really not familiar with those models, so someone who is would have to weigh in.

I agree, it would add a level of complexity. Then again, Titans already have a couple of levels of complexity above any other unit type, so there would be no need to add alternate fire arcs to other unit types. It shouldn't be too difficult to indicate fire arcs on the Datacard for each class of Titan. Titans are already getting a lot of (optional) complexity added with the Experience and the Plasma Generation rules. One more option shouldn't be that big of a deal. As with all options, all players have to agree to their use, so that shouldn't be an issue.

No need to be sorry for having an opinion. However, what has been said so far for Ork Gargants are not proposals. Their fire arcs (for arm weapons) currently ARE 180 to each side, directly to the front to directly behind.

Of course, now that I've typed that, I realize that I'm taking it as true from reading that here. [Takes a moment and looks through Ork PDF.] Actually, I cannot find where in the Ork PDF it lists fire arcs for any Gargant other than the Mega. Would someone please be so kind as to specify where that info is?

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Hi!

Probably an omission. I would agree that their fire arc is supposed to 180 to the sides. Or maybe the fire arcs are on the templates?

I need to look around.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

If by 'template' you mean the page that shows their hit location template, then no. I looked there.

As far as I can tell, Gargants (except for the Mega) have the same 180 front fire arc as every other Battle Titan just going by the RAW, including going back to SM2/TL. So it's not an omission after all, which means that it is actually a proposal.

Thus the Ork Gargant arm weapon 180 side arc would go into the "modified Titan fire arcs" options, or whatever it gets called.

I'd be in favor of having such an option in the game, but I do agree with Bissler that it shouldn't be a baseline thing. Baseline should stay 180 front for all but Mega and Imperator. (That's not exactly what you said, Bissler, but it should be close enough.)

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

That's a fair summarization of my feelings on the subject.

_________________
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

It might be discussed somewhere.

A major problem in Netepic is the weakness of Tanks, Titans and other armoured stuff to normal Infantry fire,
alleged sloved in a mistyrious game whispered E:A
though there are guys out there loving Netepic and nothing more

I thought about this problem and found obviously a sloution.

RULE:

Amoured vehilcles (Tanks, APCs, SPAs, Knights, Titans) might only be damaged by weapon fire having a TSM -1 or higher.



This means all this standard INf., all those multible Attackdice weapons without TSM are useless against amoured vehicles.
The rule gives a lot of units and weapons a new character or a character at all.

It´s simple to use and causes only some problems with special weapons.


What do you think guys?
I will try it in y next battle(if ever played)


cheers

I don't consider this to be a 'weakness' of NetEpic. I consider it a strength. It means that all models have a chance of being relevant on the battlefield. This proposal would severely weaken the basic Infantry types, and they are already quite weak as they are.

Besides, this is already covered in the interaction between the target's Armor Save value and the shooter's TSM. Doing this would not add any "character" to any models. All it would do is render most Infantry nearly useless. Even moreso than they already are.

Titans, Knights, and other Super Heavies are already immune to such stands, as is anything with a 1+ save. Titans are immune to them because such a stand can never take down their Shields (which already require a TSM of -1 to damage). Thus this change is really not needed.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Hi!


I agree with this assessment.

For many years this point has been discussed, but the problem of any such mechanic is that anti-personnel weapons become useless is the overall tactical realm of the game.

In the old days SM/AT1 had listing for a support weapon as well as anti-personnel. SM2 just abstracted this. So a weapon with no TSM doesn't mean it doesn't have a support weapon, just not a real good one.

Its one of those compromises for game play.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules