Hi!
Many interesting things you bring up Magnus!
MagnusIlluminus wrote:
Good question(s).
As to your first two questions, do you mean "Should we change the values of the stats that a given model has" or do you mean "Shall we change the stats that models have"? The second meaning that the basic function of the stat in the game is changed or removed.(Assuming the first meaning)
As to your first two questions, do you mean "Should we change the values of the stats that a given model has" or do you mean "Shall we change the stats that models have"? The second meaning that the basic function of the stat in the game is changed or removed.(Assuming the first meaning)
In the case of Mattman and Bissler, they mean change the stats the models have. Not change the meaning that will alter the formula.
In my case probably alter the function as well as value, although I may have a change of heart due to something you said further down.
Quote:
Personally, I see your first two questions as very tightly linked. And irrelevant. As the Points Formula is being used for Platinum, if someone does not like the stats as presented they will be able to tweak them as they like or make their own from scratch and be able to use their newly stated model alongside existing ones with a reasonable belief that it's cost is fair.
So far as the underlying assumptions on how the stats work and are not changed, this would be correct.
Quote:
Activation. Not sure about this one, as I have not played it yet. Well, then again, I kind of have. In other game systems. Heck, I have yet to actually play a game the way NetEpic Gold does things. The last actual table-top game of Epic I was in was back in 2nd edition (Titan Legions) days. Thus I really don't have a strong opinion on this one.
It plays well enough, there are some things to streamline in the rules that wouldn't make sense in the context of such an activation method, but it doesn't put an undue burden on things.
Quote:
I'm fine with the d6 system in use, but it does have it's issues. Lack of granularity being the biggest one. Personally, I'm a big fan of the D20 system games and D&D 3.5 in particular, so if it were to change die size I'd choose d20. I know someone is working up a 2d6 system, but that changes the probability spread from flat to curved and I feel that that would be detrimental to NetEpic. It's also very hard to put values to modifiers in a curved spread system, as the modifier has more value when the roll is closer to an end than it has in the middle.
I find your opinion on this VERY interesting.
Now, Bissler and others seem to like using one die, but I found the d6 or d10 to be "not quite enough", that is why I have tinkered with 2d6. However Bissler once mentioned to me about using a d12 (which I still don't think it has suitable granularity), but a d20, now that I'd like. I never mention it since I think most tabletop players associate that with RPG's.
I would totally toss out my 2d6 idea for use of the d20. That die has enough granularity in it to satisfy me.
Now, how does this change the formula? Does it change it? Can the actual values be projected to what they'd be on a d20?
Suffice to say, if one die is to be used I'm firmly behind using the d20. So much so I will modify what I have done to reflect this.
Quote:
As an additional question, how about Model types / pinning classes. Specifically are there enough? Should we trim them down, say by merging Infantry and Light Artillery (with a few LA becoming Vehicle perhaps)? Should there be more? For example, Infantry could be divided into Light, Medium, and Heavy. As could Vehicle.
Actually, as I developed my variant I used an offshoot of the idea that was discussed regarding eliminating titan hit location tables and perhaps assign DR (/damage rating/wounds) to certain units. In the system I have devised "pinning" is based on DR (damage rating), so you pin units of equal of less "DR" , those of more DR can't be pinned. It cleans up the pinning rules quite a bit.
Of course the introduction of a generalized DR system may be more than what players are willing to bear and I don't know what the formula impact is. The old system is just to clunky for my tastes, so I'm not that enthused with expanding it further.
Quote:
To answer the additional question, while I am mostly fine with the existing types, I'd also somewhat like to expand Infantry and possibly Vehicle into Light, Medium, and Heavy. It would allow for greater detail in the system. Among other things, it would eliminate the need for the 'Bulky' ability for Infantry, and could be used to specify more 'realistic' recommended limits to Transport capacity based on the relative sizes of all participants. Yes, it would add more detail and fiddly bits. I like detail and fiddly bits.
Then perhaps DR may be the way to go, since I envisioned certain units that are currently of the same pinning class but would be "bulky" would get more DR to simulate their larger size (thus making them harder to kill), I think it could be a easy way of doing it.
Regardless of how its done, I agree more stratification of certain unit types is probably needed.
Primarch