Well, I'll be impressed if any of you can come up with rules for all these variants which distinguish them enough from existing units without making them either overpowered, underwhelming, or just fillers.

_________________

I am going to try. Hopefully will be able to post something up next week.

Matt

Im just happy if all units make it to the list. Dont even have to be so different. After all most have certain special feat. That differentiate them from other similar models. Shouldnt be too hard

_________________
Shapeways store: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/tinywares

Blogging about 6-15mm wargaming: http://www.lead-space.net

..and theres no harm having the option. People dont have to use them if they dislike them.

_________________
Shapeways store: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/tinywares

Blogging about 6-15mm wargaming: http://www.lead-space.net

Hi!

I would love to have them since I am getting conversions to simulate them.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Like wise

_________________
Shapeways store: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/tinywares

Blogging about 6-15mm wargaming: http://www.lead-space.net

The idea that there's no harm from having the option is something I can't agree to. Epic is, essentially, an old system, designed around the units which were available at the time. There was already plenty of variety back then, and it's simply unnecessary to keep adding all these new variants.

The danger is that it becomes an escalation race, as to who has the latest and newest piece of kit. I don't like that philosophy in 40K, and I fear that there is a risk of replicating it if we try to shoehorn all these models into Epic.

_________________

Hi!

None of this gets added to Net Epic Gold. As I've mentioned before that stays "as is".

This is stuff for Net Epic Platinum/Titanium Edition.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

I appreciate that Primarch .

I just have this wish, which many would argue is unrealistic, that we could all just play to the same set of rules, and do away with all this optional stuff. This was one of the advantages of when GW was in charge, there was one set of rules, and that was it. The trouble when the players take over development is that you end up with rules versions A, B, and C, and then potentially even more.

_________________

Hi!

One observation I have made over these many years, is that you can place a lot of miniatures gamers in two very broad groups:

1. Those whom like a well defined, concrete and closed system

and

2. Those whom like to modify/change things.

At its origin, net epic desired the first. But that stopped being the case many years ago.

Granted I have to make sure there is some version that remains fundamentally unchanged. For all the opinions posted here, I suspect there is a large audience that is very content with leaving it "as is".

For them net epic gold is all she wrote. Besides some minor corrections. That is its final form.

On the other hand with every passing year, those whom desire "change" grow a little larger. Their needs must be addressed as well. So instead of trying to force one group in an unwanted direction, its better to have two (or more) rule sets.

To be frank, I do not think that when GW was around supporting epic it was as monolithic as it would appear. I for one have traveled and lived in many places in the US over the last 20 years and house rules/variants are very common. GW may espouse a certain version for support of tournament play, but out there in individual groups and tabletops all sorts of interesting (and weird) variants are being played.

It should be obvious, I guess, that I am firmly in the second group. I am ever trying to change everything!

That has a lot to do with the amount of games I've played. Literally hundreds, upon hundreds. I guess that makes the game a little stale for me and I crave for "something different".

Of course I curtail this sense of change when it comes to "official" net epic and hence the promise to keep net epic gold untouched in perpetuity.

Besides I sate my craving for "new" inventing systems from scratch. I guess its just time for me to do that again.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Fair enough, but I think there is more than enough creativity in the community to house rule the new models as needed rather than branch the community (already tiny) into multiple versions.

I have plenty of house-ruled units, but they're only appropriate for friendly games. If I want to play with someone new, it's good to all be working with basically the same list of units as SM2 - the ancestor of NetEpic.

Hi!

Which is why I won't change net epic gold. My promise for that one was to keep it as is. A "Stable version" as it were.

I like you, house rule everything. I sometimes forget how much stuff I change that is not even in the books.

But some gamers do like it "in writing". So thus another version. At this point in our history I don't think "one version" will cut it anymore.

If you want to attract anyone "new" it needs to be up to date (with all that this entails). At the some time there is no need to push aside our "old hands". At this point I see no other alternative than two version. Old school and new. Let players choose which they want to use.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Anyway, back on track. Here is a taster of some of the variants I have come up with:



The Achilles sacrifices some of its transport capacity for a thunderfire cannon which is a bit of a souped up Thudd gun / Mole Mortar hybrid. The weapon has a slightly longer range than a las-cannon, so stuck with 75cm, but could be increased to 100cm. Because it has multiple firing options, I gave it a standard barrage 4+ to hit with a chance at cracking some armour, sort of a middle ground. It mounts two twin linked multi meltas on the sides, so just went with the standard multi melta stats. The Achilles also has improved armour which makes it immune to some weapons, so I bumped the save up slightly. Slightly upped the cost compared to the normal land raider as it carries mixed role weaponry and has better armour (it is also the same proportional change between a normal land raider and the Achilles in 40k). Could see the cost go to 350, especially if the cannons range is upped to 100cm.

The Redeemer is an alternative transport option like the Crusader. It mounts a twin linked assault cannon (used standard stats) and two flamestorm cannons. The flamestorm is a massive flamer that has good anti armour properties. Rather than have two flamer shots, I decided to just treat them as a single shot with good to hit and a decent TSM, if I did them separately I would most probably have them as 5+ to hit and -1 TSM. The Redeemer (and Crusader) are also armed with Frag Launchers which are meant to fire a load of frag grenades into the enemy when the occupants dismount to assault. To represent this I gave them the ability to disrupt some nearby enemy models in combat. In 40k the normal land raider and Redeemer are of similar points, so stuck with 250 for a detachment since you sacrifice the long range firepower for more short range options.

The Terminus is basically two land raiders squashed into one (they carry 3 twin linked and 2 single mount las-cannons, so basically 4 twin linked), therefore I have doubled up the shots of the normal land raider. This is a pure fire power machine and completely gets rid of its transport capability. A negative for this variant is sometimes the power requirements can cause it overload and blow up. Therefore I have added a special rule that gives it a chance of going pop every time you fire. Points wise they are the same as the Achilles in 40k, so initially going with 300pts a squadron, but depending on their effectiveness, I could see them going up to 350.

So what do you guys think?

Matt

The Frag Launchers seem fiddly and add book-keeping. I would just give the Redeemer +1 CAF and call it good.

But the launchers aren't meant to make the Redeemer better in combat, they are meant to suppress the enemy while your guys pile out and launch into combat. The land raider itself isn't meant to get into combat but rather support the troops.
Not sure why you think they are fiddly, there are plenty of 1 shot weapons. You charge the land raider forward, fire the launchers to annoy the enemy and then dismount your troops who charge into combat. Seems simple to me.

I suppose an alternative would be something along the lines of:

Whenever a stand dismounts from a Redeemer or Crusader it gains +1 CAF for the turn.

Not a wholly accurate representation of the ability, but possibly cleaner.

Matt