It's in Microsoft Word, I should probably have F9'd it :-)

_________________
Tom Webb
Author Page: http://www.newtonwebb.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/thewebb
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thenewtonwebb
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/thenewtonwebb

Tom, that makes more sense, however would it not be better to state that Ono units with the rule can use it? As in the example both the prometheus and trident still perform the action.

Do you mean only stands with the ability can use it when performing an action?

_________________
Tom Webb
Author Page: http://www.newtonwebb.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/thewebb
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thenewtonwebb
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/thenewtonwebb

Yes that's what I mean

Sounds good! I'll make the change.

Thanks for the feedback guys!

_________________
Tom Webb
Author Page: http://www.newtonwebb.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/thewebb
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thenewtonwebb
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/thenewtonwebb

Hi. Haven't had a chance to feed back till now but thought I'd repay the favour of you putting this out there by giving my thoughts for what they are worth. Haven't had a chance to playtest so only based on a read through. That said my comments are more "market research" than picking apart of the rules anyway. I'm going to try to be brief, but please take comments as CC if they seem negative at anytime as a result.

I think the "porting Epic army lists" thread really highlights the problem i see with this rule set. As a typical 6mm gamer ( i expect) with limited money and even more limited time, i aim to maximise my "return on investment." I no huge fan of EpicA, and i've actively been looking for an alternative (inc SOW, SL, NetEpic, DZC, HW, PF etc) but they all have fallen down on one or more of EAs strengths (below) and therefore my playgroup has defaulted to EA.

1. Strong player base - slightly increases the chance of finding opponents outside existing playgroup.

2. Compatible with existing armies - inc large number of options with many armies/choices in armies.

3. Quick, tactical, fairly competitive play style without bogged in down detail (lists and mechanics.)

4. Well play tested, balanced and FAQed.

The thing is, when there is already a game as well developed, over 10 years (a level of investment no commercial company could ever manage - even GW/FF), with continuing support from a strong player base and no commercial ulterior motive, why play something else unless it gives something truly different ?
That's not to say there isn't room for improvement. I like some of the things introduced in EW - the "all in" range rules appeal to me at this scale - i hate the "clipping assault silliness EA can get into. Air assault rules look interesting though maybe a little dominant. Tank shock is interesting - but maybe should be a special ability of particular "shock tanks." But most of these could be house rules and alternative army special rules - not a new game.

For EW as it is to work for me it would probably require either a mass switch of the player base or compatibility with EA - otherwise my Khazari Valkyries will continue to fly as IG. I guess the main barrier to this would be the D10 switch. I understand the wish to expand some probabilities - but maybe D12s would help with porting without altering probabilities...? Likewise, EW army lists would really need to be balanced against EA lists.
If instead you felt the need to go the other way and push the changes further these would be my main bugbears about EA that IMHO could be interesting to change. These are all things i'm considering trying to implement as house rules in EA. I don't see any couldn't be done without destroying the game - some obviously easier than others :

1. Activating a unit with 20 BM should not be as easy as 1 BM. i liked E40k : roll over your BMs to activate = means suppression is progressive.

2. While we are on E40k - BMs for coming under fire (even if it doesn't kill) made much more sense for me. As it is BMs are more of a moral system than suppression fire.

3. Game phases - eg move/fire/assault - rather than activate and use whole units one by one. These phases could still be in alternating activations but at the moment the game plays like an abstract board game rather than a simultaneous flowing battle to me (and i play several strategy board games already.) It also can make the game feel quite reactive - more suitable to a skirmish game than a mass battle game IMHO.

4. Unit orders like SM2/Net Epic - this was such a great mechanism to represent the fog of war and make the player feel like a remote general. Also the reveal makes for a tense bluff/counter bluff game on its own.

5. Weapon names. Keep 'em in the unit descriptions - take them out of the stat lines. AT stat AP stat - simple.

Anyway. That's me. Feel free to ignore entirely. I want this to be a success for you guys so i thought worth giving you my warts and all opinion - i may be completely atypical. I'm very keen top see a company pick up the baton as it were in light of recent events and along with the other companies represented on Taccoms this is a chance for players to fully re-claim the game that they built. My worst scenario (and i guess yours) is you put tones of money and time into something that doesn't sell because of any of the reasons i outline above and EW minis go OOP. I need more valks ! :-)

Good luck !

interesting idea though it doesn't really work unless you have fixed formation sizes. For instance a formation of 6 tanks with 3 blast markers is not the same as a formation of 20 infantry with 6 blast markers. Under the above scenario the tanks are more likely to activate than the infantry despite the relative differences in BM to unit ratio. A better approach would be probably formations with greater than 50% BM to units (rounding up) get -1 or -2 or whatever to the action roll.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Agreed - account should be taken for unit size as well as volume incoming fire.

+2 to activation for 50% BMs is an EA house rule we've been debating here, but difficult to implement without breaking the game.

Oooh, I like that. Though maybe it should be plus 1.

_________________
Tom Webb
Author Page: http://www.newtonwebb.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/thewebb
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thenewtonwebb
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/thenewtonwebb

While we got Tom's attention: I think that in aerospace maneuvers, there needs to be a minimum distance that flyers must move along before popping back up on an attack run. This will prevent the scenario I outline here from occurring. The classic flighter/fighter-bomber/bomber classifications should work I feel in flyer stats.

Something like flyers must move at least 10cm at "attack altitude" before pulling up in addition to the needs to drop to their attack run within the 30cm bubble.

Fighters should have an AA bubble effect along their flight path as well that's really what they're there for, to attack other flyers. Any other flyer that makes contact with their approach path get's a AA shot from the fighter.

Flyers may make an evasive maneuver when shot at which adds a bonus to their save (not cumulative)but enacts a penalty for any subsequent attack runs (cumulative). Fighters may make two evasive maneuvers in an attack run but after their 2nd the atack run is over. Bombers may make ONE and their attack run is over. Fighter-bombers may make multiple since they are designed specifically as ground attack flyers.

It needs some more thought but you get the basic idea.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I think we need to rephrase the aerospace text. Once a fighter bomber has begun its run it is committed to travelling the entire distance from one board edge to another. The only way you can leave the table is via an edge. You need to choose yourr entry and exit points to carefully to maximize your targets whilst avoiding enemy AA.

_________________
Tom Webb
Author Page: http://www.newtonwebb.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/thewebb
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thenewtonwebb
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/thenewtonwebb