Hello!

As a result of my recent E:A games, I'm thinking of commiting an act of extreme heresy which may see me excommunicated from the great churches of NetEpic and E:A! I'm trying out something experimental (with an emphasis on the "mental") with the NetEpic system, essentially stealing from E:A that ruleset's greatest strength and applying it to the game of NetEpic.

What I propose is to play a game of NetEpic as normal but make the game more fluid by ripping off E:A's excellent move and fire / close combat all in the one activation.

Orders Phase: As all movement/combat is all assumed to be happening at once, players would still place orders in the Order Phase. As usual, they will be bound to these orders when the turn gets underway. Players will still be able to react to their opponent's movement but because they are committed to a particular order, they will won't have carte blanche to react in any way they see fit (which is a bit of a shortcoming with E:A's system in my humble opinion).

Action Phase: The action phase brings together the old movement, first fire, close combat and advance fire phases. Players take turns at moving and firing one unit at a time. Unit orders affect movement in the usual manner, ie no movement on First Fire, units can move up to their move rate on Advance, and double move rate on Charge orders. At the end of their movement, units may fire there and then as orders allow. Units on Advance orders have the usual rolls to hit, while those on First Fire gain a +1 to their to hit rolls (harking back to 1st edition NetEpic). Units on charge who engage enemy units in close combat resolve these battles there and then. See below for more.

Once all units have been activated, play proceeds to the End Phase as usual.

Special rules:

Snap Fire: As per existing NE Gold Core Rules, with some minor changes: Because of the reactive nature of snap fire, the +1 to hit modifier for being on First Fire orders is lost. Units being engaged in close combat also suffer this loss and make unmodified rolls to hit roll their attackers.

Pinning: Again, as per existing NE Gold Core Rules, with the following notes: When a unit engages an enemy in close combat that it cannot pin, the unit being attacked may opt to move away from the assault there and then (orders permitting). If they opt to do so, the movement for the smaller unit is completed, and no close combat takes place. However, as play reverts back to the other player, he/she must activate, move and fire the unit that was attacked. This may only be done once per turn, meaning that a unit cannot continue moving away if is attacked by smaller units who cannot pin it.

For example: Ork boyz Charge an Imperial Guard Stormhammer tank which is on Advance orders. As the Stormhammer cannot be pinned by infantry, the IG player has the option to break the pin. He opts to do this, the Ork boyz finish their move immediately and play reverts back to the IG player who now must move the Stormhammer rather than any other unit. After the Stormhammer has moved, it is attacked again in the action phase, this time by Ork Boarboyz. Even though it cannot be pinned by the Boarboyz, the Stormhammer cannot avoid being attacked by the Boarboyz and Close Combat is instigated and fought there and then.

Close Combat: This is resolved as normal but with the following additional notes: Every unit engaged in close combat must fight until there is a resolution of the melee. This means that units whose rolls result in a draw must fight again until one side is victorious, ie dead/destroyed. This may very well leave both sides with a few stands left over at the end of the assault, but none of them should still be fighting an opponent. Note that this rule does not apply to Titans in close combat as close combat is no guarantee of being able to destroy these huge war machines outright. If a Titan loses a close combat roll, roll on the relevant damage table as usual. Once close combat has been completed, place a counter next to the detachment that has fought. This counter signifies that the unit has fought one wave of close combat. If such a unit is attacked again, both players roll their dice as usual for close combat, except that the attacking unit rolls an additional die for each wave counter his/her opponent has. This represents the fact that a unit who faces several waves of assault in the one turn are increasingly worn down and find it harder to survive each wave of assault.

Point Defence: Units which have more than one Point Defence weapon may fire as many or as few of these as the player sees fit. For example, the IG Stormhammer has a massive PD of 14. Anticipating that it is above to come under several waves of attack, the IG player decides to commit 4 PD dice to the first wave attacking. It survives but comes under attack again, this time assigning 6 PD dice to the second wave of attack. Assuming it survives and is attacked a third time, the IG player will still have 4 PD left at his/her disposal. Note that this rule only applies to weapons marked with PD and not the unit's main armament which cannot be fired after having been attacked in close combat.



I only came up with this idea in the past hour so there may well be things that I haven't considered. I'll have a think and add more rules and amendments as I think of them! I'm sorry if anyone has posted up rules similar to this in the past.

Possible additional optional rules for consideration:

Charge orders: Vehicles may fire but with a -1 to hit roll.

Advance orders: Gain snap fire rule but all to hit rolls are made at -1 when snap firing.

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Bissler, if you're worried about being branded a heretic, then I should worry too! I've had similar ideas as yours, which I really like.

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

Shh Dwarf, you needn't suffer along with me! Wait to see if I am burned for this first!

Glad you like the idea DS, it's a relief to know I'm in good company!

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Hi!

Bissler, there is a new subforum for alternate rules/systems for discussing variants like this. I'd copy/paste it to a thread there.

I will hold of on proposing my variant flyer system, to modify it and accommodate your idea.

Primarch

Hi!

Oh, and by the way Bissler, you do realize I did this already in Heresy (the rules I designed long ago). I took certain epic 40k concepts and married them with second edition flavor.

You may want to take a look at them to refine your idea.

Primarch

I completely forgot to have a look at your Heresy rules Primarch, sorry about that. I'm sure those rules will be far better thought out than this effort I cobbled out in the middle of the night! I must make some time to read them!

Cheers!

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Hi!

Heresy has been played and tested for many years, if you were looking for a game that takes those aspects you mentioned and melded them into something workable, take a look at it.

I have been revisiting the rules of late and I am surprised how well they turned out, although there are still several things I would like to "update".

If you ever gave them a try I'd be happy to hear your critique.

Primarch

I've just finished reading the basics of your Heresy rules* Primarch and I very much liked what I'm saw. I reckon that this may well end up be what both myself and my friend end up playing instead of E:A.

I very much liked the mix between E:A and NetEpic and love the fact that the system is based upon D10's. It was interesting also to see more prominence to morale rules, something I feel would add more realism to Epic.

The only section where I did find myself struggling a bit was the close combat section as it looks like it may take some getting used to with the reference charts. I'm a bit concerned that play could get a bit bogged down there.

That is a very minor criticism though in what is a very well thought out and intriguing system. I noticed Evil & Chaos expressing an interest on another thread and I can see why! Great stuff!

However, I know that I will not be able to talk my nephew into learning a new system so I will still try out my proposal when I next play against him. It will probably still take a bit of coercion as I know how resistant to change he can be. This is one of the reasons I wanted the proposed changes to be minimal and hopefully slot in with the existing NetEpic framework with relative ease.

I think it will be a few weeks before I get my next game in to playtest my suggestion, but, my friend willing, I should get a game of Heresy well before then! Don't worry, I'll let you know how it goes!

On a seperate note, I have been following all of the other threads about changes and they're all looking good. I didn't really want to disrupt the flow by pitching in "yep, good stuff, I agree" posts - but thought you might want to know that I haven't lost interest, just have nothing further to add to the sterling work being done there.

*I've read up to and including p34 with the scenarios list.

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Hi!



Remember to share any games you do have with them. More input is appreciated!



There are several things I consider a well designed game should have. Suppression, combined arms approach and morale. All three were specifically attended to in these rules. Also the weapons effectiveness is dependent on the shooter, not the weapon. A bolter in the hands of an ork is not the same as in the hands of a SM.



This was perhaps one of the longer more drawn out parts of the design process of this game. I do not like that close combat be resolved in the same activation of a unit because this leads "charge first" syndrome, where the game become an exercise of whom can move the quickest to engage and settle the matter. It does not permit, support of an assault or allies diving in to it.

This is why assault is resolved last. Once you commit to it, you need to support it, with troops or covering fire. It lends itself for very large assaults, as well as decisive ones.

The table was actually designed by a PHD in mathematics whom at the time was into netepic and kindly made the tables mathematically coherent and balanced.

I'm not overly fond of tables either, but we could not find a better methods that gave realistic results.

If you have some thoughts I would like to hear them.



No worries. Things can always improve.



hehe, gamers can be quite, stubborn.

Then again without stubbornness and desire to not change, net epic would exist? Eh?



Sounds good to me, thanks!



Thanks!

Primarch