Hi!

Having lead all the revisions, I'm the first to tell you that the inertia against change is always very strong, particularly at first glance, given some of the reactions on others venues I would say you are not alone at all.

However, here's the thing. For 18 years players have argued over basically the same thing, unit cost. rarely are there heated debates on rules mechanics, unit stats or army organization. Cost is the one the ruffles LOTS of feathers.

The reason why, as I have observed is that we all base out assessment of "worth" on our personal experience across the games we have played or witnessed. The problem emerges when our "expectations" of cost balance" are not shared by other individuals or groups. When this happens whom is correct?

Due to my background with the game (enormous collection, previous hobby store owner, etc), I have had access to either playing or viewing such a large volume of games as to perhaps dwarf most peoples experience, so does this my experience trumps all others? No. In fact I have taken great pains in these 18 years NOT to do that. Perhaps even standing by when "not so good" things get implemented, because its every bodies game and they should have a say too.

But that still leaves a vacuum of what is the "baseline". How to we set value objective and not need to depend on the bias of our own opinions?

I can only see a formula doing that. Not because it is entirely objective or balanced, but because it is applied UNIFORMLY and that is the key. With a formal baseline we can now create new units and have a good idea how to price them (how would you know where to place cost on a new unit no ones ever used, thee is no experience to fall back on?).

Also, a formula open up the game for people to create whatever they wish and have a reasonable expectation that there will be a cost wise balance in comparison to existing units. One of the main reasons people just stopped making up units (more plentiful back in the day) is that why the proposed idea might be cool "cost" was the stumbling block (too high, too low, etc).

Personally, I support it because I have seen that it can handle, as well as correct, what I have always suspected. That most core units are overpriced and that certain "too good" units were markedly undervalued. It has delivered in that regard.

Now an IG army can look like one with real massed infantry (since all those companies went down), more tanks (went down too) and certain rarely used artillery companies can now be used since they are so much cheaper than the often trotted out company with double shooting basilisk.

All armies have benefited from these types of reductions, and those things that haven't are being worked on (units with hit location templates).

Of course, I do not underestimate the value of familiarity. The old values are know (perhaps) even memorized) and people like that. But it is also an obstacle on improving the game, since we cannot expand it based on where we each "feel" things should be.

As always consensus will be measured, but if once more "the way things were" wins out, it will be respected, but I think it will also kill the revision as well as any further chance on really improving the game.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Hi!

Since I have only done one army list, I think I can arrange that.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

One of the problems that I have with a points formula is that it encourages people to create new units. I really don't like new units being added to the game. If it were not for new units being added to 40K, I'd argue there would be little, or even no, desire to add units to Epic of any description.

I really don't want to see more and more new units added. We already have plenty, and they all fulfil a role. The more new units which are included, the more they need to 'stand out' to avoid overlap. This can cause all sorts of problems with balance, and is something that I feel we should avoid at all costs. So, if, and I do emphasise, if that's one of the reasons for converting to a formula based system for points values, then I will not be persuaded to vote in favour of such a change.

If a points formula were to be introduced for different reasons, then I am open to persuasion. I need to see a compelling case for it though, and, thus far, I'm not convinced by anything that I have seen. The current system is flawed, I agree, but I don't feel that it's flawed enough to justify the changes which have been suggested.

On the point of flow, I like the current blend that NetEpic has. It seems to me that it's both strategic and stand up and fight. There's a lot of strategy involved in moving and positioning units, and more stand up and fight once ranged and close combat begin. That seems like a good mixture to me.

_________________

People are always going to create new models and stats for them whether based on GW or otherwise (see Bissler's thread about his Marholt (spelling?) models). There is no way to stop that, short of a Totalitarian regime banning all forms of creativity. Seeing as that would likely include science-fantasy wargames such as this one, that is not going to happen.

Part (and yes, only part) of the reason for the formula is to allow for such created new units to be able to be integrated into the game in a way that they are on a fair and balanced level when compared to current, existing models' stats. The alternative is, has it has been in the past, for people to guess at the value of their new toys, and people tend to undervalue their own creations. It's not that (most) people are intentionally being deceptive, it's just a natural tendency. The formula eliminates human error from valuing new models and thus allows for a more fair and balanced game overall.

The other part is to bring balance to the existing stats in the game. GW was always very open about saying that each army was only balanced against itself and the values were entirely "off-the-cuff". This creates imbalance, especially since most battles are not fought against the same list but against a different army, and all of the forum-generated models over the years has only made it worse. It is my intent and hope that the formula will help restore some measure of balance to the game by applying a flat standard by which all forces are measured.

As has been stated elsewhere, any and all new models are optional. Nobody will force you to play with models you don't want to use. It may be possible that someone may want to use such a model in an army you are fighting against. If that were the case, would you not want some assurance that the model was at least reasonably balanced? Without a formula of some kind, there is no such assurance.

That all said, if you still don't like the idea, then you don't like the idea and that is fine. As far as Gold is concerned, the formula and it's values will be only an optional system. NE6 may be different.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

I can definitely understand this hesitancy, but I think your fear is self fulfilling.

Currently the 6mm community is thriving with all sorts of excellent models and house-created flavor. But lets face it, it is easy to Mary Sue the hell out of everything we do in our excitement to share our ideas with the community. Some of us want to see the new models others the old SM1 Era Heresy lists, even more want to add new and flavorful units.

Without a framework to price these units, exactly what you fear will happen will. Models will be added, prices will be decided via crystal ball and imbalance will thrive.

With a points framework, there is a foundation to build balance upon. Units will be easy to differentiate at whatever cost. Make a crazy powerful unit, pay the points...make a unit that is well balanced, pay the price.

Obviously there are other things to consider in balancing an army list, but I really do feel a points formula will be a huge stride.



I mostly agree, but have always felt movement versus fire range could use a bit of twaeking, given the "ground scale" limitation necessary to utilize a 4'x6' battlefield. I would like to see some tweaks to etiher or both, but haven't thought much about it since it is one of the less glaring issues.

_________________
MadMagician
Epic Tyranids

Hi!

No worries Irisado, not everyone want or needs a new version.

However some people do and the wealth of new units is staggering since the last revision more than decade ago. People want those units and the ability to make more. If the game is to grow and add more fans, then this must be done. Games cannot become static, otherwise they do not attract new blood. Given the emerging 3d technologies, model acquisition is become less and less a problem. Even units that GW never made for epic can be made in original forms (so as to not antagonize GW copyright), but be made for use in epic (just look at what Onslaught and Troublemaker are doing).

The only way to do this effectively is via a formula, so people can take their own control and unleash their creative desires. if there is one thing that can never be stopped is peoples desire to create more units.

Unlike previous editions though, Gold will be there forever, unchanged. But as the torrent of comments of the facebook group have shown, there is great desire for more units and the ability to build free-form.

As always net epic is about options, three is always one for everyone.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Flyers

So Primarch, I saw you post something on FB regarding flyer rules, for NE6and I had already written a lot of this so sorry if there is overlap!

I started brainstorming today and here are my thoughts.

First off, it is critical to not try to over-reality these rules. The combat system is so far abstracted that any attempt to "real it up" will be an exercise in frustration.

So step back a minute and think about the roles covered by aircraft in the battlefield. There are quite a few, not all of which are relevant to Epic, but the main roles boil down to a few key categories:

- Close Air Support
- Air Superiority
- Tactical/Operational Bombing
- Tactical Transport
- Forward Air Control

Helicopters/Gyrocopters can fill some of these roles as well, but their slower movement and ability to stay within the battlefield allows the standard rules to accommodate them fairly well I mention them where applicable.

- Close Air Support – This role covers a lot of ground (pun intended) but basically boils down to an aircraft that works with the boots on the ground to attack tactical targets in the combat zone using rockets, missiles, small bombs, and strafing runs. Fighter Bombers, Strike Aircraft, Ground-Attack Aircraft, Dive Bombers, Multirole Fighters, Helicopters and Gunships all fill this role in some capacity.

- Air Superiority – This role is where the “fighter” aircraft live. The goal is to control the airspace over and around the battlefield which is a huge tactical advantage. Wikipedia says:” The degree of a force's air control is inversely proportional to its opponent's; increasing control by one corresponds to decreasing control by the other.” This role is filled by Fighters, Air Superiority Fighters and Multirole Fighters

- Tactical/Operational bombing – These roles are typically filled by Heavy Bombers from high altitudes, it is a persistent bombardment utilized to disrupt Chain of Command, Supply lines, deny strategic emplacements, and generally disrupt an enemy’s ability to wage war, “Flying Artillery” if you will. Heavy Bombers with long range and the ability to stay in Theatre for long periods are used in conjunction with forward observers or Forward Air Control to fulfill this role.

- Tactical Transport – I think this is pretty self-explanatory, but transport is moving troops and equipment within a theatre, tactical airlifting. Helicopters, drop-ships and air cargo drops (parachutes or low and slow) accomplish this task.

- Forward Air Control – This role is handled by dedicated aircraft and ground-based forward observers to provide guidance to CAS and ensure friendly troops are not injured. JTAC, AWACS and Forward observers fill these roles, IRL but Airships, Gyrocopters and Zepplins can provide similar functions, even if it is only providing spotting.

The reason that is all important is that we are limited to 4 types of order in the NE/2nded. Quite a few more actions are needed to cover Aircraft and the way they act on the battlefield.
So my first real suggestion is that we classify all aircraft as one of the above 5 types and that will determine how they act.

How they act -

- Close Air Support – Close Air support can act in 3 ways:

--“Support” (advance) aircraft stays in theatre and provides air-to-air or air-to-ground support. May turn twice during turn and may (split attack die?)
--“Strafe” (charge) where the aircraft starts in the friendly edge of the table turns once at the start of the move, can move in a straight line across the table to the opposite edge of the table It can attack ground targets only at along its flight path. Next turn it must begin its move at the friendly edge of the table.
--“ “ (First Fire) could be a “smart bomb” with bonuses snap fire could be turned into an evasive/defensive maneuver.

- Air Superiority -

--“Engage” (Advance) - Aircraft starts at the friendly edge of the table, may turn twice and attack air or ground targets.
--“Pursuit” (Charge) - aircraft starts in the friendly edge of the table turns once at the start of the move can move in a straight line across the table to the opposite edge of the table. It can attack air targets only at along its flight path.
--“Intecept” (First Fire) – Aircraft may start at any point in the theatre and attack an in theatre aircraft -or- it may intercept any aircraft that enters into the theatre (snap fire).

- Tactical/Operational Bomber

--“Support” (advance) aircraft stays in theatre and provides air-to-ground support. May turn twice during turn and may (split attack die?)
--“Carpet Bomb” (charge) where the aircraft starts in the friendly edge of the table turns once at the start of the move, can move in a straight line across the table to the opposite edge of the table It can attack ground targets only at along its flight path. Next turn it must begin its move at the friendly edge of the table.
--“ “ (First Fire) could be a “smart bomb” with bonuses snap fire could be turned into an evasive/defensive maneuver.

- Tactical Transport
- Forward Air Control

I think a lot of this is in line with what you were thinking, so great minds think alike!

_________________
MadMagician
Epic Tyranids

So to go along with what I posted up there, I was also thinking of something like this

Aircraft can be "In theatre" (flying over the battlefield providing support or patrolling) or "out of theatre" (at table edge). An aircraft that exits the theatre (flys off table) is assumed to be re-positioning for a new attack and starts the next turn on the Friendly table end (some restrictions on the orders given upon theatre entry could be given, like, must charge into dogfight or must strafe)

Aircraft can fly high or low. Only AA guns and other aircraft can attack at high altitude and aircraft at high altitude mus t scatter for bomb attacks and may not strafe attack ground targets. Altitude switching can only be done once per turn. Low aircraft can strafe, attack ground targets, attack air to air, etc, but are subject to AA and ground to Air fire.

_________________
MadMagician
Epic Tyranids

Hi!

This is intriguing to me.

Can you fill in the last two (tactical transport and forward air control) so I may view the system as a whole as you envision it?

Then we can discuss it further.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

- Tactical Transport
--“ “ (Advance) Transport must start within theatre. May turn twice during turn and may attack air and ground troops. May land (but not deploy) at end of turn. Paratroops and Air Drops may be deployed while on advance orders at the cost of all attacks
--“ ” (Charge) Transports MUST enter (and exit) the theatre from the friendly table edge on charge orders. Unit where the aircraft starts in the friendly edge of the table turns once at the start of the move. Can move in a straight line across the table to arbitrary location on table within flight path. A charge order also must be used to take off from a LZ.
--“Deploy” (First Fire) Unit may land and deploy troops. Once on the ground unit is treated as a normal ground unit (maybe limited move as skimmer?). Snap Fire gives the Transport the option of an “Abort” making an evasive maneuver if the LZ is too hot. Deployment is aborted turn and unit moves as if on advance orders AWAY from the enemy units. Unit may land again at the end of the turn. Unit cannot “abort” if deployment is complete.

- Forward Air Control (Command or HQ or both)
--“Direct air strikes “ (Advance) Improves Ariel Combat ability of dogfighting units. +1 to CC (assuming CC=Dogfighting
--“Direct Close air support” (Charge) - Unit may call in CAS for up to (x) units. The units no longer have a to-hit penalty for strafing a unit in LoS of the Aircraft.
--“Paint” (First Fire) - Unit may “Paint” a target location for up (x) units. Indirect fire artillery is allowed to use the range and LoS of the Aircraft.

_________________
MadMagician
Epic Tyranids

Hi!

Give me a day or two to digest all this.

Exciting stuff!

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Hi!

Before sharing this on other groups, lets fine tune this a little more.

Basically we're using the same orders depending on the operational mission the fliers engage in.

So how do we assign the operational level that will determine what orders "do".

Do we introduce an additional "order counter" structure, 5 extra "air mission counters" which can be assigned to flier formations each turn?

The order route offers the benefits of ease of use and also being able to keep them hidden.

Or a place-mat play-aid where players "place" their aerial formations on it to determine what missions they are on?

This offers the ease of keeping all that info in one place, with either the figs themselves as tokens or actual tokens to use.

Understand what I am getting at?

Thoughts?

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

So, let me answer your question with a question.

Would it be better to restrict (from an overall balancing perspective) a certain model/detachment to a certain role with an associated remapping of the standard 3 orders? Could we provide enough utility to a Fighter-Bomber in 3 orders to justify 2 detachments of it vs a detachment of fighters and a detachment of bombers?

If not, I would say a "Role counter" or Battle card and associated restrictions on actions based on the role (which can change turn to turn) may be the best answer. This forces the player to make tough choices about fliers at the same time as everything else

"I can fly low and stay "in theatre" and do a lot of damage to "X", but risk a ton of AA fire
-OR-
I can take the protection of the faster movement and only risk snap fires and intercepts to perform a strafing run,
-OR-
I can go high and perform a surgical strike on that unit there , but gosh I am a sitting duck if his Fighters get untangled from mine.

When I think about it, keeping your role for that turn secret is tough as most radar should be able to pick up the change in altitude, velocity or vector. "Sir, they are decreasing in altitude, looks like they are coming in low and accelerating towards our left flank!"

I could see the role counters begin played privately, and flipped after initiative. This also adds the potential of a valuable AWACS/Forward Command role allowing an order or role change to (x) detachments.

_________________
MadMagician
Epic Tyranids

Hi!

Restricting certain fliers to one role would be difficult or perhaps unnecessarily restrictive. For example, what happens when my interceptor type aircraft have no one to intercept? If I am restricted I cannot strafe ground targets?

Or, if I am landing troops in a DLZ, once done, can I engage in dogfights or strafe targets?

You get the the picture.

I guess you could go another route of a "hierarchy" of operational missions, meaning a flyer is restricted to that sort of mission until it no longer has further opportunities to do so, but I foresee a morass of confusion and arguments of what constitutes "mission no longer available".

To side step that whole issue, then my answer would be let players assign the missions as they see fit, so that means orders or some other play aid.

What I meant about "keeping it secret" is that when you assign your operational order, it is not revealed until the formation is to engage in a mission, at which point it is revealed to the other player, just like standard orders.

On separate note, what does such operation orders do on formation content? What I mean is one operational order assigned per formation, or per "company", and by extension all its support cards. This has implications on army structure since we would need to create air companies with appropriate support.

This is fine, since I think its long overdue, since it doesn't make sense to attach support cards to just ground forces.

Thoughts?

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

That system looks good overall. Mostly I've just skimmed it so far, as I'm not really thinking about Flyers just now, but I have a thought.

I would restrict the roles that a given formation can perform based on the models that comprise it. For example, the Guard Valkyrie should have access to the Close Air Support and Tactical Transport roles, but no others. Similarly, the Vulture could not have access to Tactical Transport or T/O Bomber as it does not have the right equipment.

A related thought is that allowed roles would probably be more restrictive for lower tech & less flexible armies (mainly Imperial, but also probably Necron & Squat) and less restrictive for more advanced & more flexible armies (Chaos, Ork, Tau, Eldar, Tyranid, etc). Of course, the final determination would be based on the model itself.

I also think that the Forward Air Control role should probably not exist. Why? Because you are giving models the ability to use two Special Abilities - Forward Observer & Combat Leader - that they do not have. It would have to be reworked to not do that before I could be fine with that role.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator