Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

The Great Revision Debate!

 Post subject: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27066
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

Although Net Epic Gold is out, the revision that birthed it is over a decade old.

There are many things to correct and update but only YOU can say what is to be achieved in this next revision.

This is the time to voice your thoughts and thus mold the agenda for the next great net epic revision!

I eagerly await your input!

Primarch


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
Well I suppose I will start, since I already started on another post ;D

1) Split the army books.

I think this only relates to Marines, Eldar and Slann/Necron (which I guess will be done anyway when new models appear).
Basically I don't think you need the Chapter specific rules in the main marine list. Separating them will give us the chance to have a look at all the chapters as and when we can and we won't have to continually update the marine book.
Speaking as an eldar player as well, I don't particularly want the Dark Eldar stuff in the same book. Split them off and make the books half the size, and it again allows each races book to be looked at separately if need be.

2) Reduce the graphic intensity of some of the books.

As much as the book layouts look nice, sometimes the amount of stuff going on on the page and the layers of graphics just gets to much and this all leads to massive files sizes (I have Orks at nearly 90MB and Guard at over 50MB!) which can cause printing issues and slow download problems.
I know Primarch said he wanted something that looked nice and could be bound up like a proper book, but if you look at all the GW books (rules and codices) their pages are white or beige, very little back ground images, they break things up with nice borders and lots of colour pictures. You don't need all that colour to make the book look professional and nice. For me the marine book looks good, pail watermark which doesn't take away form the information, simple colour palette, but still looks professional.

3) Remove the reference to army cards.

People don't need them anymore and most people don't use them with the army books and everything listed in tables. At some point in the future we might go down that route again, I know I have looked into making some, though it isn't a quick process I have found and most probably more trouble than it is worth in the long run as they are more of a "nice to have" thing.
So since we don't use them, don't mention cards. The best word I have found to replace "cards" is "formation". So rather than Company Cards, Support Cards and Special Cards, we have Company Formations, Support Formations and Special Formations. It is easily applicable to all armies.

3) Space Marine Vets are too cheap.

Another point I have raised previously. I think they are undercosted for what they do. 50pts more than a tactical detachment (100 more than a tactical company) for double the CAF, increased morale and Elite. I ran the stats through the points calculator that was posted a few months ago (might not be wholly accurate but gives us an idea), and that says vets should be about 100pts more than tacticals, so I could quite easily see the cost of a detachment bumped up by 50pts and maybe the company to 1000. Would have to see how this affects Terminators to.

4) Smaller drop pod formation.

We can drop companies in, but I think a smaller drop pod formation for detachments should be available; it might help make dreadnoughts more viable as well. I was thinking along the lines of a Support Formation of 4 Assault, 1 Support and 1 Deathwind for 100pts. This would allow you to drop a dreadnought squad somewhere or a vet detachment with chaplain ect.

5) Titans should be able to engage multiple enemies in combat.

This is something new that I have been thinking about.
If a titan charges into combat it isn't going to just fight against one stand of the enemy, it is going to mow down hordes of them as it stomps, kicks and sweeps its way through. So rather than 1 on 1, when titans engage in combat with anything smaller than say a super heavy or knight, they are considered to be in contact with all models within "some number of" cm (distance to be decided) and will fight a round of combat against each. We could add that the anti personnel weapons will only affect those in base contact with the titan rather than everyone within the combat distance. This might make people think about arming titans for CC and sending them into the fray rather than just sitting back as a weapons platform.

6) Sternguard / Vanguard Vets.

Something else I have mentioned on another post is the introduction of different veteran types since they are present in the marine list these days. Something for the optional book maybe.

7) Updating of the marine formations.

Again, something for the optional book. New era marine companies follow a different structure for their companies compared to the old style. If you have looked at EA at all you will see the company formations are different to what is in NetEpic. Allowing a different set of formations might also tempt EA players to try NetEpic as they wouldn’t have to change their armies much. How this would work with other races, don’t know.

Think that is enough to start with ;)

Matt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 3:18 pm
Posts: 1619
Location: France
Hi,

1) Some armies should see their army book splitted in several. Example for the Dark Eldars/Necrons is revelant. But some should not, this is the case for most of the space marine chapters. Most of them share 90% of the units with the generic list. Splitting the codex in 5-10 smaller codex would involve a lot of work and probably many issues or incoherency. Moreover, when/if GW create a new mini and a profile is created, you'll have to update many army books.

2) Heavy army books ready for professional printing is cool BUT only if you can afford the print job. As the army books still contains errors or are subject to small changes, I never choose to pay for this. I think it's better to have nice army books with cool painted minis that you can print at home/at work without burning cardbriges...More over, some armybooks contains armies I don't play so I have the feeling to waste ink and paper.

3) I agree with that, army cards are not used anymore by many players. With the capacity to have a software that can do spreadsheets on mobile devices, not many players still use army cards.

3bis) & 4) Not sure it's already time to talk about new profiles or adjusting existing ones

5)I think Peter confirmed somewhere in the board that a titan can engage more than 1 model...

6) as 3bis & 4 and I agree that some news units could be added to reflect new units in 40K

7) I think that when you play NetEpic, you should think "Apocalypse formation size" rather than 40K formations. In NetEpic, just field a terminator company + 2 battle companies and you have more infantry stands than majority of 3000 points E:A armies.

Few thoughts:
8) add few more orders: it's been 20 years we play with 3 orders: Charge/Advance/First Fire, maybe time has come to think about few new ones that would add variety.

9) fliers are still not really in the same game than ground troops. They have been a problem since SMV2 and are still not very well "merged" in the game: dog-fights are not really possible unless you have a lot of luck or way more activations than your opponent...

The next revision would involve a lot of job, not sure there's many players here would could spend dozen of hours in writing the future army books...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
scream wrote:
1) Some armies should see their army book splitted in several. Example for the Dark Eldars/Necrons is revelant. But some should not, this is the case for most of the space marine chapters. Most of them share 90% of the units with the generic list. Splitting the codex in 5-10 smaller codex would involve a lot of work and probably many issues or incoherency. Moreover, when/if GW create a new mini and a profile is created, you'll have to update many army books.


Hey Scream,

I wasn't thinking about replicating all the marine stuff in each "chapter codex", I was envisioning each being a 3/4 page document with the additions and restrictions along with the stats for those new units that is read in conjunction with the main marine army list. So if I want to play Blood Angels, I pick up the main marine list and the extra document and I am ready to go and I don't have all those extra pages stuffed with rules for Dark Angels, Crimson Fists and White Scars which I don't need. Think of it like the newly released digital Iyanden book for Eldar in 40k (minus the 600 pages of fluff :eh ).
Doing this will strip 15 odd pages from the marine list making it smaller and more manageable, and easily manageable documents is one of the points I have highlighted.
This give us the added benefit that if there needs to be a change to a codex list, then it is a small document to errata.

Matt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
And just to add, some of the guys I play with said they would prefer smaller, trimmed down books.

Matt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 940
Location: Nottingham, UK
I strongly agree with splitting Dark Eldar and Eldar. It is frustrating having both of those in the same book. I don't see the need to split up Marine Chapters though for the reasons which Scream has given.

Cards could easily be replaced by formations too, I agree with that. I still own all the cards, but new players won't, and other older players don't seem to use them on the whole, so a terminology change makes sense here.

Tinkering around with existing rules doesn't seem to be necessary in most instances. I agree that there are some issues with flyers, but unless there's a way to make those rules better, and less complicated, I don't favour changing them.

There are a few minor revisions which could be made to the odd unit here and there, but I think that it would be better to agree on dealing with any issues with the books, and core rules, before we discuss those.

_________________
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27066
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

I will jump in tomorrow to weigh in so please continue to express your desires for the revision.

Primarch


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3116
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
If the Dark Eldar are being removed from the book, maybe the Exodites should also be removed. I quite like the idea of some smaller army books being released. When I'm playing Eldar and flicking through PDFs, it does frustrate a little that I keep having to jump past the Dark Eldar and Exodites rules.

I'm with Mattman about the specific Chapters. I'd like to see the Marine book have the generic lists and then a seperate book with all of the Chapter lists. Ideally, there would be a seperate summary page for unit costs and then the unit stats for each Chapter.

I agree that we should forget about the cards. I've only recently stopped using them, and this was because I was getting frustrated that on some cards the points costs didn't match those for NetEpic.

So far as the graphics and so on in the books goes, I think the rulebooks are lovely so I wouldn't like to see these discarded. But if people are keen to have this stripped down, instead of removing the option for the wonderful books we have, how about offering 2 versions; the existing books we already have and a "vanilla" version where everything is plain black and white text with no pics?

Will have a think some more about all of this!

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:05 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27066
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

Interesting on the opinions for army cards. I always thought people liked them. But truthfully, even I don't use them much.

I wonder if anyone has programing skills to make an army generator for net epic?

That would be probably more useful.

Primarch


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:08 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 3:18 pm
Posts: 1619
Location: France
primarch wrote:
I wonder if anyone has programing skills to make an army generator for net epic? That would be probably more useful.


2 years ago, I started an app for codex and army list creation, I did not finish it ::) Maybe time has come to complete the project :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
scream wrote:
primarch wrote:
I wonder if anyone has programing skills to make an army generator for net epic? That would be probably more useful.


2 years ago, I started an app for codex and army list creation, I did not finish it ::) Maybe time has come to complete the project :)


Now that would be cool. Especially if it could run on tablets and phones.
I have been making my own army list builder in excel. It is quite crude and uses lots of dropdown boxes and look up tables. Will post a copy of the current progress when I get time.

Matt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:30 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
primarch wrote:
Hi!

Interesting on the opinions for army cards. I always thought people liked them. But truthfully, even I don't use them much.

Primarch


I think people like the nostalgia value of them, but the practicality of them against lists and tables, they aren't as convenient.
I suspect people would use them if we ever got round to making an updated set (a lot of wargames out there do use card based building systems these days), but as I said it might take a while.

Matt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 3:12 pm
Posts: 830
I'm sure files suitable for the Armyforge could be created. I've not looked at Net Epic but do you still build like in SM2? So formations are fixed and its x support, y special per company? If so then Armyforge data files shouldn't be that hard to create, if someone had the time?

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:30 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3116
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Agree completely with Mattman. I do like the cards but unfortunately as the points costs have changed for several units/companies it is no longer practical to use them. They are always handy to have during play because handing them over to your opponent allows them to keep closer track of VPs.

@ Mephiston: You do still build as in SM2. I'm a technophobe so unfortunately can't help out.

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Revision Debate!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27066
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
scream wrote:
primarch wrote:
I wonder if anyone has programing skills to make an army generator for net epic? That would be probably more useful.


2 years ago, I started an app for codex and army list creation, I did not finish it ::) Maybe time has come to complete the project :)


Hi!

I believe the time is ripe for this, if you were so inclined. I am not much on the coding side, but I can write/compile anything you would need.

I think such a program would be infinitely useful.

Primarch


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net