It's extremely easy, the basic Land Speeder would just become MWAP5+/MWAT5+... it always seemed silly to me that "less" powerful weapons could be targeted discrimately, but more powerful ones couldn't be!

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

It's more creditable if you think that both (advance and double) are moving at 25 mph (or whatever there top combat speed is)not one at 25 and one at 50.
Then the difference each(advance and double) can cover in a turn is down to tactical movement/use of cover/targeting requirements etc.
As I see the rules for movement,
Advance = Tactical moving of units.
This is along the lines of a couple of squads and vehicles moving at top combat speed (to get from point A to point B) whilst other squads and vehicles give covering fire/support fire etc.
Then the next section of squads and vehicles do the same and meet up with the first section and so on until all the formations sections have moved from point A to point B.
Double = Strategic moving of units.
This is more along the lines of all squads and vehicles move roughly at the same time still at (the same) top combat speed (to get from point A to point B then to point C) but with a weaker amount of covering fire/support fire etc.
With all the formations sections/squads etc. moving in unison they don't have to stop at point B and wait for/give covering fire to the other units etc.so can move on to point C even though they are moving at the same speed as a formation only taking an advance.


As for mounting and dismounting.
Advancing (tactical movement) only gives enough time to do one and still give sufficient covering fire/supporting fire to their own formation,hence ranged attacks fire at normal (sufficient time to target enemy).
Doubling (strategic movement) gives time to quickly mount and then dismount but leaves the formation with a weaker amount of covering fire/support fire,hence ranged fire attacks are at -1 to hit (insufficient time to target enemy) .

This is how I see the different movement ranges through Advance/Double/March etc. in Epic A .

Hey, if we're complaining about basic game rules, how about this one:

Everything moves too damned fast. It always bothered me that a unit in the middle of the table at the start of turn 3 could pretty much double move to claim/contest objectives anywhere on the board (except at the extreme [short] edges of the table, assuming a 4'x6' table and an average transport speed of 30cm). On top of that, even formations with just one lone survivor can do this, as long as the formation isn't broken.

But, the problem with changing this aspect of the game (or any other of the same scope) is that it is so deeply ingrained into the point values and basic strategy of gameplay that changing it would be a Herculean effort. And even if you did put in the effort to 'fix' the rules that bother you, the idea that you wouldn't end up creating whole new rules oddities that would get on the nerves of some other player out there is pretty naive.

You would just need a note saying that a weapons listed as MW5+ can be assumed to be AP5+/AT5+ MW. That way you would need just a small change to the Macro Weapon rule, and any lists that needed to differentiate between AP and AT MW could do so.

It doesn't really help out things like Banshee swords or other assault/firefight MW though. I'm not sure how many shooting MW there really are.

Don't think of it as a way to get your buddies naked.

Think of it as a motivation to get more pretty girls to play Epic: Armageddon.

Everybody wins

I totally disagree: The relative mobility of all formations makes E:A stress maneuver over firepower and makes the game so good: You can crossfire, encircle, trap the enemy, shift your main effort, withdraw effectively, feint and gamble, break through or shore up defences.

And those 1-unit formations very rarely remain around unbroken, or indeed for much longer!

_________________
Visit www.epic-battles.de the ultimate german epic site&forum!

I... the... something's telling me that there's a fault in your logic somewhere, but damned if I can see where it is.  

At the risk of being a spoilsport, could we start the rule discussions in their own threads?

Thanks.

_________________
Neal

To update...

It seems we are more or less back on track with respect to schedule.  Not all the lists advanced as far as would be ideal, but the large majority of the items on our list made progress, even if it was just a single iteration.

May has Raiders and the Rules review on the schedule.  Preliminary review on the Raiders stuff has begun for Necrons and Minervans.  I'm assuming that DE will be forthcoming (though the only thing people seem to have expressed concern with is the upgrade price discrepancy).  I don't think there is much for a Rules Review, but I'll start a thread soon for the few things that we do have (like a universal "Expendable" rule).

In the meantime, please post any suggestions for post-May projects for NetEA.

Do we want to recycle the same army review schedule to try to push more lists to completion (and maybe adjust it based on when the existing versions actually made it out)?  Or, do we want to incorporate the various supplement projects?  Testing on supplement-specific army lists and scenarios could be of great help in ironing out bugs but also, and probably more importantly, in keeping the producers motivated to get the projects completed.

_________________
Neal

I would appreciate a special NetERC 2-week blitz of the Siege army lists starting today.  

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I talked to Mosc a bit about the supplement process off-line a while back.

I would have no objection to a blitz, but given that there are 2 IG lists, it would be nice if we could get TRC's input as well.

Even though these are fan pubs and clearly marked "unofficial" and in every way possible disclaimed as any sort of attempted infringement on GW, once it's in print, people take it as a done deal and start to think of it as official.  Witness the nearly constant stream of questions about the 2008 Handbook and it was just a quick and relatively unformatted doc.  If you put all the effort into making a high quality fan supplment, people are reasonable to assume the work has been done on play balance as well.

Unfortunately, that means that ex post tweaking and updates are viewed in much the same way that official GW revisions are seen - a source of constant uncertainty, potentially unnecessary, and just a general detraction from the game.  I think it's extremely important to keep potential errata and corrections to the absolute bare minimum if you want people to find the effort useful.

In an ideal world, any army lists going into a supplement would be well vetted by the designers and the appropriate ACs and submitted to the NetERC for "NetEA Official" status before or concurrent with publication.


Of course, as always, the Golden Rule applies - It's your game, your project, your fun, so DWWFY.

_________________
Neal

TRC has been AWOL for months.

In an ideal world, any army lists going into a supplement would be well vetted by the designers and the appropriate ACs and submitted to the NetERC for "NetEA Official" status before or concurrent with publication.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

In an ideal world, any army lists going into a supplement would be well vetted by the designers and the appropriate ACs and submitted to the NetERC for "NetEA Official" status before or concurrent with publication.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

The June NetEA Rules Review appears to be brief in scope, consisting primarily of FAQ review and guidance on interpreting some of the stickier rules.  This should hopefully move quickly.

Those that have been keeping up with the boards already know this, but rather than start a new cycle of army list review, the NetERC is going to push forward on producing a document with all approved and near-approval army lists.  Several have been submitted by the army champions and we've identified others that we are going to try to solicit from the ACs for a vote.

Once we have a consolidated document out, we can begin the army list review cycle anew for the still in-development lists and any new variant lists the respective ACs would like to begin or bring into the NetEA fold.

_________________
Neal

Commenting here because the champions thread is locked;

Neal, Honda is the assistant-deputy-backup-champion for Tau.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread