Which makes it an awful lot like tunneling...

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Well, we could use the same mechanics.  That also increases the pool of people who might be playtesting it...

_________________
Neal

Hit Allocation of Special Weapons: Haven't tried it but it seems like it would have a measurable change on the game as a whole; attacking formations across the board will be more effective.  I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it could potentially imbalance some lists that are heavily equipped with lance and MW and disrupt weapons.  Of course it could be just fine too, but I thought I'd throw out a possible danger in implementing it and see what you think about that.

Tunneling: This rule already exists in Armageddon and AFAIK it hasn't had any complaints or issues.  

Free Planetfall: I believe it has broader applications and should be moved to be a universal rule.  I agree it is more powerful than regular planetfall as a special rule, but that really doesn't mean much to me.  Macro-Weapons are more powerful than lances, fearless is more powerful than invulnerable save, skimmer more powerful than jump pack.  As long as the unit that is using the special rule is priced accordingly and we don't apply the rule too broadly (Ex. an entire formation of free planetfalling gargoyles) we shouldn't have a problem.  

FYI the Dark Eldar use it too.

Support Craft: It is used in two lists and could probably stay there, but once again I don't see it being a negative.  The skimmer-always-popped up may actually work as well or better, or the existing mechanic may work better.  My problems with this are two fold:
1. Nobody has been playtesting them and posting batreps or even portions of batreps that compare the mechanics.  If there is ever a place NOT to theory hammer, it is this one.  Hena is the only person I know that compared them and he found the always-popped-up mechanic as fiddly.  Others like the APU I am sure, but "Where's the beef?"

2. Currently we have two lists that have the same named rule with two different mechanics.  That IMO is a problem.  Making it a universal rule will keep that from happening or growing into a bigger problem in the future.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Actually the Dark Eldar are the only list using it now; the Manta lost Free Planetfall in the latest version due to a general dislike of the implications of the rule.


Support Craft: It is used in two lists and could probably stay there, but once again I don't see it being a negative.  The skimmer-always-popped up may actually work as well or better, or the existing mechanic may work better.  

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

i would say yes to almost all the proposals except heavy infantry. i would say yes but a few days ago i read a thread where, i believe, it was nealhunt said jervis would not change any of the core armies. so if the heavy infantry rule would not be able to be used on previous units that should have it, why give it to others. if i was wrong in my interpretation then this should also put up for review. i think there would be far more units using this then say support craft.

I think it fits with the theme of hit allocation and previous FAQ answers. Namely, you are not allowed to rob an opponent of AT hits by placing them on LVs when there are AP hits to be placed as well. To me that extrapolates out into you are not allowed to rob your opponent of an ignore cover hit when it can be applied to units in cover.

AP/AT Macroweapons - I'm not opposed, but I'm not convinced.  I see the advantages, but I am hesitant to introduce such a substantial change.  Not enough comment to judge a prevailing opinion from the board members.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I forgot to mention, the alternative air rules are great and probably need a home.  I think they would be better suited in the Total War supplement where they will be appreciated a little more, they can be nicely laid out, and even have diagrams or pictures of models interacting.  

I don't like them in the tournament scenario but the rules are too cleverly done to not include SOMEPLACE.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

With there already being ignore cover FF weapons in lists we need a confirmation on how to resolve these . I prefer NealHunts take on the rules as they are now, place specialist attacks on viable targets.

Sorry, thought I had answered this already. Yes, I certainly have the old Master FAQ file (although it may lack some of the later additions). I'm happy to try and compile it again, perhaps we can make a sexy pdf file with hyperlinks. However, I give you this caveat: I have heavy Real Life commitments right now, so it may take me a little while to get around to it.

Also: on aircraft escorts: I made a thread about it a while ago and there are some suggestions for proper rules to cover this sort of thing. This was, I think, the most well received:

Squadrons of fighters may form up as escorts for bombers, producing a combined formation known as a wing (1). You may declare that a single squadron of fighters (2) are flying escort when activating the bomber formation on a ground attack mission (3). Both formations take a single test on the bombers initative, counting Blast Markers from both formations against the test. Should the bombers fail to activate the whole wing stands down and the fighters may not attempt an action of their own later in the turn.

If the activation roll is successful, the wing is considered a single bomber formation for all intents and purposes until the end of the turn (4). There are two exceptions: firstly, fighter planes may not participate in the ground-attack mission (they are watching the skies), and secondly, if the formation is intercepted (5) by enemy aircraft, then after the enemy has made its approach move the fighters may make one turn of any amount (6). The wing disengages together and are split into their respective squadrons once off-board. Blast Markers held by the wing are divided evenly between the two squadrons (7); if there is an odd number, the last Blast Marker may be assigned by the controlling player.

(1) - Note that fighter-bombers may fly escort missions but they may not be escorted (they are expected to look after themselves!)
(2) - Note that the fighter formation may not have performed an action earlier in the turn.
(3) - The bombers may not land as part of the Ground Attack.
(4) - The wing moves together and will receive Blast Markers as normal for a formation.
(5) - Either by a CAP or later in the turn.
(6) - Only one turn made be made, regardless of how many enemy formations intercept. Note that the fighters fire at the same time as the bombers' defensive flak and do not receive the +1 to hit. If the bomber is a War Engine, hits must be allocated as per 3.2.1, otherwise hits are allocated exactly like any other formation (i.e. front-to-back).
(7) - If there is only one squadron remaining due to casualties then they retain ALL of the Blast Markers!

Nice idea with the Fighter Excort

@1.9.6  Hit allocation guidance for special ability (Disrupt, Ignore Cover, Lance, etc.) weapons.
I think hits with a weapon which has one (or more)of these abilities have first to go on targtets whch the ability inquestion is effective.
eg an Ignore Cover hit has to be allocated to a target in cover (if there are any), a Lance hit has to be allocated on a target with Reinforced Armour (if there are any), etc.

@Heavy Infantry: I thinkit would be a useful addition. It could be up to debate if the inclusion of this unit type would affect existing units or only be used for future units to be developed.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

LordI:  Definitely on the FAQ.  If you have a copy, please send it to me.

==

Heavy infantry:  The idea is something that is as agile as a normal infantry, but in some way sufficiently high profile (physically large, tactically imposing) and few enough in number-per-stand design assumptions that shooting it with AT weapons is both viable as a means to destroy their combat ability and something likely to happen on a battlefield.  Not everything on a 40mm round base in 40K is going to qualify.  The units where this would be applicable are things like Tau battlesuits and oversized Tyranid infantry.

A couple people have commented on retro-active revisions to existing lists, but I can't think of anything in SM, IG, Ork or Eldar lists that would qualify.  The only thing I can think of would be maybe Obliterators in the BL list.

What in the existing units that you guys picture might be Heavy Infantry?

_________________
Neal

Essentially it would be borderline units like Terminators, Ogryns and Nobz. Personally I say put Heavy Infantry in as a universal rule but apply it only to army lists currently in production. Anything from older lists could be changed if the change is non-trivial (Formations that consist entirely of HI for instance) to the working of the army (So terminators could be made HI maybe with a points tweak but Nobs would have to stay INF).

So yes to HI but only forward army list looking (any older lists can be altered if and when major alterations to the list are neccessary).

I'm leaning a little towards not on Heavy Infantry, I'm just not sure changing it is justified - particularly if it's to affect existing armies - it's not good for EpicEA to drift too far from the original rules and what is played at tournaments and that, unless it's really necessary.