Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Raiders 2.0 DRAFT

 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
UPDATED FEB-11-2010Here is a link for Raiders 2.0 DRAFT.  I really don't want to print 3.0 or even a 2.0.1 so your eyes will be appreciated.

Cybershadow has uploaded it to Tactical Command now.  It is an uncompressed file and CS mentioned it seemed a little slow.  If you have problems or feedback on that, feel free to post it here.  

Check anything and everything you can and post it here.  If you have a problem with the rules or stats PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS IT ON THIS THREAD.  Instead find the appropriate thread and post it there.  This is for editing errors only.  I want to here from everybody but I've got to keep this organized.  Trust me- I don't let a Necron, Dark Eldar, or Minervan thread go unnoticed.

NOTE: The Necron Rule has already been re-written since this pdf was created and will read as follows on future versions:
Quote: 

Necron technology allows many of its units to repair themselves at an
accelerated rate. This is reflected as the Necron ability in a unit’s
datasheet.

Units with the Necron ability that have been destroyed can regenerate.
Formations can return one previously destroyed Necron unit in the end
phase of each turn either on or off the board. In addition, if a formation
regroups on board it can use the dice rolls to either return units with the
Necron ability to play or to remove blast markers or both (e.g., if you
rolled a ‘2’ you could return 2 units to play, remove 2 blast markers, or
return 1 unit and remove 1 blast marker).  Formations off board are
restricted to using their regroup function to remove blast markers only.





_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
FileShare is indicating that the size of the file, 48MB, is too large for downloads for non-registered account users.

Is it too large to send to the TacComm wiki File Galleries?




_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:53 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4234
Location: Greenville, SC
It doesn't seem to let you downolad the PDF unless you have an upgraded account with them and their PDF viewer is beyond slow, so I guess I'll just have to wait until it drops over here to the forums.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:04 pm
Posts: 901
Location: New Haven, CT
Ditto.

Could you upload it to google documents?
For example:





Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:39 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
Mosc, you could drop it in an email to me.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (CyberShadow @ Feb. 08 2010, 22:39 )

Mosc, you could drop it in an email to me.

Since the file is over 40MB in size, most email programs are going to balk at that.

Bill, touch base with me and we'll see if we can shrink that in any way.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I just sent my logon to Cybershadow and he can grab it from there.  Once he puts it out here, you can have your way with it, Chroma.    :;):

Patience, folks.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Okay, it is up.  Check the top of this thread for the link or just go here.

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive ... iders.html

My prediction:
Hena will find more grammatical and spelling errors than anyone whose native tongue is English. :cool:

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
I am... very slowly... downloading... ... ...it.

More comments later!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:47 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4234
Location: Greenville, SC
hehe.... I am as well. At this rate it should be done by lunch :)

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Got the file, and will look over in more detail soon.

First big question: Were no changes made to the Minervan list and units at all?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
From the Design Notes section:
Quote: 

Version 1.9
…is the current version in Epic: Raiders 2.0. The Stormhammer
is only one major change to the list. After extensive play testing
the unit over-performed when compared to the other Super
Heavies. It had its stats changed from being a heavy shooter to
an assaulting SHT. This slotted the Stormhammer into a roll not
filled by the other tanks and is more reflective of the weapons
shown on the model.
The chart for calculating Leman Russ costs appears different to
eliminate the need to subtract, but the actual cost has not
changed.


While there were some concerns about flexibility and activation count, at the end of the day the Stormhammer was the only concern that really needed addressing.  I went through the threads and couldn't find anything else that required any attention.

The DE had no stat changes to anything and only minor point changes.

Necrons were the only real problematic list.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote: 

While there were some concerns about flexibility and activation count, at the end of the day the Stormhammer was the only concern that really needed addressing.  I went through the threads and couldn't find anything else that required any attention.


Commonly agreed the Stormsword is underpowered. It had its main gun raised to 45cm in the Krieg list more than a year ago, and now recieves no complaints.

Commonly agreed the Stormblade is overpowered. It had its Firefight rating dropped to 5+ in the Krieg list more than a year ago, and now recieves no complaints.

IIRC you commented on and agreed with those two changes when they were raised for the Minervans.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (Moscovian @ Feb. 11 2010, 18:42 )

The chart for calculating Leman Russ costs appears different to
eliminate the need to subtract, but the actual cost has not
changed.

There's still a subtraction in there for Thunderers.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Raiders 2.0 DRAFT
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:55 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4234
Location: Greenville, SC
Necrons:
Wasn't the Armored Phalanx dropped from the list when the monolith formation changes were made?

I'm not too fond of the naming conventions and minor layout idiosyncrasies on the necron army list page. It seems a little haphazard in implementation with Phalanx and Maniple thrown around and the asterisk to add a supreme commander. I'd like to see these adjusted to have all of them use maniple rather than Phalanx. I realize some of this comes from the 40k apocalypse naming conventions but I think the list would look more cohesive with these changes.

IE:
Armored Phalanx becomes Obelisk Maniple
Monolith Phalanx becomes Monolith Maniple
Monolith Maniple becomes Armored Maniple

I'd also like the see the supreme commander upgrade appear in the upgrade list rather than as a side note at the bottom.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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