Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward

 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:14 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Galicia, Spain
Quote:
To be honest, I don't see any real need to try and fix any supposed weaknesses in Epic's air game.
The game works well enough as it is (well for me at least). I really wish people would hold back on trying to make Epic into a more comlicated game. It's one of the best game systems I've played (in over 30 years of rolling dice and moving miniatures around tables).


QFT. I just play with the basic rulebook+Errata2008, crazy!! I have never played 40K, insane!!

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:50 am
Posts: 835
Hena wrote:
Don't worry you are not alone in this :). I'm very much on side of abstraction and making rules make sense instead of slavishly following 40k.

I agree with Hena*, completely and without reservation.

:o Did I just type that?

The 40Kification of Epic is not a direction I want to see taken. That at least two AC's are holding off on list development because of pending Codexes is just wrong, IMO. The addition of every little wonky toy that GW have released (Achilles, Terminus, Prometheus, Redeemer, Helios, and that's just the Land Raiders!) just seems like a cheap way of making alternate lists. I wouldn't mind if these things were iconic, Death Company for the Blood Angels, Deathwing/Ravenwing for the Dark Angels. But something that's only been in print for less than half a decade, isn't iconic. And most of them aren't even unique (according to fluff).

I don't play 40K. I don't play Apocalypse. There's a reason for that. That Epic is seemingly becoming more and more an unappreciated Cad stepchild to those, is one that slowly but consistently saps my enthusiasm to the point of apathy about the game entirely.

Morgan Vening


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:19 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
I thought alternative army lists for each army is one of the main design features of Epic: Armageddon?
Else we would just tag on additional units/formation to the rulebook armies.

If the only difference of an alternative army list isn't just a different list structure but also new units, isn't this even better?
For every army we can have:
jack-of-all-trades (rulebook lists)
Fast Attack (Raven Guard, Speed Freeks, Saim-hann)
Tank-heavy (Scions of Iron, Minervan Tank Legions, Yme-loc)
FF-heavy (Salamanders)
CC-heavy (Blood Angels)
Siege (Death Korps, Imperial Fists, Baran)

We can also differentiate in low and high tech (Siege Armies: Mossinians vs Death Korps)
Or defensive and offensive (Siege Armies: Baran vs Death Korps)
Even in the same army (Siege Armies: Siege Defence Imperial Fists, Siege Assault Imperial Fists)
We can also mix it (Fast Attack & CC-Heavy: Blood Angels)

That's one of the design ethics of Epic: Armageddon.
Else you would have one list for all.
If you don't like variants. That's fine. Just stick to the core armies you like. If you'r whole gaming group is of the same mind set the better. You aren't even forced to take part in the discussiosn for variant army lists.
But don't expect that everyone in the world shares your viewpoint.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:29 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
The problem could be that a change to air rules for Epic could lead to a change to points costs for planes. That would be bad for ALL players and would then not really give ALL players a choice in what lists they use. This is just an example of my reservations.

I just don't see the need for any of the proposed changes to the air game or for slavishly following 40K/Apocalypse.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Yes. There is no need to change anything. Just use the core rule book, Swordwind and Raiders (without Minervans off course). Just finish Tyranids and Tau so all major races are covered.

Development ends here.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
Athmospheric wrote:
1)I am of the opinion that a bit more abstraction regarding statlines and a bit less nitpicking about exact 40K ruleset would actually benefit the game and its lists quite a lot.

2)but I really would rather have all Leman russes variants abstracted in a handful of statlines, say 5 types at most.
In 40k, I didn't count them but I'm sure there are around 10 variants, only counting main gun variations.
Vanilla, demolisher, vanquisher, exterminator, executioner, thunderer, destroyer, punisher, eradicator, yeah 9 already. Now depending on the sponsons, should we really have around 15 or 20 statlines for this hull ?
Then, we could have a 'pint mounted storm bolter" and a "hunter seeker missile" upgrade etc...


1) I disagree. We may not need to shoot with bolters but I think my Land Raider and Land Raider Prometheus are different enough as the Epic/6mm Scale to note.

2) We don't do that. Granted we have different Turrets (the iconic part of the tank) which gives us different types. But they don't have different sponsons options or upgrades. They are given the general(abstract) options that the main stream tank would have.

Epic is pretty abstracted in lots of things, but it can't be with everything. If it was then my Imperial Guard Tanks and Eldar Tanks would be that, just tanks. There is a balance of things, some people might not agree with that balance, but I don't think it has changed much since E:A started.

I still don't know why BL Skimmer VOTL comments are odd. Why is one flyer a skimmer and another isn't? That drives me crazy. Why can't they all be flyers with some being able to jump into Skimmer mode?

Now can we please get back on topic! I don't enjoy reading the updates and posts about Air rules and seeing a whine fest about Epic as a whole... :)

======================
Steve54 and Evil and Chaos,

Are you saying that UK Epic Community would not be on board for an overhaul of the Air Rules? If that's the case then we should close up shop on this topic and finish the NetEA Books or something productive.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:08 pm
Posts: 961
Location: Nice, south of France
List are that : lists. you can get a very different game play and quite some rebalancing favouring one kind of tactics over others just by modifying formation sizes, allowed upgrades, army list construction rules. THAT is the beauty of E:A. One space marine chapter = one army list is quite 40K actually. That's why half the 40K codexes are marines. Choosing "imperial fist" as a name for a Siege marine list, or Iron hand for a tank themed marine army, etc, is fine by me. What bothers me is that right now, lists are used more to introduce a bunch of statlines than to actually play with the construction of the list.

For example, siege marines might pay less for infantry, but have transports as upgrade, dread formations, 6 strong WW formations, whatever. Some of those are or were in the imperial fist list, and that's good IMHO. Changing the tactical marines statline in the DA list isn't.

If the Ravenwing really can't be represented satisfactorily with just larger or mixed formations of bikes and speeders, maybe ONE statline could be sneacked in, but I don't even think that should be needed. One could probably make a flavourful space wolves list without even a "new" statline. A single rule or statline or 2 at most should be able to take care of most space marine chapters, eldar craftworld, chaos chapter or guard regiment in my humble opinion.

But anyway, I've derailed the thread enough as it is. It's been a long time since I've planned to make a thread about such concerns, and the design principles behind the work being done for this great game here. I guess it just finally came out of itself in a inappropriate thread. Anyway, I don't have any issues with lots of lits, I don't have any issues with lots of different models, I am all for it in both case. I just think we should concentrate more on the army building aspect than on the statlines you're able to choose from.

About the air rules, I don't like the mechanics that allow AA umbrella and the Airborne AA castle, neither do I like the flak rushes. I would rather have the alternative air rules as they were written. Now, what I think would work best would be those alternative rules (disengage as part of the action effectively prevent these two bugs in the current rules), with amendment to allow for some measure of air recycling : evac'd troops being able to come back, and possibly allowing transport aircraft to land, with the reserves i voiced a few pages back : no objective contesting, and no landing-assaulting-evac'ing in the same turn.

I'm sure such a ruling wouldn't be too hard to write, wouldn't be any more complicated than the current version, and would actually probably play faster since everyone stop trying to build aircastle. Now, sure, the current rules are workable, they just allow 2 "bugs" that look quite silly compared to the rest of the ruleset.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:46 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
BlackLegion wrote:
Yes. There is no need to change anything. Just use the core rule book, Swordwind and Raiders (without Minervans off course). Just finish Tyranids and Tau so all major races are covered.

Development ends here.

Sarcasm Noted ::) :D

The Air Rules or some parts might not make sense but if the World Epic Community at large won't agree on the change then we shouldn't. There needs to be consistent in the main rulebook. But if different areas choose to make different army lists then fine, but the main rules need to stay consistent.


Last edited by Angel_of_Caliban on Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
Athmospheric wrote:
List are that : lists. you can get a very different game play and quite some rebalancing favouring one kind of tactics over others just by modifying formation sizes, allowed upgrades, army list construction rules. THAT is the beauty of E:A. One space marine chapter = one army list is quite 40K actually. That's why half the 40K codexes are marines. Choosing "imperial fist" as a name for a Siege marine list, or Iron hand for a tank themed marine army, etc, is fine by me. What bothers me is that right now, lists are used more to introduce a bunch of statlines than to actually play with the construction of the list.

For example, siege marines might pay less for infantry, but have transports as upgrade, dread formations, 6 strong WW formations, whatever. Some of those are or were in the imperial fist list, and that's good IMHO. Changing the tactical marines statline in the DA list isn't.

But then your told "not to mess with formation size" or "that isn't codex". So the only way to make a new list is to make new/iconic units and rules.

I think there should be a balance. Some new variants/units and some formation changes to make a Variant list.

Again Back On Topic...

Changes to the Main Rulebook should ONLY happen if all Epic Groups (NetEA, UK, etc) agree to it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:08 pm
Posts: 961
Location: Nice, south of France
Sorry for the whinefest.
I strongly disagree with you on such things as the LR stats apparently. I think I had to voice my concern about some of the design principles at work behind the lists at one point.

Now I agree this is not the right topic to do it, sorry to waste your reading time. Now, I've voiced it, I'll let it rest.

I'll just do what everyone else does : make my fan lists as I like them. After all, UK has a set of rule, FR has a set of Rules, there's Net E:A which somehow isn't official apparently, and one out of each two marine player allready wrote his own list anyway.

This is just toy soldiers, I'm no tournament winner, and I would probably end up hurting the feeling of just anyone who ever tried to wrote a list, and believe it or not, that's really not what I was trying to do.

Sorry for the waste of time and the whining.

Angel : I think you SHOULD mess up with the formations. That was the original ideas behind the list system.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 2:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Well i think everyone has to vent off some steam once in a while.
And often than not it is at an inappropiate time and/or place.

My sincere apologies for my venting of steam. Apparently i took some things a bit to personal for a game of toy soldiers.

But to adress variants one last time: I'm a bit surprised that there are so much variant Space Marine army lists. But as in Wh40k they seem to be the most popular army and thus generate the most variants.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
No need to apologise Atmospheric! We have a diversity of approaches, perceptions and preferences to things on the forum and I generally tend to think that’s a good thing. I try and respect other people’s approaches to the game and list design philosophies even I take a different approach myself e.g. personally I quite like a higher level of detail and adding some of the new units/vehicles from W40k, but I think it’s equally valid to want a more limited abstraction to the units and lists.

I do agree with the dislike of the flak rush and the AA umbrella and if people want to develop and use an optional alternative aircraft rules system that’s all well and good, however I do feel strongly that the official rules should stay as they are and that trying to change them (if that is actually being considered here? I admit I’m not clear) would cause much unnecessary division and argument amongst the epic communities (of which we are but one).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:08 pm
Posts: 961
Location: Nice, south of France
Glyng : this thread was opened to have a second look at the alternative aerospace rules proposed by Jervis a few years back, because there were some heated debate in another thread, mostly about the AA umbrella topic. As the alternative rules we should be discussing in this thread ::) did a good job of preventing the 2 most irritating "bugs" of the current one, it was felt that it might be a good idea to re-examine and discuss them once again.

They would have been a candidate replacement for the current aerospace rules if there had been large support AND agreement with NetERC, epicUK and the FrERC over it. So far it does not look like it. Most of the players who could do with it would at least want some amendment of it, and the change would have ramifications into the balancing of aircraft in current lists.

Or else, I didn't quite understood the purpose of the thread either :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:30 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
Athmospheric wrote:
Or else, I didn't quite understood the purpose of the thread either :)

LOL :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic Air Rules - a look back to move forward
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:39 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
Athmospheric wrote:
Glyng : this thread was opened to have a second look at the alternative aerospace rules proposed by Jervis a few years back...Or else, I didn't quite understood the purpose of the thread either :)

Ok, thanks! My bad; I'd just scan-read the discussion while avoiding overdue uni work, I should have read things more thoroughly if I was going to comment. Let the aircraft discussion continue...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 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