The Grand NetEpic Review

Discussion of Games Workshop's systems and their universes

The Grand NetEpic Review

Postby Mattman » Friday 2nd August, 2013 10:29 am

Since the current gold ruleset is about 8 years old now and there has been an injection of new blood into the game, the players on TacCom (including myself) have decided to carry out a review of the rules and army lists to iron out any issues. The plan is not for a major overhaul or to stuff loads of new units into the lists, rather a sanity check, so we will be looking to fix errors and grammar, make rules clearer, along with a few minor tweaks to rules and points.
Some of the army books them selves will be split up (generic marines/Chapter specific, Eldar/Dark Eldar, etc) to make them more manageable and we are also talking about producing two different versions of each book, one like what we have with lots of cool pictures and graphics and a second in black and white with reduced amounts of graphics for those people who want a more manageable book to print or have on their tablet.

So for all of you that have been playing NetEpic over the last year, if you have spotted any errors or have any problems or queries then either let me know by posting here and I will pass them on, or alternatively head on over to the NetEpic section of TacComs and add them to the appropriate list.

After the review is completed, there is a plan to produce some additional books which will introduce with new units and formations, but that is not what is being considered at this time.

User avatar
Posts: 385
Joined: Monday 29th June, 2009 8:56 am

Re: The Grand NetEpic Review

Postby Talorian » Friday 2nd August, 2013 3:49 pm

The points costs of titans. Stop being lazy and rounding the points values and make the weapons appropriately costed.
User avatar
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wednesday 1st July, 2009 7:51 pm

Re: The Grand NetEpic Review

Postby Rick » Friday 2nd August, 2013 5:09 pm

I'm not sure if this is part of your vision for the update but it would be nice to see some units that are noticeable by omission. Some of the new units introduced since the original epic have been included (flying hive tyrants) but others left out (flying warriors), although that raises the question about how thorough you want to be about including newer units (Tau Riptides?). Also I seem to recall some mention that space marine companies in netEpic don't follow the background that has been in place since 2nd ed in terms of composition?

One major issue I noticed is that Eldar cannot ally with Dark Eldar according to the netEpic ally rules. This is a common and totally unfounded misunderstanding of the background as people sometimes assume they have the same hatred that elves and dark elves have in fantasy (and many other universes presumably). Dark Eldar are more like the black sheep of the family.

I noticed quite a few things I found confusing when reading through the nid rules although I can't recall them all now. I think a few of them were addressed in the errata which was really hard to find at the time. The biggest was with how bio cannons work - most have AA but it isn't clearly stated that they get to shoot ground targets as normal. Some bio cannons that are included in the profiles of superheavies (the dominatrix and harridan) are not noted as AA (and I think also lacked the +1 to rolls on the damage chart other bio cannons had) at all which seems oddly inconsistent, especially as I'd expect harridans to have the ability to shoot aircraft. I also seem to recall I was confused as to whether gargoyles made a double or single infiltration move although that might have been me not understanding the rules.

Hope that helps. Good luck with the update :)
40k: Tau (gothic, AI), Tyranids (NetEpic, gothic), Dark Angels
WFB: Skaven (uncharted seas)
Also Played: Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, Flames of War
Posts: 693
Joined: Thursday 2nd July, 2009 4:03 pm

Return to The Dark Nightmare of the Grim Dark Nightmarish Future

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests