Re: epic to Dirtside conversions

Andy Skinner wrote:

> Peter Ramos wrote:
> > Over sevral months I have compiled many ideas and conversions for
GW's line of
> > epic miniatures. I have these handwritten over several several
notbooks and to
> > transcibe them on to the computer might be quite lengthy.  My
question is, is
> > there a demand for this sort of thing? Is there interest for such
conversions?
> > I would like some opinions before I dedicate the time to make all my
notes
> > into a more mangable form.
>
> I'd like to see them.  I've never switched from Epic to DSII, though I
> originally bought the SM 2nd box for figures for DSII.  (I know we
> disagree as to the quality of Epic 40K.)  I especially would like to
> hear how you apply the rules.  For example, will you try to reflect
the
> Epic behavior of a miniature in your DSII conversion, or design the
> vehicle as it appears to you?

Although I tried to keep the overall character of each army I did not
feel compeled
to reproduce certain abilities the epic system is based on. Pop-up kind
of abilities
I will leave with VTOL's not grav vehicles. As I made the stats I used
the vehicles
appearance, just as the DSII recommends.

> I'd do the latter, not providing pop-ups
> to grav vehicles, for example.  On the other hand, some vehicles that
> are not over-sized just look like they ought to be able to shoot more
> than one gun at a time.  I've been thinking of generalizing the rule
> allowing over-sized vehicles to buy more than one fire control.  I
> wouldn't make one for every weapon on the model (for GW minis, that
> might get excessive :), but there are some I'd like two for.	Some
> people just ignore the one-weapon at a time rule, but I'd like for a
> vehicle to pay for it in points

To counter the problem of "epic" type units having so many weapons
systems I did add
extra fire controls and cost to those vehicles. It does get expensive
with the
larger vehicles but I guess they should pay for the priveledge anyway.
Now note I
use the phrase "weapon system". That means I have given extra fire
controls for a
"system" not individual weapons.

For example the predator, one HKP type weapon and two HEL's, I gave it
one fire
control for one weapon sytem type HKP and one for the two HEL's (which
although two
separate weapons its still the same system type). This way vehicles
don't wind up
with inordinate amounts of fire control. In our example the predator
could target
two different targets.

> .  I think applying capacity rules a bit
> flexibly helps, and is what Steve Gibson did in some of his
> conversions.	(For example, not charging 3x capacity for a turret with
a
> restricted arc, especially when you put two on a vehicle on opposite
> sides, and can only shoot one at a time.)
>

yes. I used Mr. Gibsons rules with some modifications. His work made my
conversions
a lot easier.

> I'd prefer a points-only construction system, with capacity only being
> determined by the way the mini looks.  That way you basically allow
the
> style of minis you use to determine the capacity system you use.  If
you
> like realistic, you'll have more realistic looking miniatures.  GZG
> gives me full permission to use the games as I want, though, so it is
> easier to apply the rules they give flexibly than to make my own
points
> system.
>

The format I'm giving it derives from from Andy Cowell's page. His
generator was is
key in quickly getting each conversion in an acceptable format that
includes all
pertinent information, weapon ranges, special rules (if any), cost (with
its full
formula derivation) and also my comments on why I envisoned a certain
vehicle in a
certain way. With this format people can have a ready use reference
since its mostly
tables.

> So, anyway, I'm interested in seeing the conversions, as well as the
> approaches you took.
>

Since starting tommorrow I will start typing this up and I'll be silent
on this
mailing list for that time. I will share some brief points and problems.

As far as army character I molded each army thus,

Eldar
Mainly a grav's army with fast rates of move. Since they are the most
technologically advanced race they will have access to certain rules in
DSII that
others will not have (like stealth and superior fire controls). Of
course this means
fielding eldar will be the classical quality versus quantity, since
their costs of
individual units is very high)

Man
They willbe in a mid point of tech as placed between elves and orcs.
Imperial guard
units are on par with orcs except they have slightly better power
sources and
weapons systems. Marines have the best humanity can offer and are more
expensive.

Orcs
Low tech, but a dime a dozen. I beleive you can get a real horde effect
due to low
point costs. They are limited to HMT power sources HVP type weapons.

Squats
Very high tech, with stuff maybe even eldar don't have, but possible
even fewer in
number than eldar.

Chaos
The human side of chaos conforms to regular Imperial designs. The
supernatural part
of chaos I have tried to translate in DSII terms there epic type powers,
limiting
them to very close range local effects.

Tyranids
Even cheaper than orcs, due to their organic make up I thought I'd price
their power
sources as cheap as HMT , due to efficiency although they can produce
power like
FGP. Individually they are fragile but you gets loads of them.

The real only conversion problem I have faced was how to acomodate the
morale rules
to each army since most of them have drastically different psychology
than humans, I
hope my interpretations are good enough.

> I'm definitely going to be spending more time with SGII, and a friend
> was very impressed with it in a sample game and from reading the rules
I
> loaned to him.  So maybe after I'm more familiar with that I'll try
DSII
> again.
>
> thanks,
> andy
>

Thanks

Peter