Pinning Proposal

From: Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_...>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:01:53 -0400

The pinning ability seems to be a combination of size, firepower, armor and
mobility. That's a complex equation right there and we can go two ways
about it: realistic & complex, or stylized & easily memorizeable.
Personally I prefer to take the lazy way out - if I want a complex rules
system I'll go play SFB.

I propose:

 1) Titans & Praetorians (things with a template): big enough to not care
about anything smaller.

 2) Super-Heavy, Knights, Avatar, Carnifex: that which is large, carrying
lots of guns and either mobile or armored out the yin-yang.

 3) Vehicles, Heavy Artillery, AA-Platforms and the like: big armored things.

 4) Walkers (Dreadnaughts, Sentinels, etc.) & Cavalry (bikes & horsies):
either armored *or* very mobile.

+++++ Technically I don't think they could pin each other, but they're both
smaller than tanks and larger then infantry so I'm grouping them together
for the sake of convenience.
+++++

 5) Infantry, Light Artillery & other ground-pounders: this covers guys on
foot and other things that tend to duck when shot at with a rifle.

+++++ I've put Light Artillery here as they're guys on the outside of a big
gun. An infantry squad *can* pin down a mortar platoon.
+++++

 X) Skimmers - pinnable by another skimmer or voluntarily

 Y) Fliers & Floaters - unpinnable

 Z) Tunnelers - not pinnable if movement is underground, otherwise as size
catagory (Termite & Mole = vehicle, Hellbore = Praetorian)

Opinions?

-Yar

+++++++++++

Separate topic: Shouldn't Tyranids have a tunneling unit? Give it
infiltration and *that's* a freightning concept.
Received on Tue Apr 23 2002 - 02:01:53 UTC