Hi!
Sounds good to me. Any other opinions?
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Jarreas Underwood [mailto:jarreas_at_...]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:02 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Pinning Proposal
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.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Tue Apr 23 2002 - 12:43:50 UTC