Hi there!
> So why not list the rule
> and its alternate interpretations? As mentioned, its
> not our custom to impose rules, but to give options.
> So I think, we'll list many ideas and let players
> sort it out.
I'm 100% for it. But optional rules has two different
meanings.
- There are some "enhancement" rules, adding
possibilities (forward observers, for example).
- On the other hand, there are "alternate" rules
(Multiple combat method II for example) which
*replace* core rules.
The latter have a lot more effect on the game's
complexity and I'm not fond of them at all, since they
leave a confusing impression. I mean, close combat is
close combat, right? You are not supposed to get two
different outcomes depending on the rule you use.
Afterwards, there is the issue of readability of the
whole book. IMHO the best compromise would be to
present the main rule, and mention related optional
rules with a very short summary and a reference to a
chapter dedicated to all optional rules.
(from Albert)
> > Personally I prefer to allow to charge stands from
> > different units as long as unit coherency is
> > maintained. I do agree, however that a similar
rule
> > as shooting to HQ is explicited, hence, to engage
> > an HQ you first have to engage all closer models
> > from the same battle group.
This rule makes sense, but is related to HQ units more
than assault. If my proposal of "every model of the
assaulted detachment should be engaged before
outnumbering can occur" is accepted, both rules become
somehow redundant.
Also, if your proposal somehow protect HQ units, it
does not change the fundamental problem of CAF vs
numbers.
please have a look at
http://www.stephane.info/show.php?code=GangUp
for my arguments regarding this issue, regardless if
you agree with my rule proposal or not.
(from Peter)
> Yes, there is no easy solution. I agree the easiest
> restriction is to apply that HQ units should be the
> last engaged, just like the restrictions to firing
> at them. As with most cases, we'll list
> alternatives and let players decide.
Well, we should look up for alternatives first ;o)
I am not too happy with my current proposal and will
try to make it clearer.
About "pinning" and "herding":
> > As a house rule, we always assumed that a unit of
> > greater pinning class can
> > break through enemy lines of 1 lower class with a
> > 4+ roll.
> Your house rule is similar to what I propose, the
> difference being the
> "minor" obsticle would be destroyed or shunted aside
> depending on the
> success of the roll.
Here is my input: I would allow units not yet
activated to be shunted aside freely. Units that
already have moved, however, would be destroyed unless
they manage a bail-out roll. That's the drawback of
being crushed after you moved.
*Perhaps* units with first fire orders that were moved
aside could be restricted to fire in the advance fire
segment because of the disruption the bigger unit
caused and of their free bail-out move.
> > Wasn't that clear? Vehicles cannot fight CC
against
> > units inside impassable
> > terrain (like buildings).
I agree, but the wording should not mention only
vehicles. Any unit should not be able to fight CC
against an opponent in impassable terrain for this
unit.
Some equipment can come in handy (dozer blades),
because the terrain is not impassable anymore. For
Titans and troops entretched in buildings, if the
Titan has anti-building weapons, he can just attack
the building.
> > Maybe "point-defense weapons" or "antipersonnel
> > weapon" ability for weapons?
> Both of those names are good.
"Point-defense weapons" is better because vehicles,
knights, etc are affected as well.
> > IMHO bail out should only affect infantry inside
> > vehicles.I cannot see
> > twenty vindicators hurrying to leave a capitol
> > imperialis in a few seconds.
> I must say you got a strong point there. I would say
> bailing out is a
> "infantry thing". Opinions?
The problem of extreme examples is that they are
extreme... The real issue here is the danger or
transports. Do we want transports to be "coffins on
tracks" or not? It affects their usefulness in battle
as soon as there is any risk.
IMHO (as usual...) it should not be restricted to
infantry only, for several reasons:
- infantry is a size class, which means little by
itself (a huge Tyranid Carnifex is counted as infantry
for movement purpose in Space Marine, for example).
- bailing out roll is a save, no more, no less. No
save in the game is limited to a given class size and
introducing one just for bail-out roll is not good.
- A transport, especially a capitol imperialis like in
the example above, is not reduced to a crater when
destroyed. If the model loses all battle ability, the
hit reducing it to a wreck does not necessarily reduce
it to pulp. If there are some special destroyed cases
(ie. reactor explosion and the like) the damage table
should specify if transported models are entitled to a
bail-out roll or not.
- TSM affect the bail-out of the transported units, so
it is HIGHLY unlikely that twenty vindicators in a
transport destroyed with a mere lascannon (sv -2) come
out unharmed (sv reduced to 4+). Half of them is fine
to me, as it means that a whole COMPANY has been wiped
out!! Not enough for ya? ;o)
- Also, the whole point of the discussion was the
discrepancy between bail-out roll and TSM which can
yield strange results... Except for infantry, which
usually has very bad armor saves.
Phew! Well, I made my point clear ;o)
Best regards,
Stephane
=====
Stephane "The Guy Without A Nickname" Montabert
"It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Eric Wujcik
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Received on Sun Feb 15 2004 - 21:00:23 UTC