Hi,
see coments below:
>From: "Gary" <gary_clark1946_at_...>
>Reply-To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re:Slann book
>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:26:45 -0000
>
>
>Hello Albert,
>
>It is not about giving special abilities to the dune buggy.
>The point is to be able to use dune buggies or a light skimmer
>witout a new set of stats. To make the DB hard to pin like a skimmer.
>
>Dune buggies can move quickly through terrain that other vehicles
>could not... at the same time skimmers go over it instead of through
>it. They both have simular (but not the same)abilities. It really
>gives away nothing since it could be either. If you chose "Dune
>Buggies" you can go through some terrain but not water(which
>skimmers can). If you have skimmers it can go over but not end in
>terrain (which DBs can). It could be called something else but why
>write a new rule when you can make a minor modification instead.
>These are not "uber" units and points are rounded to nearest 25 or
>50 anyway so why make things complicated?
>
If a dune buggy has some kind of antigrav motor or analogous thing that
makes it move like a skimmer, I mean, floating over terrain, then it is a
skimmer to all effects. Otherwise it is not. Unless those light skimmers
have big plasma cannons, the use of pop-up ability will not truly enhance
them to significantly affect their point cost. Just review the eldar
jetbikes which are a very similar concept. If it is a wheeled vehicle and
you want to give it extra mobility over rough terrain give it an 'off-road'
ability (or similar ad hoc ability) as I pointed out before.
On a more abstract level, saying that YYYY is an XXXX because it shares some
properties of XXXX (but being not properly an XXXX) is not consistent. It
seems to me more consistent to YYYY has a group of properties zzzz, which
are also shared (among many others specific to itself) by XXXX.
Additionally, it is far easier to keep track of new abilities (even if
similar) than grade an existing ability to adapt a unit, because then you
have to think on retroactivity on other units with that ability, since that
may cause ambiguity (in the specific case, you cannot just add skimmer
ability to the unit stats and expect that everyone will know that this is a
kind of 'lite' skimmer ability, because this is by nature ambiguous).
Furthermore, I find more complicated the only solution to that: to list unit
stats with the special ability box containing "skimmer, no pop-ups, cannot
cross rivers, cannot cross lakes, cannot cross marshes, can end over rough
terrain". Isn't it easier to add "Off-road" and add the abitlity somewhere
else? In the end you are adding the same explanation you would add to the
ability in the unit description anyway.
If you want an analogous example, notice the similarities within fear and
terror abilities. Isn't it more complicated to give a unit the terror
ability and then start taking things out (no negation of first fire fire on
charge, no morale check to get into base contact, etc...) than just define
"fear" as a different (although similar) ability?
Another idea would be to just explain what is special on the unit
description (may move over roguh terrain without penalties, can leave close
combat any turn unless pinned by skimmers, whatever...) and add the 'special
rules' note on the abilities field of the unit stats, and let the players
check the unit description. Most units with unique variations work this way.
Then if other units are designed with the same concept the ability can be
added in a future rule version. If you still feel unconfortable creating a
new abity, that may be a valid solution.
>If this gets to be a big problem for some, It may just get dropped.
>Just trying to make things more inline with the fluff and the Exodus
>use of DB and skimmers.
>
>Gary
>
It is all right and very good indeed to have new proposals. Still, balance
and fluff are a must, but consistence is also very important.
That's my point of view on the subject. I don't want to seem rude with my
explanation (and if you interpreted so, I'm really sorry because that has
not been my intention in any case ), but for me is very dangerous to give an
ability to a unit that does not have that ability or something that causes
*exactly* the same effect because then it starts a precedent that may lead
to messy rules.
Those were many reasonings around the topic, I hope that someone else will
give more input.
Albert
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Received on Thu Jan 11 2007 - 21:29:45 UTC