Hi Albert,
I can see your point.
I will need to rethink it.
At first I thought you were just worried about use of the term but
you make sense. It should be writen so that it can't be
misunderstood.
I will work on it but may just drop it.
I am sure I sound rude sometimes. Some times it comes out a bit
different than what you mean. :)
I need the feedback to make this as good as I can make it. It is not
the first idea that I have scrapped.
Any comments on the rest?
Gary
--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "ciber nyam" <cibernyam@...> wrote:
>
> 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 Fri Jan 12 2007 - 00:06:32 UTC