Hi!
Why not then just say when PDF are involved use the siege rules for
placement of terrain and objectives? In essence that what it is. Under this
assumption the terrain and objectives would be set by the PDF player and the
attacker would assault it, double VP's for breaking attacking units, bouble
VP's for objectives taken by the attacker>
Its harder to have a set piece battle that is fair for the PDF since their
ability to move and attack is at a disadvantage.
On the other hand I like the idea of giving them free fortification with
each company card (sorta like the free commissar with IG) and instead of the
60cm deployement why not let the PDF player deploy his fortifications and
the company card that accompanies it deploy around a selected objective.
Terrain and objectives are placed as normal, but the PDf gets to "dig in"
one "X" amount of objectives (like stated before as related to points
played). This simulates their being there first and fortifying a position.
Peter
>From: eivind.borgeteien_at_...
>Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Planetary Defence Forces
>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:04:39 -0000
>
>Hi
>
>Well, I dont agree on this.
>
>Firstly, I think that OPs should always be set up by mutual agreement
>between the two oposing players. I do however think that the PDF
>player should have a huge say about how the terrain is set up. After
>all, when you build fortifications you always make sure you have a
>killzone for it.
>
>Secondly, the PDF has lousy range on their weapons, most of them has
>merely 35 cm. This will say that if you have to deploy all your
>fortificated units within 40 cm of the tableedge, they have no
>targets the first round. The 60 cm rule would also be an advantage
>for the oposing player as he has less ground to cover before he can
>assault the fortifications.
>
>(This 60 cm rule is a rule I adopted from the siege scenario GW
>published years ago, but there the defending side could deploy 80 cm
>from the tableedge.)
>
>Eivind
>
>
>
>--- In netepic_at_egroups.com, "peter ramos" <ramospeter_at_h...> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I think this is a good idea, I'd leave out the deploying at 60cm in
>favor of
> > letting the PDF setup the objectives as well as having some in
>their hands
> > at the games start. This would make most objective theirs or really
>close to
> > them for them to take, putting the onus on the opponent to take
>them from
> > the PDF.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > >Hi!
> > >I would say one free trenchcard or razorwire pr infantrycompany
>only,
> > >and half price for other fortifications.
> > >
> > >This leaves one problem though, where shall theese fortifications
>be
> > >set up? The setupzone is normally 40 cm from the tableedge, but
> > >objective point tend to be in the middle.
> > >
> > >Even if you set some OPs in the PDF setupzone it is very difficult
> > >for the PDF player to get enough VPs to win the battle. The oposing
> > >player can easily pick a number of OPs and only have to break a few
> > >PDF units to win the game.
> > >
> > >My suggestion i this:
> > >Enlarge the PDF setupzone to 60 cm and allow the PDF player to
>start
> > >with holding at least 2, but no more than 4 OPs. Further, I think
> > >that PDF should be the ONLY force that should be permitted allies.
>We
> > >can adopt the Slann-rules for allies, allowing up to, but not more
> > >than 25% of the force to be an allied. This allied has to be an
> > >imperial force. The guildlines would be as follows:
> > >
> > >The PDF forces can start up to 60 cm from the tableedge, the allied
> > >force must start from the usual 40 cm.
> > >
> > >Size of battle
> > >Up to 2000 points; 3 OPs held at the start of the game, 2 if allied
> > >forces is present.
> > >
> > >Over 2000 points; 4 OPs held at the start of the game, 3 if allied
> > >forces is present.
> > >
> > >What do you all think of this?
> > >
> > >Eivind
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--- In netepic_at_egroups.com, jyrki.saari_at_n... wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: EXT dardman [mailto:dardman_at_n...]
> > > > > Sent: 29. November 2000 17:02
> > > > > To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Planetary Defence Forces
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not half price. They have poor morales, old machinery and
> > >lack the
> > > > > normal traing of the IG.
> > > > > Darius
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok with me. And besides, they are SUPPOSED to sit tight in
> > >fortifications
> > > > 'til(sp?) Space Marines arrive.
> > > >
> > > > Jyrki Saari
> > > >
> > > > -There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time
>and
> > >time is
> > > > money.
> > >
> >
> >
>______________________________________________________________________
>_______________
> > Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
>http://explorer.msn.com
>
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
Received on Wed Nov 29 2000 - 16:15:07 UTC