>On 5 Feb 97 at 14:05, Peter Ramos wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> This is a preliminary summary of what is the opinion on movement on
>> initiative.
>>
>> 1-It is obvious the majority wants an alternating system for movement
>> and most of the posted ones are from 1st edition epic(knowingly or not).
>> The exact 1st edition system which was a order of movement dependant on
>> the orders given(charge moves first then advance,etc.)was posted and
>> also the problems with it have also been debated( so my vipers if given
>> advance orders cant be pinned since they move always after charge
>> units).The system I proposed is based on unit manuverability and size so
>> this problem does not occur.My system has not really been voted against
>> so please give your opinion on it with any defects you may visualize.
>> If there is no concensus on exactly what type of alternating system to
>> be used I suggest that Phillips suggestion of just giving simple
>> alternation to the present system be used.
>
>I like the idea of moving based on the unit's size rather than its
>orders. In general, it would lead to more "realistic" decisions being
>made on the part of the opposing generals. For example, Titans would
>require a great deal of planning and would not be as flexible a unit as
>an infantry detachment. Obviously the amount of time required to
>change the actions of 25 men will be a lot less than what would be
>needed to change the actions of a building-sized war machine. It would
>also balance out the effectiveness of the larger war machines. I
>realize that there is some disagreement on this list regarding the
>Imperator's effectiveness. I agree that its use is a bit more
>specialized than is generally admitted, but no one can argue that it
>packs the most firepower of any single unit in the game. Moreover, due
>to its 12 void shield banks and 2d6 save, it can take quite a pounding.
> However, as the thing is the size of a large building, it seems only
>logical that it would move slowly and ponderously (i. e. before any
>other smaller unit), which would allow enemy units to get out of the
>way. "Oh no! It's powering up the Plasma Annihilator! Run for
>cover!" Outmaneuvering the Imperator (and other Titans) becomes a more
>viable option.
>
>On the question of pinning jetbikes, either system will run into
>problems on this score. However, it seems to me that Peter's system
>will have fewer problems. As I recall, jetbikes (and other bike units)
>move after everything except infantry. This would allow them to engage
>any unit they wish in close assault, assuming that the unit had not
>already moved. This means that jetbikes can choose to close assault
>any unit without fear of that unit evading, unless the defending unit
>is a jetbike or infantry unit. But, conversely, no larger unit could
>engage a jetbike in close assault against its will. This is an
>advantage, IMHO, not a problem. In "reality" could a tank actually
>close assault a jetbike that wanted to escape? Could the tank even
>catch up with the aforementioned jetbike? This flexibility improves
>the utility of the jetbike without unbalancing it. I think that these
>two examples from opposite ends of the size spectrum show why a
>size-based system should be preferred.
>
>> 2-Regarding vehicle movement and terrain effects the foolowing is what
>> seems people would like it to look like.
>>
>> -Troop stands- no restriction except for immpassible terrain
>> -Cavalry(meaning some bipedal or quadruped mode of locomotion)-may move
>> through woods at half rate(depending what orders are), this also applies
>> to other difficult terrain.
>
>These are standard rules so far.
>
>> -Tracked vehicles- may only enter woods in advance orders(and no other)
>> at half the advance movement. While in woods must use advance until
>> woods are cleared( cannot charge out of woods).This also applies to
>> other difficult terrain.
>> -Bikes(meaning wheeled vehicles such as ork buggies, space marine bikes,
>> squat bikes,etc.)Can move through wood only on advance orders at normal
>> rate.
>
>I would have to agree with whoever it was that took issue with this
>before. Why differentiate between bikes/small vehicles and cavalry?
>why would cavalry be more maneuverable in woods?
Come to B.C. here in Canada and I'll show you! Seriously, there are many
woods out here that only feet and hooves can move around in. Actually, I
would almost say that all of the woods fall in this category.
>> -Skimmers(refering only to jetbikes as other skimmers are either too
>> large or dont have means to physically displace trees-like atracked
>> vehicle). They can enter woods only on advanced orders at normal rate.
>> I have seen discussions about jet bikes stopping on buildings and other
>> impassible terrain-remember if it is impassible to vehicles normally it
>> cant stop there these rules apply to difficult terrain where before they
>> were not permitted to enter.
>>
>> Up to now the system I proposed has been slightly(more like barely)
>> accepted in some cases with some addition,please keep commenting on them
>> and if any clarification no matter how small is needing just ask-thats
>> what I'm here for!
>>
>> United we stand!
>> Peter
>
>On a final note, just to kiss up to the moderator :), I thought that I
>would say that Peter has been doing a fine job of guiding our
>discussions and that he has officially received my Seal of Approval
>(for whatever that's worth :) ) Keep up the good work, Peter.
I agree totally. Very well done. BTW, do you have a job Peter? ;)
>Seth Ben-Ezra
>Great Wolf
Tony Christney
acc_at_...
Received on Thu Feb 06 1997 - 22:48:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:06 UTC