Miller, Chris wrote:
[snip my abhorrence of one detachment on march carrying another on
assault
and getting move of both]
> --------> I think we could almost all agree that this is rules-lawyering
> bigtime, but the problem is that by the letter of the rules it's legal.
> All it would take to fix it is a statement like "a unit leaving a
> transport has movement remaining which is proprotional to the amount of
> movement used by the transport. Example: If you move the transport half
> of its move #, troops inside can move a max of half their movement
> allowed by their orders, even in the assault phase." Ok, that's a little
> cumbersome to explain, but anyone who's played SM/TL knows what I'm
> trying to say. That way, even if the transports are on march, the
> assault troops aren't gaining this sudden movement burst. Or just phrase
> it as "all movement within the movement phase is simultaneous" which
> means you can't string together movement like that described above.
I am familiar with this, and it makes sense to me. It prevents
something
like a troops in a vehicle getting out and moving further (total) than
the
vehicle could have gone if they had stayed in it. But someone else
pointed
out recently that this reduces the value of transports, and we'd have to
decide whether those transports had been underpriced before (and so are
now appropriate), or reduce the price to reflect it.
I didn't mind this rule in SM2, but it is hard to explain. If you
aren't
too picky, it doesn't slow it down too much, either.
andy
--
Andy Skinner
askinner_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 29 1998 - 18:48:15 UTC