Peter Ramos wrote:
> Following are more close combat issues that need to be addressed:
>
> 1-How many individual models can physically engage a given target.(How
> many stands can REASONABLY engage another stand.
>
> 2-When a numerically superior foe engages in close combat a enemy lesser
> in number, how should we resolve combat? The present way of resolving it
> has probably caused many arguments.
I propose the following Size Classes.
2 - Bikes
3 - Small Vehicles
4 - Infantry Stands
5 - Vehicles
6 - Large vehicles
7 - Very large vehicles
8 - Small Titans
9 - Medium Titans
10 - Large Titans
12 - Humungous Titans
Size Class = Number of CC opponents. This means that a Warlord Titan can
have at most 10 opponents, a Reaver 9, a Warhound 8, a Knight maybe 6,
etc.
Pinning - units can pin their size class +3.
The details - numbers etc may be changed, what do people think of the
philosophy? It seems to be that number of CC opponents is proportional
to size, as is pinning ability (skimmers an exception).
> Other issues:
>
> 1-Any questions or opinions on the actual way firing is handled should
> be voiced.
Seems OK now. Saves should be changed though. Using a 2D6 save would be
a pain. But what about negative saves? ie maybe a SHV should have a save
of -3 or so.
> 2-The issue of transports and thier cargo have been expressed(same or
> different orders for each), up to now different orders for each is
> favored.
OK.
> 3-Units on advance that are engaged in close combat, units not engage
> should be able to fire normally. This is the opinion stated by
> many-opinions are still needed!
Agree.
--
aebrain_at_... <> <> How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain| xxxxx Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia | xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
100026.2014 compuserve o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo oo oo oo
By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
See http://www.z-world.com/graphics/z/master/8856.gif for picture
Received on Fri Feb 14 1997 - 19:14:08 UTC
