Sean Smith wrote:
> Since my alternative rules are much shorter than my campaign rules,
> I have posted them to the list as whole.
Intuitively, I like a lot of your suggestions, though I haven't
playtested them to see what they do to the points values (for
example, your movement rules clearly increase the value of
jump pack troops, without increasing their cost).
> - All units half their movement if crossing a marsh and or swamp
> during the movement or assault phase (except for skimmers &
> troops with jump packs).
For _crossing_ squishy (marshes and swamps go squish, yes?)
terrain, I agree, though for jump pack troops, starting from a marsh
or swamp should be different - nothing hard to push off from
to get that jump. I'd suggest reducing them to normal infantry for
the move if they start their move in squishy stuff.
> _Charging Down Or Up Slopes_
>
> - If more than 50% of the units involved in a close combat have
> charged down a slope during the assault phase a +1 is added to
> their close combat die roll. War engines (WEs) don't get the bonus
> for charging down slopes and units charging down slopes don't get
> a bonus if charging WE.
I'd only give the bonus if the assault is taking place actually _on_
the slope, since the extra speed and force go away quickly as soon
as you hit the flat.
> - Bikes, horses, jet bikes and other similar types of vehicles can
> move at full speed through woods.
I can't agree here, at least not for all woods. I'm looking out my
window at the woods surrounding my house, and there's no way
any vehicle which can't crush at least saplings is going to go through
it at all, let alone at full speed.
> _Vehicles Hull Down Rule_
>
> - Vehicles can use the crests of hills and other similar types of
> terrain to take up hull down positions. A vehicle which is hulldown
> is at -1 to hit from direct fire at its front.
Sounds good... but it has to have a cost. Shouldn't be able togo hull down
while moving, right? How about making this for
stationary vehicles, as in "- Vehicles can sacrifice their movement
allowance for a turn to go 'hull down', using the crests of hills and..."
> War Engines
>
> - Only War Engines (WE) which have legs or which can skim can enter
> ruins or woods, however they move at half speed, they must
> immediately halt if they roll a 1 on their dangerous terrain roll;
Not tracks? Tracked vehicles are fairly good at going over rough
terrain (better than legs in many ways). Don't GibletGrindas run on
tracks? Under your rules, they don't even suffer a movement penalty
in woods. (or are GGs WEs? I don't play orks and I'm too lazy
to get up and check).
> Alternative Epic 40k Random Terrain Generation System
> 3) Next either player rolls 4d6, this is the number terrain pieces
> which will placed on the broad.
4d6 (minus 1 4/10) is an average of 12 or so pieces of terrain (plus
any water). This seems dense for a small table and sparse for a fairly
large one. How about something which takes the size of the board into
account?
Oh, and while I'm making things impossibly complicated,
average feature size matters too, in picking the number of
pieces on a board. Your suggestion below seems to be
a bit biased toward armies which want dense terrain. A
game between Nids and IG with a full terrain closet would
end up with an average of 6 large items in a line across the
middle and 6 small ones (in the corners). On a 4'x8' board,
this allows the Tyrant to bottle the IG tanks up entirely.
--
// Cornelius Perkins cperkins_at_...
// http://www.nothinbut.net/~cperkins
// In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Received on Thu Mar 26 1998 - 17:39:40 UTC