Jump to content

Corwin

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1

About Corwin

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I want to retract what wrote above regarding fixed-wing aircraft having to move forward to change elevation. They absolutely can perform vertical climbs and descents.
  2. That was my understanding of aircraft, LOS, and cover, as well. Thank you for the clear and concise summary. The house rules for a scenario like that would be to have aircraft use elevation levels, as I stated in my initial post. Nap of Earth would be elevation level 0, relative to the existing terrain. Aircraft can spend MV to gain elevation, and can maintain or lose elevation levels for no additional MV. Fixed-wing aircraft have to move forward to change elevation, rotorcraft and VTOLs do not. Nap of Earth does not cost additional MV, and no longer grants virtual/etheric/han
  3. J, thank you for your reply. It's good to get another perspective, as we all have different experiences. From what I know and based on the latest errata, all aircraft have the SA: Improved Mobility. I agree that it's very useful. I follow your podcast, so I recently became aware of the results of the WarMaster tournament. My intial post was not in direct answer to that, but it did confirm and reinforce what I had already believed. I agree completely about needing more list diversity. No question about it, the Cheetah is an absolute terror when it comes t
  4. There's something else about Nap-of-Earth that bothers me, and it's related to something you touched on in your first reply. It took a little while for me to chew on it and pin down what it is. You stated that because aircraft have the lowest average non-infantry DT and can't use cover, they need something like NoE as written. I fully understand the need for abstracting some things, because the game would be too slow and tedious. Very few players want to play an accounting simulation. Too much detail is bad. But too much abstraction is bad, too. Instead of having to work with the balance
  5. 3. I didn't forget that it's an abstraction, but I think it's an unnecessary and confusing one. Aircraft are roughly the same size as CAVs (and other vehicle units in the game), so it's reasonable that they interact with the board in a similar way. The board is populated with geography and other features that are scaled meaningfully for units of a certain size, namely CAVs, but other units, including vehicles, interact with the same. Those units are within the resolution level of the game. Units below that scale (infantry), could reasonably benefit from additional cover that isn't represent
  6. I appreciate you responding to my post. 1. Okay. I just thought it was odd that's Chameleon's efficacy is subjectively based on the model targeting the unit with that SA, while things like ECM, APA, and Target Lock have defined ranges. I brought up Target Lock in my original post because its unlimited range suggests that units have sensors that work independent of what weapons are carried. As a follow-on to what your wrote, it seems like using active sensors and collating targeting data would be exactly the type of thing that would apply to targeting a hostile unit equipped with
  7. The following are issues that I encountered that don't make sense to me, and suggestions for changes. I want to be clear that my intention is to offer points for discussion, I make no claim about being right. I understand that some/most/all of the issues I cover are abstracted for ease and speed of play, so feel free to ignore all of it. 1. On the cheatsheet, the Chameleon SA's stated benefit is (-1) to all direct-fire ranged assault Combat Roll(s) from medium range-band or greater. On its face, this seems okay. In practice, this means units equipped with PBG's have less-effective se
×
×
  • Create New...