Jump to content

General308M

Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

General308M's Achievements

Mostly Harmless

Mostly Harmless (2/8)

0

Reputation

  1. How about instead of removeing the model from play. The model has to make a run to exit the Malvie side of the game board. If it does the Malvies get the unit and full points for it's loss. However if it gets destroyed while tring to exsit the Malvies then only get half the points. To reflect that the Malvies will taking the unit out of the enemy's hands failed to actually capture the unit.
  2. I think I would hate that as well. I think what I will do in some games. Is simple make the distance have the distance of the board. As you pointed out in a Sci-Fi game you have radio's and things like that. I just like the concept of loseing unit Cohesion. At the same time I also understand why people wouldnt want to mess with all the trouble that it could cause. Measuring to see if your units are close enough. Could take up alot of time
  3. I am very aware of what a action is. However in a normal movement you can move all or part of your movement as one action and shoot giving you a second action. With Run and Gun you can move part of your movement shoot and then shoot move again. Normaly you would not be able to move after you shoot. Why because you would not have a action. Rmeber not only does a Standard Run-N-Gun allow you to do that but you are left with one other action. Be it using your salvo's ahead of time or moving. Example Run and gun. I can use a move action move the full units number of inchs. Lets say I still had no LOS. After doing that. Well I can then move use my Run-N-Gun. So I move half my units movement points to get LOS. Normal that would be another action and any spend movement points would be lost. But this is Run and gun so those points are not lost. I then get to shoot my main guns. Which normal would be another action and if not for Run and gun right now my turn would be done. But this is Run-N gun so I get to use my remaining movement points and move back to cover. So basicly with run and gun I got in one turn. Move my full movement once (one action.) I then got to move part of my movement (Normal One action) I then got to shoot (normal one action). I then got to move again (Normal one action. So in reality Run and gun allows you 4 actions. Now as I explained before with a run alpha I could do none of that. I could move once period. Rather it is all or part of my movement. I then could fire all my direct fire weapons. That is only three actions. I base that you see no value on being able to move shoot and move as the run and gun allows based on these words "Giving up the ability to scurry behind cover has no bearing whatsoever on the game. " To me that tells me you see no value in all of what run and gun truely allows you to do. If you don't see that value than as I said earlier there is no way to convince you otherwise. Because in the end I belive that if you give up the ablity to move part of your movement shoot and then use the rest of your movement as one action has great value. You do not belive that behing able to preform a atack at any point in your movement and then being able to finish you movement has any value.
  4. I guess that is the point me personaly I would like the rule to be a issue on a 4x6 table. That way the rule gets used some. There's too many rules regarding weapons fire and not enough regarding cohesion distance? The cohesion rules are fine as they are. This one isn't that big a deal. In reality if I want to use Unit cohesion this is a easy rule to do a house rule on. I just wanted to see what other people thought about it.
  5. See here is were you are wrong on what makes Run-N-Gun. I can spend a movement action and still shoot without using Run-N-Gun. What makes Run-N-Gun really worth using is it allows you to fire at any point durring your movement. Run-N-Gun example. I can use part of my movement to move out from behind a cliff. Fire my weapons and then move back behind the cliff. So Run and gun in reality gives you the ablity to move, Shoot and move for one action. Normal to do all that would cost you three actions. Doing Run-N-Gun and this way also leaves you the ablity do do a non combat action. Example move again giving you 4 actions when you run and gun. Or you can do this with run and gun. Use your SalvoSA which lets you move fire all your weapons and move again. Normal doing that would also cost you 4 actions. One to move one to do your SA. One to move. One to fire your weapons and one to move again. So in reality the Run-N-Gun gives you the ablity to do up to 4 actions in one turn. Run Alpha example. You get to move and and fire all your weapons. It is one action to move and one action for your alpha. Normaly this would cost you three actions. So with Run Alpha not only do you get what would be one less action than a Run-N-Gun. You competly use the option to move after you shoot. You are left only getting three actions in a turn when Run-N-Gun gives you up to 4 actions.
  6. So what Faction does it look you are going to play? It looks like I will be playing Templar as my primary faction. Terran as a secondary faction. The reason? Well the units I have always loved seem to be mainly in those two factions The Soverign and Gladiator push me over to Templar's. The funny part about that is a decided which faction before looking at the Army SA's. The Army SA's just so happen to play into the type tactics I like to use in a game. So I was pleased.
  7. Venom Vs Recluse I am comparing these two units. To me it looks like the Venom should cost much more than the Recluse. The Recluse has one more movement point. But the Venom has a greater range band and AP gear. Yet the Venom cost two points less than the Recluse. Even though the Venom clearly seems to be the better unit
  8. I guess that is the point me personaly I would like the rule to be a issue on a 4x6 table. That way the rule gets used some.
  9. Erion, you and I see the value of the move Run-N-Gun differant then. That may be tactics. I for one have never been a big SuperHeavy CAV user. Hince I see the value of run and gun as allowing me to fire at any point during my movement. I like to fire and hide. That is just the way I play. Differant tactics. But something that you may have missed. When I suggested this I suggested this could be done as a rule or as a SA. I also said if you did this as a SA I would only give the Alpha SA to units without Wizzo's. There was a reason for that. As you have nicely pointed out units with the Wizzo ablity have a great advantage over units without. The Wizzo as it is being done now gives those unit's a huge advantage with the Run-N Gun as well as other ablities. So the Wizzo gives units with the Wizzo alot of advantages with no drawbacks. The Alpha SA on the other only would give a unit part of the advantage. But would come with the draw back of not allowing you to shoot in the middle of your movement. Granted I gave to ideals and we have only really been talking about using it as a Rule. But I put up two ideals because I do understand your worry for what it does with units with a Wizzo. But as I said most units don't have that advantage. So since you are so worried about the Wizzo units haveing such a advantage. Why not come up with something that helps even the playing field?
  10. Well I think you are wrong infact I think if you pull out a Rhino and play it against the same number of points of infantry that the Rhino will lose. You want to keep saying it is the same. Clearly you do not see any value in being able to move out of cover and then move back behind cover after you fire. Were I see the value in that. If you see no value in being able to move out from behind Cover and then move back behind it then there is no way to convince you I am right. But I will say this you keep speaking of units with Wizzo's. You are right the Wizzo ablity is a great advantage. Maybe the Wizzo ablity already unbalances the game. Since almost All Super Heavy's have that ablity as you pointed out almost all Super Heavy's will always have a huge advantage the way you see things. In reality to see if these rules work right you have to look at it without the Wizzo special ablity. Because if it is only units with the Wizzo ablity that unbalance things. Those are the only examples you seem to give that do. Then clearly it is that ablity that is causeing the problem
  11. Right thanks that helps alot. The reason I was asking is because of this I am sorry Erion I should have put that up. My worry after playing using that rule with my wife tonight is could a rules lawyer use that wording to allow someone to fire them twice in a turn. I think the intent is that they can only fire once. Hince why I was wondering if there was a rule on using a SA twice. I don't think you could but as I said before I belive it is very important we find any loopholes before the game is done.
  12. Because a move Alpha does not duplicate the Run-n-Gun. Lets take a Gladiator for example. I can use my SA to fire my two salvo's and then do a Run-N-Gun. With the Run-N-Gun I can move part of my movement then shoot. Example. I can move out three inchs around a Cliff fire my weapons. Take the return Defensive fire and then use my remaining movement points to move behind back behind the cliff so my enemy doesn't get to attack me when it is his turn to attack. Run-N-Gun allows you to fire at any point in your movement. To do this I have to take the -4 penalty because that is what it cost under the current rules to fire that many weapons in a Run-N-Gun. Now lets take the same Gladiator in the Run Alpha. I move out from behind that cliff. Lets say I move that same three inchs. And then fire. I don't get to move back behind the cliff. Because my movement is done. I belive is a player is willing to give up such manuverablity that the penality should be less than if they keep the manuverablity. You brought up something interesting. With a Wizzo as you stated the penality for this action is not that great as you said it is a -2. However and here is were I see the problem most the units in the game do not have Wizzo's. Very few do infact most of them that do have a Wizzo are CAV's. So what that means is CAV's have a advantage as it stands right now. Units like Gunships the Tusieki have to pay a -3 to do the same thing. The Gladiator has to pay a -4 penalty to fire all of it's weapons and move. But with this new change either as a rule or as a SA. The units with out Wizzo's (Most the units in the game) Sacrifice the ablity to move after they fire and they are able to lower the Penalty to what is on Par with a unit with a Wizzo ablity. But they are not doing it for Free they are giving up the manuverablity Run-n-Gun gives you.
  13. You know I have been thinking about them alot. Here is my question. What is to prevent someone from firing them twice in a turn. Since firing a Salvo sacrifices your noncombat action instead of your combat action. Is there a rule that I missed somewere that says you can not use a specific SA twice in a turn? Or is it Ok to fire them twice in a turn? I realize that usually this isn't a issue because a SA cost you your one Combat Action. But I realized from the Run-n-Gun debate that even though the Salvo Special ablity doesn't cost you your Combat action
  14. Erion I am not tring to be rude. But I am not saying there should not be a penality. I have stated that I belive the penalty should be less than a Run-n-Gun. I have also said that I have excepted that there will be penalties for just about anything in this game. But you keep saying I am wanting a penalty free Alpha when. But that is not what I am saying. I am saying that it should be less of a penalty that is all. But you keep telling me this upsets the balance of the game. How so? Of CAV's were the only unit that would benifit you would have a point. But CAV's would not be the only unit that benifits. So tell me how it would unbalance the game? Herr Oberfroschmeister I don't want this to turn into the Defensive Fire debate of 2001. That was nasty. The unfortante problem with that was that Debate happened after the game was released. I don't want to see this issue turn into that situation after the game comes out. People looking at this now should realize these are debates before a game is out. But if this same debate were to happen after the game comes out then people would say the game is broken and say heck with the game. That is why I feel this is so important. I strongly belive that anyone who sees any issue with any part of the game should speak up now. If I am wrong and I don't win in the end I can live with that knowing that I did everything I can to solve what I see as a problem with the new rules.
  15. I am not advocating taking it out at all. Just advocating a change in the distance
×
×
  • Create New...