Jump to content

Trilan

Bones Supporter
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0

About Trilan

  • Rank
    Rabble Rouser
  1. Hmmm.. Crazy 8's idea doesn't sound bad to me... Though I have an thought for a variation on it that might work... instead of reducing the ranges for DF weaponry what about doubling the range band penalty, and leaving it where it is now for MA.
  2. I support camp 1, sort of. I'm all for the missile boats not getting to perform defensive fire, but on the other hand I think that taking it away from transports is a bad idea. I'd think if any change were made to them you would want to restrict them to defensive fire only rather than having them go rambo after they unload their cargo.
  3. I know this is a stupid question but I'm sure it'll come up later anyway... If the missile state is used as a non-combat action does it incite defensive fire?
  4. Well.. you can't do it now since you have to begin and end on the ground but it would be pretty darn spiffy if jump infantry could close assault airborne targets...
  5. Really the only problem I am seeing with this whole affair is the Terran special ability, not a problem with the strikes themself at all, since none of the problems displayed here would be an issue if the pool was significantly smaller. Soo.. what if the Terrean ability was changed so that all of the Terran units have a "psuedo" FIST/1. Any terran unit can fire a level one strike, but only those units that actually have FIST on that stat line can buy them. If you want to compensate for the loss of the pool, you could further stipulate that models with wizzo gain FIST/2 (once again for
  6. Actually you don't have that option with the new rules without a truly massive table due to the presence of the range bands rather than a defined range. For example a Thunderbird firing at a hard target with a DV11 unit at a range of 64 inches has a 50% chance to hit (terrain mods), and can easily close to 64" in the first turn before the second player gets to move a unit. Plus if he uses IF instead then the number of attacks goes down, but the 50% range increases to 76". And sucessfully scanning to fire would add a further +2 to hit on the IF. Extending out to the third range band, the Th
  7. You're right about it being personal preference, and I do agree with you about the starting just out of range... It's really frustrating if your playing something like warhammer and it takes 3 rounds to get your dwarves into combat, but at the same time if there's no planning needed then you might as well go play Missile Command...
  8. The ranges are exactly why I like the delayed deployment idea over extending the deployment zone. Even at the current size on a 4x4 or 4x6 table it doesn't feel like there is much in the way of tactics, since unless the table is jam packed with scenery your going to be mixing it up on round 1. Expanding the deployment zone won't do anything to help with that problem, but dropping in a unit at a time would, while killing the first strike problem as well. For the most part the new rules have the feel of playing something like Unreal Tournament rather than Rainbow Six (pardon the comparison).
  9. You know... I kind of like the idea of not having a deployment zone at all and just a deployment edge, with the models coming on-board the first time the card comes up. The solution of it screwing the first player is to simply have recon units effect the first turns card pulls instead of just the chosing of the deployment area (esp since individual units wouldn't be getting deployed there anymore), that way the penalty goes to the side that has the worst battlefield intel. Scout units could start on the field but be considered to be camo'ed automatically. I think this is the most elege
  10. That's true... I did forget about IF... But that's easy enough to rectify by instituting a flat shortrange penalty for the first range band or two. The thing I thought about this was it would have the same effect over all, there's a benfit to closing. Plus it scales up slightly more quickly, but not enough to require a major rebalancing, for example a Thunderbird at 72" currently would be at a -4, where with the proposed change it would be at -5. Not a huge difference, but enough that the player would probably want to close some. Anyway... like I said I'm not attached to this, it was j
  11. The way I look at it either ruling on the Ogre works... Having three direct attacks is fair because it does have 3 main guns, and having 2 DA's + Dorsal can make sense because there might not be enough power to run all three while moving. Neither one scares me when facing it (I don't use those clunky BS CAVs so it'll never benefit me either way)... because either way my opponent is going to pay for it, either by sacrificing some movement or by paying however many extra points per CAV the devs value the guns at. I will say from my personal viewpoint, I think Dorsal Gun does work bette
  12. Yeah... I really like the way the first ed book was written. I was assuming pretty much the same thing... keep the data from the first one and add what's need to bring it up to the current date. I really like how little direct impact gameplay is having on story... unlike a certain other mecha games updated version ;)
  13. With the testing for decreasing range.. I got to thinking, do we really need the modifiers for short range? It seems like things could be streamlined by (for example) cutting all the ranges in half, and reducing the band penalty to 1. If you tied this by an (more or less) across the board increase of 1 to RAV's it seems like you could get close to the current numbers and cut some things out of the attack roll calculations. Anyway, it's just a suggestion... figured it would save a few seconds and be one less thing to forget during a firefight. I would have given this a shot before post
  14. Yeah... I had intended to post about that too. The Puma's flamer seemed awfully underpowered considering it's a vehicle mount. But I couldn't decide how to suggest it be handled... Cause it could either be a higher flamer value, or a wider dispersion... The problem with increaseing the value is that the damage would scale up vs vehicles too, and I wouldn't think they would be that vulnerable to the flames. And I really wouldn't want to bog the game down with 2 different size flamer templates. Maybe something like adding a shredder type effect to vehicle flamers would work. That way it
  15. Chrome's idea sounds pretty workable to me too... you can either stand and deal with the threat or blow throw and risks some shots at your back. I'll see if we can give it a go on Wed, and see how it works out.
×
×
  • Create New...