Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Possible Additions: Planetary Assault and Entry Point
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=21851		 Page 4 of 4
Author:  Dave [ Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible Additions: Planetary Assault and Entry Point
Evil and Chaos wrote:
So basically you're going to ram through a rule that nobody outside of your own gaming group seems to like.


No, I put forward these for testing. If they don't receive any support they won't be included.

Quote:
Here's two special rules that I'd like tested as well. Not sure if either of them will make the cut but up to one of them may be included in the 'nid list if there's enough support for it.
Author:  zombocom [ Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible Additions: Planetary Assault and Entry Point
Evil and Chaos wrote:
zombocom wrote:
I'd ideally like an (expensive) hiveship and planetfall option (with perhaps and increased scatter) than a convoluted special rule, in fact I'd rather see no dropping at all than a convoluted rule.

Put that into Leviathan then?


I may do in the future.
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible Additions: Planetary Assault and Entry Point
Dave wrote:
Planetary Assault

As most have said, I would stick with Planetfall or Self-Planetfall.

If you want to make it less reliable to reflect a lack of Nid strategic planning, I would suggest you drop the Initiative rating. Low Initiative would come the closest to the "will this really show up when I want?" that this rule aims for. For Planetfall, it's dirt simple - just lower the spacecraft Initiative to, say, 3+ for a 1/3 chance to fail. For a Self-planetfall you'd probably have to do some sort of before/after initiative change, which is a bit fiddly but probably not horrible. Initiatives are list-specific anyway, so a list-specific special rule is hardly problematic in concept.

Increasing scatter could be used as well, as others noted.

Quote:
Entry Point
[/quote]
I have no objection to having a standardized portal rule, but we should go for something jazzier than "Entry Point" as a name. Even just plain old "Portal" is better than that.

Also, while I think it's okay in concept I agree with others that it's probably not needed in any of the current Nid lists.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible Additions: Planetary Assault and Entry Point
I like the idea of a poor initiative spacecraft. Suitably costed, of course.
Author:  Angel_of_Caliban [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible Additions: Planetary Assault and Entry Point
Evil and Chaos wrote:
I like the idea of a poor initiative spacecraft. Suitably costed, of course.

Sounds good.

Also you could have just the standard Planetfall rules but at the end have the opponent able to relocate the dropzone by 45cm or 60cm. Seems simple and not to crazy or hard to deal with.

Or just drop this for now and pick up again after the lists are more settled and developed?
Author:  Moscovian [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible Additions: Planetary Assault and Entry Point
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Evil and Chaos wrote:
I like the idea of a poor initiative spacecraft. Suitably costed, of course.

Sounds good.

Also you could have just the standard Planetfall rules but at the end have the opponent able to relocate the dropzone by 45cm or 60cm. Seems simple and not to crazy or hard to deal with.

Or just drop this for now and pick up again after the lists are more settled and developed?


AoC, you just suggested something almost identical to what Dave's idea is.

E&C, it isn't fair to say Dave is jamming the rule down anyone's throat. He is stating rather accurately that 1) there is a dismissive attitude from people here who haven't even tried it; and 2) there is a tremendous amount of support for a planetfall or modified planetfall idea that has never been tested.

If anything is unfair, it is the treatment Dave is receiving. This is the opinion of somebody who has seen the rule in play, doesn't feel all that great about it, and isn't in Dave's play group.

[mod hat on] In addition, the tone of this thread is declining in a negative direction. I would encourage all parties to take a step back for now. [/mod hat on]

@ Zombocom/Neal, despite me wanting it in the list, I am leaning in your direction to be honest that maybe the rule should be just removed.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible Additions: Planetary Assault and Entry Point
Quote:
[mod hat on] In addition, the tone of this thread is declining in a negative direction. I would encourage all parties to take a step back for now. [/mod hat on]

Mods have a green name.

Quote:
If anything is unfair, it is the treatment Dave is receiving.

You're right. I read his repeated calls for testing of this rule the wrong way.
Author:  Moscovian [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible Additions: Planetary Assault and Entry Point
You're right, a mod does have a green name. I was trying to avoid their involvement. Thus the (apparently unfunny) bracket [/] humor.
Author:  Angel_of_Caliban [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible Additions: Planetary Assault and Entry Point
Moscovian wrote:
AoC, you just suggested something almost identical to what Dave's idea is.

But his way sound more convoluted I think :P ::) :D
Author:  Moscovian [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible Additions: Planetary Assault and Entry Point
Reminds me of this commercial...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNCrMEOqHpc
Page 4 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/