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

Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=15580		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu May 14, 2009 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
Key points so far from my perspective.

1) A special ability is likely to be more easily accepted than a new unit type.

2) The desired combination of infantry move + AT vulnerability can be attacked from either angle - adding movement to units already vulnerable to AT or adding AT vulnerability to units that move as infantry.


"Agile" (or whatever name we end up with) could be applied to vehicles and war engines (like Biotitans).  That would make it more flexible overall.  The problem, though is that it is potentially silly to allow really big units to enter certain kinds of terrain (the aforementioned Biotitan in a bunker).  You'd have to include some sort of limitation to cover that.

Adding a "Big" to make infantry units vulnerable to AT only applies to infantry.  The best any vehicle could do would still be Walker.  However, that might be sufficient.
Author:  Mephiston [ Thu May 14, 2009 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
Personally, I just don't see the need for this.
Author:  Ginger [ Thu May 14, 2009 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
Well . . . I can see some point in being able to provide some limited targetting ability for enemy shooting at massed infantry formations. Examples that come to mind are Tyranid Warriors, Chaos Obliterators, Ork Nobs, Eldar Farseers etc.

This issue was first raised in the 'Nid thread, where people were uncomfortable that Tyranid Warriors were quite hard to kill because they could not be targetted. This boils down to the fact that they are infantry units in a large infantry formation - the same gripe applied to Obliterators.

Making them "LV" does not really work IMHO because it makes them too vulnerable to all shooting (quite apart from the other issues). Consequently defining "Big" as being vulnerable to AT fire suffers from the same problems.

What I had in mind was giving the shooting player the choice to target the "Big" units with some portion of his available fire thus reducing the 'bullet magnet' effect inherent in the "LV" approach.
Author:  Chroma [ Thu May 14, 2009 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
Quote: (Ginger @ 14 May 2009, 14:32 )

What I had in mind was giving the shooting player the choice to target the "Big" units with some portion of his available fire thus reducing the 'bullet magnet' effect inherent in the "LV" approach.

How is this any different?
Author:  Chroma [ Thu May 14, 2009 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
I don't think anyone has asked to be able to target Farseers or Ork Nobz in any special way with such a rule.  Perhaps Ork Nobz in Mega-Armour might be appropriate, but they don't currently exist.

This "Heavy Infantry" concept has mainly come into play with regard to Crisis Suits, Broadsides, Tyranid Warriors, Lictors, Biovores, Raveners, and Zoanthropes; units that aren't vehicles, but are significantly bigger than "standard" infanry. Obliterators have been mentioned recently as well.

For Tyranids, it represents the "shoot the big ones" doctrine which would be common when fighting Tyranids... heavy weapons would be more likely to target the apparent "leader" beasts in a swarm... even if they might turn out to "just" be Raveners or some other meat shield.  So far, LV status hasn't shown itself to be the death knell of Warriors.
Author:  dptdexys [ Thu May 14, 2009 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
Quote: (Mephiston @ 14 May 2009, 13:44 )

Personally, I just don't see the need for this.

I agree , I don't see the need to allow units to be picked out especially as we already have a rule that allows players to pick out prefered targets in a formation (sniper).
Author:  Chroma [ Thu May 14, 2009 3:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
Quote: (dptdexys @ 14 May 2009, 14:45 )

Quote: (Mephiston @ 14 May 2009, 13:44 )

Personally, I just don't see the need for this.

I agree , I don't see the need to allow units to be picked out especially as we already have a rule that allows players to pick out prefered targets in a formation (sniper).

It isn't a rule to allow players to "pick out prefered targets",

It's a rule that says, despite both being "infantry", Fire Warriors can't screen a Broadside Battlesuit, and that the enemy *will* target them with heavier weapons.
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu May 14, 2009 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
Quote: (Mephiston @ 14 May 2009, 13:44 )

Personally, I just don't see the need for this.

You see no need at all in any of the lists, or just not as a general rule for use?
Author:  Mephiston [ Thu May 14, 2009 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
As a general rule. I think most issues can be resolved by changing units to LV. The exception *may* be 'nids but as test come in most seem to be coming to terms with the LV units in the list.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Thu May 14, 2009 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
Quote: (Mephiston @ 14 May 2009, 10:23 )

I think most issues can be resolved by changing units to LV. The exception *may* be 'nids but as test come in most seem to be coming to terms with the LV units in the list.

The problem, of course, with changing an infantry unit to LV is making it vulnerable to AT fire.
Author:  vytzka [ Thu May 14, 2009 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
I think LV status is sufficient as well.
Author:  Chroma [ Thu May 14, 2009 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
Quote: (Dwarf Supreme @ 14 May 2009, 15:31 )

Quote: (Mephiston @ 14 May 2009, 10:23 )

I think most issues can be resolved by changing units to LV. The exception *may* be 'nids but as test come in most seem to be coming to terms with the LV units in the list.

The problem, of course, with changing an infantry unit to LV is making it vulnerable to AT fire.

*LAUGH*  Um, DS, that's *precisely* the point of this special rule.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Thu May 14, 2009 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
Quote: (Chroma @ 14 May 2009, 10:46 )

Quote: (Dwarf Supreme @ 14 May 2009, 15:31 )

Quote: (Mephiston @ 14 May 2009, 10:23 )

I think most issues can be resolved by changing units to LV. The exception *may* be 'nids but as test come in most seem to be coming to terms with the LV units in the list.

The problem, of course, with changing an infantry unit to LV is making it vulnerable to AT fire.

*LAUGH*  Um, DS, that's *precisely* the point of this special rule.

I know! I'm in agreement with the idea of having a "Big" special rule.
Author:  GlynG [ Thu May 14, 2009 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Heavy Infantry/Agile/Big
Quote: (Dwarf Supreme @ 14 May 2009, 15:31 )

[quote="Dwarf Supreme"]The problem, of course, with changing an infantry unit to LV is making it vulnerable to AT fire.

In the case of the Tyranids the AT is not a problem, but an entirely deliberate, wanted, effect.

I believe the only downside to having it that way is that it then prevents them from entering buildings or using cover, which tyranid warriors perhaps should be able to do (not sure about say a Biovore in a bunker though say), which is what having a special rule to maybe make the vulnerable to AT despite them being infantry could achieve, though not sure it's that big a deal / needed change.

Don't think there's need for any of the models in any of the other current lists to be changed, apart from the 'nids and perhaps Broadsides (and Crisis?).
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/