(Chroma @ Aug. 15 2007,14:12)
QUOTE
The thing is, if it's just a "cut down" version of "Broken", then why not just use the existing rules?
because the original rules aren't cut down!
a nid version of broken fits in nicely with the slot occupied by normal broken.
let's do a comparison of normal broken and potential nid cut down version of broken (instinctive).
Broken Instinctive
-1 for bms yes yes
-1 for more bms yes no
lose units for further bms yes no
activation may not hold only 1 2
rally must roll automatic 3
wiped out if lose asssault yes yes 4
may hold/contest objectives no no 5
provide support in assaults no yes
1 regroup is presumable not allowed
2 further bms for failed activation are irrelavent
the only only effect of failed activation is may not
hold initiative. Might as well have done and dispense
with the initiative test and say for insitinctive hold- only-and-may-not-retain-initiative
3 all bms cleared / no bms placed
4 nothing says otherwise so I guess yes
5 or prevent TSNP
I think this gives what you're looking for removes any 'bittyness' and slots in smoothley into the architecture of the game, rather than being an additional bit bolted on
as you say though, whether would be better in balance terms could only be shown by playtesting
.