|
Post by mikedski on May 26, 2016 2:22:00 GMT
Agreed - please repost your rule with the above changes for a final look page 103 extra munitions if a tank or vehicle unit begins its turn within 6 inches of a munitions carrier, it can take one extra shot when it fires or in the case of howitzers - adds 1 to its barrage value. Note this +1 extra shot or barrage bonus if for the entire unit and not for each element in the unit.
Replace: each element in a tank unit can add one additional shot at the discretion of the firing player. For each element that uses a extra shot, roll one die. If any die results in a '1' then the munitions carrier is now empty and can no longer be used this way. For example a Mark II tank unit of three vehicles could add 1,2, or 3 additional shots. Then 1,2, or 3 die would be thrown to determine the status of the munitions carrier.
|
|
|
Post by mikedski on May 26, 2016 2:24:15 GMT
I agree with Madmorgan on this. Keep the basic infantry power +2 and the forlorn hope power +3. The extra power for the forlorn hope is due to the special weapons they have. Once they are gone the squad is back to basic assault abilities. I have the same opinion. Is this one chance to attack worth 15 points?
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on May 26, 2016 10:35:12 GMT
Well, even with only the Forlorn getting the +3 Pow assault, giving one to each squad vs one per two squads, triples the number of +3 assaults per platoon (3 squad version) or at least doubles it (2 squad version). I think thats a good increase and never really understoond having only 1 per 2 in the first place. Frankly, I think it was a marketing decision, as you got more Forlorn Hopes in a pack, prompting you to buy enough infantry to use them all. Of coarse going with a 1 per 1 will mean that now I'm 'short' FHs for all my platoons, sigh.
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on May 27, 2016 9:09:46 GMT
Well, even with only the Forlorn getting the +3 Pow assault, giving one to each squad vs one per two squads, triples the number of +3 assaults per platoon (3 squad version) or at least doubles it (2 squad version). I think thats a good increase and never really understoond having only 1 per 2 in the first place. Frankly, I think it was a marketing decision, as you got more Forlorn Hopes in a pack, prompting you to buy enough infantry to use them all. Of coarse going with a 1 per 1 will mean that now I'm 'short' FHs for all my platoons, sigh. I assembled my only FH set on the weekend. The metal AD used is soft and the hooks bend easily so I'm concerned they won't stand up to gaming use. I suppose I could use pipe cleaners to represent FH teams attacking a tripod.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on May 27, 2016 9:58:46 GMT
Gads thats horrible news. Pipe cleaners stripped of 'fuzz' would probabaly a good alternative.
|
|
|
Post by tenchuu on Jun 1, 2016 0:42:46 GMT
Response for pages 79 to 89. Page 87: Infantry and forlorn hope; The rules say up to half of infantry squads may have forlorn hope attached. Per discussion elsewhere on this forum this should be changed to all forlorn hope for up to all infantry squads.
Page 88: Machine gun squads; There was considerable discussion on the old forum that machine guns were overpowered especially with respect to tripods. I suggest we change the power rating for machine guns (squads, bike mounted rough rider, and vehicle or tank mounted) to be power +1 to infantry (note drones are classified infantry) and +0 for tripods, machines, and exceptionals.
Page 88: Rough Rider tow cable with cross reference to clamper tanks. RR tow cable attacks have no upper limit to number of immobilized markers that can be placed on a tripod. The clamper tank is limited to +1. It doesn't make sense that having a 30 ton anchor has less immobilizing effect than entanglement with cable. I suggest the immobilization for a clamper tank be made +3 and the upper limit for tow cable immobilization be +4.
I 'm with you on modifications to the rules you mention. My comments;
1) forlorn hope. If every squad can get a forlorn hope for 15 points then may each squad should just get a permanent upgrade to +3 power in assaults? For example , the US Cavalry squad ( page 89) can get a +3 power in assault for additional 15 points. Why not infantry squads? Also I would like to see infantry HQ and field HQ be allowed to get a forlorn hope teams.
2) HMGs - I like the idea of toning down the abilities of the HMGs versus tripods. But keeping rate of fire of 3 still makes the lighter tripods (scouts, slavers, reapers) vulnerable, I would think. What has your experience been with this? I have been playing reduce ROF.
3) Rough Riders - I believe their should be a limit to the number of assaults a team can launch. Two per team. For their cost I believe rough riders are the hardest hitting units in the game. They are harder to hit, and great morale. They have a 50% chance of landing a hit and causing a tripod some consternation. A single tow cable has a 50% chance of causing damage if a tripod tries to break free. No other human weapon has that chance of success (except fully charged tesla gun).
100% on board with this; in the games I've played HMG take out tripods fairly easily, which seems a tad off. I can see a random shot or two doing it, but not with any real consistency. If they do, increase their cost.
Rough Riders are essentially broken from what I've seen. The limited ranges on slaver control (which I think needs some drastic fixes) means it's difficult to screen against them, and once they start piling on the tow cables, they can take down tripods very quickly.
As for forlorn hope, from a gameplay standpoint, I would really like them to get two turns on a tripod. A second chance of some kind. This is purely from a model standpoint; as it is, you have models you paint up, you place them on the model, you make a roll, then you remove them ten seconds after you put them on. Why bother having the models? I think they look great hanging on the tripods and should get a little more air (teehee) time.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jun 1, 2016 11:53:19 GMT
1/ You bring up some excellent points ref FH and Cavalry stats. There certainly appears to be an inconsistant situation with the Cavalry able to 'buy up' to a +3Power for explosives that their Infantry counterpoint can't. As a radical thought, the FH unit could be dropped from the Infantry table in favor of just a +3Power assault for additional 15 points representing the various forlorn hope elements with the squad. This implies one of two things, either a lot of guys willing to do so (with appropriate loss of elements to the attempts) or some other means of the attack itself (rifle grenade style grappling hooks standard infantry equipment). Theres no explanation as to how the explosives are used by the Cavalry to get the effect. And the idea of 'air time' is a good one as well - it does seem a shame to work those figures up for a cammeo appearance. I'm using a lot of my FH for my airborne assaults, but thats another matter. In another thread there is a workup for adhesive lances on the British Indian cavalary that accents how explosives might be used by a cavarly unit. I've suggested some infantry weapons in my "Weapons" threads that could be used for close range assaults (piats, stickybombs, bazookas, etc.). So it all comes down to what you envision for the explosives that makes them valid as a weapon. One thought is that the Forlorn Hope is no longer an add-on to a unit, rather a type of Ambush trap. In this version, the FH is part of an Ambush per the rules and attacks as a Trap - +4 to hit & +4Power. You could have this unit roll morale each turn, until it either hits or misses a morale check and is destroyed. This would give it the 'air time' you mentioned and make it very valuable. The result of all the above is: 1/all Infantry & Cavalry units may add Explosives to their stats for +15 points - all assaults are considered to be at a +3Power vs Tripods and +2Power (grenades) vs non-Tripod targets. I wouldn't allow Command stands the same option as they are usually less numerous in personal (1 element) and aren't even equipped with grenades apparently. 2/I've been against the change in RoF for HMGs for some time. Mainly because I've set up a nice bunch of weapons that use RoF as one of their different factors in the stats. If a HMG is only RF1, what does that make a LMG or SMG or any number of other weapons. 3/I agree with the Rough Riders ideas - RR units should get a limited number of attacks per game with their tow cables. But, they should also have grenades, which aren't listed in the original stat line. Or maybe even explosives (lol). But, definately grenades for use after the tow cables are used up. Besides, facing things like drones, they'd prefer a different method of assault over their cables. Try some of these ideas out and see what you thing. I look forward to further comments from everyone on these thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by tenchuu on Jun 1, 2016 16:54:02 GMT
The ambush idea with morale is a great one. Fully behind that. Grenades would be an ok addition to the rough riders, but don't they have an lmg on front of some, isn't that enough?
|
|
|
Post by terrance on Jun 1, 2016 17:32:20 GMT
Let me see if I understand the FH recommendation. If you buy infantry and pay 15 extra points you get 3 elements with power +3 against tripods. With the old system it was 3 infantry elements and a FH element. In assault there were 4 dice and the 3 infantry got power +2 and the FH got power +3. Am I following correctly?
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jun 1, 2016 19:43:23 GMT
terrance - yes thats the thrust of it all; and yes that ups the number of +3 assault by two, this could be explained as part of the 1916 upgrades of USA units. Note that the Cavalry already have this simple rule. tenchuu - the RR squad has a single bike with a HMG, firing at -1 due to stability issues. All of them have rifles. And I believe these RR units should have grenades as well. Standard issue.
|
|
|
Post by terrance on Jun 2, 2016 18:58:36 GMT
Thanks Madmorgan. I like the idea of tying the infantry organization change to the 1916 upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 8, 2016 13:19:42 GMT
Quick on with no page ref atm - The Land Ship Iron Clad table has a typo with the 6-8 supposed to read 7-8 on it. I'll get the book and edit this to correct format later.
|
|