Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Updated force list, phase one

 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Quote (tneva82 @ 18 Nov. 2005 (11:53))

Quote (clausewitz @ 18 Nov. 2005 (11:35))
The problem I have heard with this logic is that it would also apply to things like Terminators/Obilterators etc.

Obliterators yes, termies yes and no. Those things have only 1 wound which makes even them suspectable of heavy bolter fire etc(as my terminators can vouch for!).

Also there's 5 termies per stand. Even if we assume 3 crisis per stand loss of effect is more notable on 1 dead crisis than 1 dead terminator(especially as each terminator doesn't carry equal firepower. One terminator pumps out MUCH less firepower than one crisis suit).
[/quote]
You are forgetting to calculate the fact that there are also drones on the stand. You can have up to 7 models on a stand. That could be 2 battlesuits and 4 drones, 3 battlesuits and 4 drones... its possible that drones themselves could also take that hit.

Furthermore, terminators have a 5+ inv save in 40K against that lascannon shot, the battlesuit can have a 4+ invuln save agasint that lascannon shot. there's a higher probability that a single lascannon shot will kill a single terminator than a single battlesuit model as a result.

Even if they were the same, its not worse.


But I could see this go either way. They are comparable to both war walkers and terminators in many respects yet those 2 aren't same in Epic.

See warwalker comments, they are not closer to warwalkers. Battlesuits are closest to assault marines, broadsides are closest to termiantors.

Which way to go in this list is up to you. Me? If I ever get Tau army they are going to be LV in that so won't be getting grey hairs regardless of which way you go :D

I already have grey hair over this issue.  :/

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606
. A Dreadnought has a driver


As does crisis suit. It's PILOTED by tau. It's not motivated by tau pilot's own movements as say space marine power armour is.

. On the epic field of battle, tanks, we's etc are much more interesting targets than infantry.


Maybe, maybe not. Crisis suits are highly mobile, pack quite a punch and are nearly impervious to anti-personal firepower(wether it's lasgun, heavy stubber, multi-laser, heavy bolter).

Opponents will likely shoot their low strenght-low penetration weapons at fire warriors or other units they can actually stand a  chance hurting before getting vaporised.

Tau battlesuits are not breaking any rules by being what they are - which is infantry as definined by Jervis.

As much war walker, another armored gun platform PILOTED by pilot is.

If crisis suits are infantry then why not warwalkers as infantry 3 per stand? They are pretty much identical to each other in most aspects.




_________________
www.tneva.net


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:19 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Tactica:  You ask repeatedly what the reason for changing it might be.  Style.  That's it.

Many other units have had their unit types changed in the transition to Epic based on stylistic criteria.  Most people think that such exceptions are not only not being untrue to the franchise but that it is MORE true to the franchise precisely because it is willing to reject the 40K mechanics in order to capture the feel of the background.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606
the battlesuit can have a 4+ invuln save agasint that lascannon shot. there's a higher probability that a single lascannon shot will kill a single terminator than a single battlesuit model as a result.

Even if they were the same, its not worse.


For starters that 4+ inv is rarely used extra item(are you willing to have firepower reduced then)?

Secondly dead crisis suit is worser, much, than dead terminator. Each terminator doesn't carry 2 highly deadly weapons. They carry 1 small arm gun.

See warwalker comments, they are not closer to warwalkers.


Mechanised armoured suits/platforms that are PILOTED with CONTROLS by PILOT?

Where exactly are they different then?




_________________
www.tneva.net


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:40 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore
Quote (Tactica @ 18 Nov. 2005 (17:07))
OK - this is a problem CS. If our champion thinks a crisis is synomous with dreadnought/walker, Its not! Dreadnought is synonomous with Eldar war walker. A dreadnought stands 10' tall and has a 12 front, 12 side, and 10 rear armor value. A Dreadnought has a driver - its what's left of a man... the _dreadnought vehicle_ is a life support system, a sarcophigus, as well as a moderately armored vehicle of battle!

A crisis is a man wearing technical armor. the man has 2 wounds and is as effective as a marines power armor - just like a stealth only the stealth suit isn't as thick and thus does not yeild the extra wound to the guy inside. The broadside battlesuit is akin to a terminator in defense, manouvrabiliyt, etc!

You miss my point. A Crisis suit and a Dreadnought are different in terms of design, but fulfill broadly similar battlefield roles, those of support and sharp teeth. I would say that, in terms of role, a War Walker is closer to a Crisis suit than it is to a Dreadnought. The goal of both a Crisis and a War Walker is to provide troop support and to reinforce positions. The role of a Dreadnought is as a small gun platform and assault vehicle, closer to the Broadside (as far as I see it).

I think that this topic is causing real division in the development, and that is something that I do not want to see. I will review all of the options, read the threads a couple of times and present a decision. Once we have that, we can playtest and comment on it. In the meantime, I suggest that we all keep an open mind and stay frosty. Please dont let this be the issue that splinters the Tau development.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Guys,

I know my argument is circular and repetative as NH states, because its a principle based argument. Its also becasue the naysayers aren't saying anything new. The same answers apply to the same questions.

My stance is simple - make a unit what it is, unless there's some balance reason why we shouldn't. If you disagree - OK.

40K has established a precident. If we want to use it - fine. In that game - all battlesuits are infantry to date. LOL - who knows, maybe the new book will change that and the'll all be vehicles. Maybe we can give all battlesuits RA then in E:A.

If we don't want to use the 40K precident - fine.

Look - I'm becoming personally frustrated with this topic. As NH said, I'm becoming repedative. Noted and well met.

That means development, on this topic, is no longer becoming interesting, fun or enjoyable _to me_ and its starting to effect my take on all things E:A tau development. I don't want this issue to impact my view of the nay sayers opinions on other topics - though it may already have. That's not a good thing for me to let happen.

This is a hobby of mine. Yes, its a second hobby to 40K - I've not been shy about that fact. Its a hobby nonetheless. I have hobby's for fun - not to give me a headache. I enjoy intellectual debate - to a point, but the arguments are no longer logical IMHO.

The warwalker argument is dead IMHO - I know what it is in 40K. It's not even close to a crisis suit in dimenstions, armor, or play for example. The rules are blatantly different.

I know what a wraithlord is. Its size, dimensions, and background. I also know it was originally designed as an Eldar dreadnought and used to be called as such. It was given a toughness in the most recent addition of the Eldar codex and has been a point of contention in the ranks of 40K enthusiests since its change. Their are already rumors of it going back to being a dreadnought - but that is only rumor, so we'll see. Nowhere on it does it have a fleshy spot.

Somebody challenged (tneva?) that a battlesuit doesn't move on motion of the guy inside - heh, I have no idea. I seen the Golden daemon model that somebody worked up too - but I don't know that it was even close to accurate. I would have to research whether internal movement of the Ethereal had any impact on the suits movement as I poiniently don't know. To me - its as relivent as the sky being blue though.

In 40K, the battlesuit is infantry, jervis has defined what infantry is, and we have design concepts that talk about how basing the models should be on infantry stands and reflect multiple models. Furthermore, the crisis and broadsides were infantry originally but due to other rules making them overpowerful, they were turned into LV to attempt to balance them. That didn't work - FYI... however instead of ever changing them back to what they were originally - they were left as LV while other pressing issues were resolved. Now - maybe I have the history all fu'd up in my head - and that's possible, but that's the way I see it.

I'm also admittedly biased at this point. My mind is clouded on this topic and well... nuff said, I need to back off.

As I said above, this topic is important to me, but I've allowed it to become too important to me... therefore, I'm letting it go before I go off and say something to someone I'll regret later.

Tactica  takes deep breath


In interest of progress and return to list commeradery that I'm starting to miss here in Epicomms Tau land - I'll happily embrace whatever CS comes up with.

As of this post - I'm done lobbying (as NH would say) on this topic.

Asaura, there you have it - I'll concede to whatever you guys want to do with the broadside - or other battlesuits. I'm done.

Good times...





_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606
40K has established a precident. If we want to use it - fine. In that game - all battlesuits are infantry to date.


So is wraithlord...40k definitions should not be 100% followed anyway.

I'm sure some eldar players would love to have their wraithlords as infantry.

Somebody challenged (tneva?) that a battlesuit doesn't move on motion of the guy inside - heh, I have no idea.


Part of crisis fluff text in epic army list is quite interesting...Crisis pilot.

Also regarding to your point about drones in stand...That's why those mount 3+ save(something virtually non-existant in epic. Top of my hand can't name all that many units with 3+ armour, RA or non RA).




_________________
www.tneva.net


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
Quote (dysartes @ 17 Nov. 2005 (23:52))
And here is where we see that people are selectively reading background elements for their own ends.

A War Walker and Tau Battlesuit (XV8 or XV88) are more similar than you may think. Anyone who's read Kill Team (a Black Library novel) could tell you that a Crisis suit is piloted by a Tau member of the fire Caste sat in the chest cavity of the suit - while it is a suit of armour, it is not worn in the same way a suit of power armour (for instance) is.

My home library includes:
IA3, E:A Rulebook, Swordwind, all the BFG Books, the 40K RB 4th Ed, SM and IG Codex.  I dont have access to KillTeam or a Tau Codex.  All the materials I have read, both in IA3, here on the boards, and on GWs site, said that XVs are worn.

I'm not "selectively reading background elements for my own ends."  I just dont have access to said background elements.  The difference is considerable.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
Quote (nealhunt @ 18 Nov. 2005 (17:19))
Most people think that such exceptions are not only not being untrue to the franchise but that it is MORE true to the franchise precisely because it is willing to reject the 40K mechanics in order to capture the feel of the background.

Very nicely put. This is exactly the reason I keep getting excited about this: capturing the feel of the background. There are obviously going to be different takes on the background; my take, for example, is skewed by only playing Epic and not playing 40K. Surprising though it may be, I consider my own take to be right  :D , and all arguments based on 40K stats to be close to irrelevant...

I have a question to the 40K players here: does 40K differentiate infantry by agility? I mean the following: RL infantrymen are quite agile. They can make sprints and jumps and crawl and shoot from a prone position and crouch. Based on my 15 year old recollections on 40K, this kind of thing was not modelled. A terminator was the same as a guardsman, even though it can do none of the things I listed above.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:26 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Tactica:  I don't think your argument(s) is circular or repetitive (though we have both repeated versions on probably too many occasions).  I apologize if my post sounded like I thought so.

On the contrary, I think you have solid logical points.  They just aren't as compelling to me as the counterarguments because the premise of them reflects a different set of values than what I bring to the design process.  And vice versa.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
I have a question to the 40K players here: does 40K differentiate infantry by agility? I mean the following: RL infantrymen are quite agile. They can make sprints and jumps and crawl and shoot from a prone position and crouch. Based on my 15 year old recollections on 40K, this kind of thing was not modelled. A terminator was the same as a guardsman, even though it can do none of the things I listed above.


Asaura,

Happy to offer some info which may allow you to answer your 40K 'agility' question. I figure its best to explain in lamens terms the various points of 40K which may be on topic to your question, and let you see if any of it applies to what you are thinking about.

[Fair warning for most - this is long! I'm offering my summation of some 40K rules to Asaura to answer his question - very OT and will not have much to do with E:A topic at all. You may wish to just skip this post]

40K deals with Infantry in a host of ways. Some of the most common are actual classification type, difficult terrain, speed, charge distance, and whether or not it can ignore the terrain all together. Classification type with further depict whether you start on the field or in reserve in certain mission security levels too - but I'm getting ahead of myself.

The troop classification 'type' determines the rest of the characteristics I think you are describing.

40K Infantry:
Those that aren't vehicles and don't fit any of the other classifications below. They typically move 6" and charge 6". They treat difficult terrain as "difficult" meaning they roll 2d6 and pick the high dice to see how much they can move that turn. This may not even take them into the terrain they want to enter - which means they are 'cautiously moving toward the terrain'. Some terrain gives cover and Infantry can use cover saves in place of armor if they want. This is your basic space marine, eldar, guard, and Tau firewarrior/pathfinder, terminators, necrons, eldar wraithguard, aspect warriors, orcs, nobs.

40K Jump Infantry:
Those that are infantry, but have something affording them great leaps and bounds on the battlefield. In rules, there are those that work as "Jump Packs" or "Jet Packs" (even if you have wings). Both jet and jump packs ignore intervening terrain as the move, and treat all difficult terrain as dangerous if they land in it. Both can move into the same places regular Infantry can. Jump packs move 12 and assault 6. Jet packs move 6 and assault 6... however, Jet packs allow you to move away from the enemy in the assault phase. This is a bonus for things like Tau crisis, stealth, and drones as they are examples of Jet (not Jump) Pack equipped Jump Infantry. The Jet Pack vs. the Jump pack sacrifices some of their distance initially, but makes up for it as it allows them an 'evasion' manouvre to get out of LOF of the enemy before they have a chance to fire. Typical Jump (not Jet) Pack equipped Jump Infantry are swooping hawks, assault marines, and tyranid things with wings.

40K Bikes/Jet bikes:
Bikes are still infantry in 40K. They move 12 and charge 6. They can turbo boost by going 24 but cannot go through terrain. When they turboboost, their armor 3+ save becomes a 3+ invulnerable save to shooting until the bikes next move (hard to hit) In combat, they go down like regular troops. Bikes also confer a +1 Toughness (makes them harder to wound). Bikes are not impeded in distance by difficult terrain when moving (outside of turbo boost) but when they go through the terrain, it is dangerous to them (similar to dangerous terrain in E:A, roll a 1, take a no save wound). Jet Bikes are basically regular bikes, but they get to ignore intervening terrain when they move as they can move over it.
Examples of regular bikes are marine bikes, marine assault bikes, scout bikes, chaos bikes - Jet Bikes are the likes of Dark Eldar, Eldar, and Necrons.

40K Cavalry:
Mounted Cavalry deal with difficult terrain differently than Infantry. They move like infantry with a base move 6, charge 12. In addition though - they may forgo any chance to shoot in effort to move further. This is call Fleeting. Instead of shooting, you may fleet by rolling a single d6 for the entire unit, and thats how much additional move they get during the shooting phase after they've already been moved in the movement phase. Fleeting ignores difficult terrain. In difficult terrain, they roll 2d6, pick the high dice, and multiply by 2. Typical examples of Cavalry are IG Rough Riders, Daemonic Cavalry like Fleshhounds, or Chaos characters with the Daemonic Speed chaos gift.

40K Monstrous Creatures: These are larger - much larger beasties. They move like infantry, jump infantry, or Cavalry depending upon what load out they have. That means they can get really fast and in your face. In difficult terrain, they can barrel through it, so they roll 3 d6 and pick the high dice. These things are as big as many vehicles and as such may always be seen unless a vehicle is blocking them! All the above forms of infantry do not block a Mostrous Creature from LOF.

40K Artillery:
These are regular Infantry that have an accompanied large piece of weaponry significant enough that it itself may be damaged even when the crew are not, or vice versa. They work like infantry with the acception that when they are shot at, you have to determine whether you randomly hit the machine or the infantry or both. (This is in effect a warhammer fantasy concept basically) Note: the pice of equipment they are carrying would be armor 10 all the way around and is what E:A would call a light vehicle.

=====
Now, infantry classifications asside, there are also Universal special rules such as "Slow and Steady" "Scout", "Fleet", "Infiltrate", and "Deep Strike" which further hinder or help the above.

Slow and Steady
Means you you ALWAYS count as moving through difficult terrain, even when you are in the open... so your move distance is always random and rarely at full speed whether moving or charging. On the other hand, this creates a very stable mobile firing platform for high rate of fire and heavy weapon systems. Thousand sons Terminators, Thousand Son Marines, and Obliterators are all examples of Slow and Steady Infantry. Note: he new Tau Empire Broadsides will also have the ability to upgrade from Infantry to become Slow and Steady via whats known as the Advanced Stabalization System in the FW:IA3.


Scout:
This means you may always deploy this unit at the start of the game, regardless of the scenerio restrictions and regardless of what classification of troop you are. Furthermore, it allows you a free regular move before the game. This is not only a bonus for some troop types, but certain vehicles also have this ability. Tau Stealths, Tau pathfinders with devilfish, IG sentinels - are all examples of scouts.

Fleet
Pretty straight forward - the unit can opt to forgo its chance to shoot instead of flat out triple time moving. Skip shooting and roll a d6 in the shooting phase, entire unit moves that much further - ignoring difficult terrain movement penalties for this fleet move. Lots of tyranids, cav, and some jump infantry have Fleet rules. In the Tau list, Kroot have the fleet ability. IG roughriders fleet, etc.

Infiltrate
Also straight forward. Infiltrators are held off table while players set up the rest of their forces. Before game begins and rolls to see who goes first happen, each player alternates setting up infiltrators. Infiltrators may setup outside their deployment zones as long as they are not withing 18" of the enemy. You may deploy infiltrators within 12" of the enemy if NO enemy model on the field can draw LOF to any infiltrating model in the unit. Examples of infiltrators are Tau Stealth, most flavors of kroot, marine scouts, eldar pathfinders, orc kommandos, IG Storm Troopers, etc.

Deep Strike
This is effectively the E:A teleport ability. You hold a unit off in 'reserve' as is defined in 40K. Starting on turn 2, you roll to see if the unit shows up - they show up on a 4+. If they don't show up, you get them next turn on a 3+, and then a 2+ on turns 4-9 until they finally show up. Once arrived, you place a model where you want the unit to show up at on the field and then scatter them 2d6 in a random direction... from there, the rest of th unit fills in around them assuming the main model is still on the field and in a place he can deploy. All Tau Jet Packs deep strike - so Stealths, Drones, and Crisis deep strike (broadsides don't have jet packs). Other deep strike troops include marine terminators, obliterators, Eldar Swooping hawks, some jump infantry, etc...


====
Every game of 40K is a scenerio game which further has rules based upon the security level of the mission. Each scenerio can be played at one of 3 security levels. As a result, certain types of troops above may or may not be able to deploy at the game - unless they have the scout ability of course.


OK - well, that's not verbatum from the book - that's just off the top of my head.

Hopefully it works to answer your question about 40K infantry though Asaura,

Cheers,




_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
One of the major sources of contention appears to be the ability of Crisis to make use of terrain.  If crisis were to become LV they would count woods, ruins etc as dangerous terrain.

CyberShadow has already suggested Walker to offset this.

Perhaps we could add to the "Tau Jet Pack" rule that "units equipped with Tau Jet Packs automatically pass dangerous terrain checks".  That would allow crisis to use terrain like woods without penalty.

Would this pacify the opposing factions?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606
Quote (clausewitz @ 18 Nov. 2005 (20:12))
One of the major sources of contention appears to be the ability of Crisis to make use of terrain.  If crisis were to become LV they would count woods, ruins etc as dangerous terrain.

CyberShadow has already suggested Walker to offset this.

Perhaps we could add to the "Tau Jet Pack" rule that "units equipped with Tau Jet Packs automatically pass dangerous terrain checks".  That would allow crisis to use terrain like woods without penalty.

Would this pacify the opposing factions?

But should crisises be able to enter forrests etc without danger? They can't do that in 40k anyway.

And with walker chance of failing it is 1/36, sixth of 40k danger!

_________________
www.tneva.net


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
Quote (clausewitz @ 18 Nov. 2005 (20:12))
One of the major sources of contention appears to be the ability of Crisis to make use of terrain. ?If crisis were to become LV they would count woods, ruins etc as dangerous terrain.

CyberShadow has already suggested Walker to offset this.

Perhaps we could add to the "Tau Jet Pack" rule that "units equipped with Tau Jet Packs automatically pass dangerous terrain checks". ?That would allow crisis to use terrain like woods without penalty.

Would this pacify the opposing factions?

Good call.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm for having Broadsides susceptible to AT fire (LV or AV, either is ok). Crisis suits could be either inf or LV. I like LV better, but I do agree that the troubles with entering woods and ruins can be a problem with that.

When JG first presented the list with Crisis as LV without Walker, I thought it was a typo. He clarified that it was WAD, and I think the idea was that the Crisis suits move fast enough so that they use cover by keeping behind it, instead of going in it. Then, when they engage a target, they jump over the intervening terrain and start shooting (Advance action in Epic terms). This seemed to work fine in games and made for a nice go/no go decision on whether to commit the Crisis suits or not. If Crisis could just enter the terrain, they could keep farther away from the enemy and benefit from the -1 cover modifier, both of which felt wrong.

That said, I have nothing against trying out Crisis that can enter terrain. I just think that the LV without Walker thing was ok. Certainly something else might be just as ok or better.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Updated force list, phase one
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
At the risk of upsetting the applecart, I would like to offer the ?following:

1. There are points for classifying crisis as LV
2. There are points for classifying crisis as Inf

It seems like the discussion is unable to progress because lines in the sand have been drawn. The two camps are now to the point of arguing semantics and opinions. That won't allow us to progress.

In order to look at the equation from a different perspective, why don't you try discussing:



If the crisis were considered "infantry" that ability for the unit should be costed at XXX.

Then, those that don't really feel that strongly about the issue listed above (again, I just picked that as an example), could find some common ground with those who feel strongly about one position or the other.

Those for the proposition will tend to rate the value not as highly as those who are against. The "on the fencers" can help add to the balance, then we have something to playtest.

I would ask all you to consider taking a different look as the discussion is starting to get a little personal and that isn't for the "Greater Good".

:8):

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net