Tactical Command :: View topic - Minefield as a classification

(ragnarok @ Apr. 17 2008,12:06)

I would go for a different name, since we already have mine fields as terrain with the siege regiments

disruption or spoiler troops perhaps

(Fomas @ Apr. 17 2008,16:30)

Most of what you describe would normally fall under the term of 'static' or 'fixed' defences.

Everything else seems very reasonable.

(Soren @ Apr. 17 2008,18:24)

make it simply a terrain feature which can be added for a price.

(Hena @ Apr. 17 2008,19:03)

(Ginger @ Apr. 17 2008,19:57)

QUOTE

Could we consider the new term "STATIC", used to describe battlefield objects that have some capabilities similar to minefields or other area-denial weapons.

I came up with Non-Sentient. That is better as the need can be to allow moving (which static is not).

Author:	Ginger [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:37 am ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
The tau robotic sentries, and now the 'Nid meotic spores suggest that we might possibly need another troop classification of "minefield". This would be used to describe objects that are effectively inert as far as the game goes, except that they exert a Zone of Control, and need to be "assaulted" by enemy formations in order to clear them. So Minefield has the following properties:- - It has an inherent movement of 0cm - It cannot be activated - It cannot attack (because it cannot be activated) - It has a Zone of Control, and so prevents enemy movement - It can be assaulted, so has CC and FF values and other weapon capabilities - It can be used in an AA mode (because ground AA is reactive as part of the enemy air movement), so can have AA and range. - It can garrison - It cannot contest objectives - It can be "dropped off" from another formation, but may not be picked up again Potentially a unit with "Minefield" can also have other capabilities:- - Jump pack to permit a 15cm deployment from its transport - Teleport for in game deployment from off-table

Author:	ragnarok [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
I would go for a different name, since we already have mine fields as terrain with the siege regiments disruption or spoiler troops perhaps

Author:	Ginger [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
Could these points be covered in the unit notes a bit like the dreaded Drop pod? For example, if you give the unit "planetfall", just specify that it occurs during the "teleport" phase at the start of a turn and does not need a spaceship to do this. As for movement by the Synapse creatures, while I am not comfortable with this (additional complexity), you could specify that in the Rally phase, units within X cms of a synapse creature may be moved Y cms - but need to maintain formation coherency etc. As for the name, perhaps "Reactive" or "Dormant" would be a better description of the unit's nature together with its lack of activations etc.

Author:	CyberShadow [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
(ragnarok @ Apr. 17 2008,12:06) QUOTE I would go for a different name, since we already have mine fields as terrain with the siege regiments disruption or spoiler troops perhaps Area denial?

Author:	Ginger [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
"Area Denial" would work, though I was trying to find a name that described the action (or in this case reaction) of the unit rather than its activity or effect. I did consider Inactive, Inert etc but felt they were a bit too passive (someone stepping on a mine could find it very "ert" indeed ); Responsive didn't ring true and Minefield seems to have been reserved (though I do not recollect seeing this in the rules) and anyway, on reflection it is a noun rather than an adjective

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

Minefield as a classification http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=12348	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
Maybe "reactive defender"? If it were purely mechanical, "automated defender" might work.

Author:	Fomas [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
Most of what you describe would normally fall under the term of 'static' or 'fixed' defences. Everything else seems very reasonable.

Author:	Ginger [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
(Fomas @ Apr. 17 2008,16:30) QUOTE Most of what you describe would normally fall under the term of 'static' or 'fixed' defences. Everything else seems very reasonable. Hmm "Static" seems to do the trick - it is short, descriptive of the unit rather than its activities. Thanks Fomas

Author:	Ginger [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
Ok, CS, Neal, Chroma Could we consider the new term "STATIC", used to describe battlefield objects that have some capabilities similar to minefields or other area-denial weapons. These can be deposited on the battlefield, but are essentially passive in nature, so cannot activate, contest objectives etc, but act like a unit in all other ways. These are Smart munitions, so they do not attack or hinder friendly units, but they do have ZoC, so inhibit enemy movement, can be shot or assaulted etc. Also, how should we play the Intermingled rule with these units? If people get upset at clipping assults on normal formations, I can already hear the outcry about being caught intermingled with a formation of these ?"STATIC" units. Is it reasonable to say that they can be declared "intermingled" with another formation that is the target of an assault, but not visa-versa (so other formations cannot be declared intermingled with a "STATIC" formation that is the target of an assault)?

Author:	Soren [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
make it simply a terrain feature which can be added for a price.

Author:	Ginger [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
(Soren @ Apr. 17 2008,18:24) QUOTE make it simply a terrain feature which can be added for a price. I understand what you are intending, but this is specifically intended to cover 'Nid Spores, Tau Robot Sentries etc, which are not really pieces of terrain The fact that it can equally be applied to actual minefields is intended, because in practice the game mechanics work in the same way; the enemy does not want to enter the field, but if he does, he can clear it (by "assaulting" the mines).

Author:	Ginger [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Minefield as a classification
(Hena @ Apr. 17 2008,19:03) QUOTE (Ginger @ Apr. 17 2008,19:57) QUOTE Could we consider the new term "STATIC", used to describe battlefield objects that have some capabilities similar to minefields or other area-denial weapons. I came up with Non-Sentient. That is better as the need can be to allow moving (which static is not). I am not quite certain where you are going here. How can the unit be moved if it has no activations? the intention as I see it is to provide a term to cover inanimate objects that do not move - if you need to allow it movement, then it is a normal unit isn't it?

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/