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

Trukks and Junkatrukks
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=10487		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks
Trukks do not allow loaded units to FF.
Junkatrukks do allow loaded units to FF.

Personally, I think they should be the same.  Not just because the vehicle chassis/design is a similar concept, but to reduce the fiddly factor.

Let me know your preferred solution - both allowed, both denied, or leave it as is - and why.

==

Also, should Junkatrukks get the "free grot transport" while Trukks do not?  It doesn't really matter for either the Freek or Feral lists, as no formation can carry grots, but it might be applicable to some future list.

Junkas seem to be generally larger and sturdier (slower, better CC/FF, mounted weapon), so I can see this being justified.  I was just wondering if anyone else felt this is odd.
Author:  Chroma [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks

(nealhunt @ Sep. 05 2007,16:37)
QUOTE
Trukks do not allow loaded units to FF.
Junkatrukks do allow loaded units to FF.

I feel that both should allow loaded units to firefight... they're, essentially, pick-up trucks loaded with Good Ol' Boyz, why wouldn't they be blazing away from on high.

"Dey gotz us surrounded, guess we'll jus sit 'ere a do nuffin'"... if the 'Trukk gets based by two enemy units, then the Boyz inside just sit there... that doesn't seem right at all...  and most times, if you can, you're going to want to get the Boyz out anyway!  
Also, should Junkatrukks get the "free grot transport" while Trukks do not? ?It doesn't really matter for either the Freek or Feral lists, as no formation can carry grots, but it might be applicable to some future list.
I see the Trukks as being rather "light duty" pick-up trucks, there's not a lot of space for Grots, and the few there are holding the sheet metal together!

On Junkas, well, there's lots of nooks and crannies to jam the Wee Onez into, so there's room for a unit of them; I don't think the distinction is a bad thing.
Author:  pixelgeek [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks
They should both have it but then we open the door for units like Chimeras to have it as well since they have firing ports.

Better to remove it from them all to keep the rules consistent across the game.

I also don't think that Grots should be transported for free in any army. They are a heck of a boon as it is and being able to cart them around for free would seem to make them quite powerful
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks

(pixelgeek @ Sep. 05 2007,18:40)
QUOTE
They should both have it but then we open the door for units like Chimeras to have it as well since they have firing ports.

Better to remove it from them all to keep the rules consistent across the game.

I'm pretty much with Pixelgeek here.
Author:  Dave [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks

(nealhunt @ Sep. 05 2007,11:37)
QUOTE
Trukks do not allow loaded units to FF.
Junkatrukks do allow loaded units to FF.

I think it should be the other way around.  But at this point I'd say drop the ability to FF from the Junka.  It's got its own FF anyway.

Consider also adding a 6+ FF to the Trukk, maybe with a note saying that it's the grot riggers and any orks on board shooting their blasterz and such.
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks
I'm inclined to cut the FF on both.

It was cut from the Trukks in the SF list right before publication because of all the questions it raised (like the one implied above - "what happens to FF value if the Trukk is based by 2 units?").  That's why the pdf of the army list has the extraneous "or" after "may shoot."  Originally, it said "may shoot or participate in firefights" and they missed it in the cut.

I thought during the Feral playtesting that it was agreed to leave them the same (no FF) for the same reasons.  I was offline for about 5-6 months right before Swordwind went to print so I could be wrong about that.  In any case, it made it into print.
Author:  Justiniel [ Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:46 am ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks
Much as I like the idea of Boyz blazing away from the back of a Truk, I too think it should be dropped from both, much cleaner ruleswise and besides it could be argued that that is what the truks FF stands for.

Grot wise, I think it would be better to drop those also but I could live with it remaining.
Author:  yme-loc [ Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:15 am ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks
Remove it from both.
Author:  Tiny-Tim [ Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks

(nealhunt @ Sep. 05 2007,20:36)
QUOTE
I thought during the Feral playtesting that it was agreed to leave them the same (no FF) for the same reasons. ?I was offline for about 5-6 months right before Swordwind went to print so I could be wrong about that. ?In any case, it made it into print.

It was, we were finalizing the testing when we heard that Swordwind had already gone to print.

Drop FF for transported units in Junkatrukks and drop the transport option for Grots.
Author:  Chroma [ Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:04 am ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks

(yme-loc @ Sep. 06 2007,10:15)
QUOTE
Remove it from both.

Why are people *against* units transported by 'Trukks using their firefight in assaults?

Aren't they, essentially, open-topped vehicles?  Why couldn't the Boyz on board fire over the sides?  Especially, if with basic Trukks, they have no firefight value.  

To me it just makes sense to allow them, it's almost the point of that type of transport over a Batte/Gunwagon.
Author:  Markconz [ Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:16 am ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks

(Chroma @ Sep. 08 2007,01:04)
QUOTE
Why couldn't the Boyz on board fire over the sides?  

...point of that type of transport over a Batte/Gunwagon.

Cos they have to hold on to stop falling off?  :p  Perhaps the trukk should be given a FF6+ or something to represent the crew and lads blasting away as best they are able... but then that will change balance again.

I'm guessing the point of trukk over a wagon is mainly that it is cheaper (though not as well protected), and faster.

Overall though I'm not sure on this issue myself, so defer to others for now.
Author:  Tiny-Tim [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:12 am ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks
If we allow one open topped vehicle to allow its occupants to fire then we have to justify why all the others should not have it or let them do the same.

A trukk is not a stable fire platform for orks to fire from and they are not the most accuracte of shots at the best of times.

Also if a unit is allowed to FF from the trukk then the formation could be set up to support an engagment and then launch their own on a formation some distance way. The same problem faced with Eldar engagments which resulted in the restriction of movement after winning for Eldar units.
Author:  Markconz [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:20 am ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks

(Tiny-Tim @ Sep. 10 2007,10:12)
QUOTE
The same problem faced with Eldar engagments which resulted in the restriction of movement after winning for Eldar units.

Huh?  ???
Author:  Tiny-Tim [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Trukks and Junkatrukks

(Markconz @ Sep. 10 2007,11:20)
QUOTE

(Tiny-Tim @ Sep. 10 2007,10:12)
QUOTE
The same problem faced with Eldar engagments which resulted in the restriction of movement after winning for Eldar units.

Huh? ????

Remember the discussions on Eldar (esp Jetbikes) engaging a formation and then zooming off to support a second engagment.

Well orks in trukks could support an engagment first and then use the trukks move to engage a formation ?55cm away (35+5+15).

Slightly different argument I know, but the same principles IMO
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/