Shuck shuck IIRC was moving infantry into canada and then transporting them over to africa/britian/germany something to that effect. It also required a british aircraft carrier in the water for the US to land planes on to defend the transports. Very rough outline there but you should be able to work it out from there.

@ Jerhico...

Glad you like the ruleset. Hmm. Couple things...

This ruleset does absolutely nothing to change how infantrydrop works. I'm pretty sure I made a point to say "vehicle" everywhere appropriate above, and not "unit" didnt I? Maybe not.

Towing isnt often something you will want to do under this ruleset, only in instances where the towed unit itself is too pathetically slow to get into the position it needs quickly enough. Being towed has the potential for danger under this ruleset, which is as it should be. Ask anyone who has ever served in armor what they think of the idea of being towed across an active battlefield.

Are you aware that HtH weapon damage cant be applied on a charge, only the charging units base primary damage +1? That does not change under my ruleset. Since you cant use the HtH weapon on a charge (dont ask me why, always struck me as strange) you cant penetrate agility with it.

@ Darkwolf...

That would probably work too. Like I said, there are lots of ways to fix things, we just use this set of rules. :)

@Warflail

I know mechs do melee attacks at their primary damage. Your rule about tanks and min ranges is going to make tanks like mechs. Some tanks, like the SM1, has no way to defend itself if infantry cling onto its side. So they expanded it to all tanks. I don't think this is unfair, tanks have limits. Afterall what makes Tara Bishop 28 pts better than the H behemoth II? it's a mech.

Some realism was abandoned to make this game simpler. Personally I'm sick of hearing about how vechiles should be more powerful.

Basically, tanks don't need to become more like mechs. They are powerful enough as it is. The way you ppl talk, we'll be giving them heat dials.

btw, AP is very powerful and very costly. it can stay the way it is.

HtH is very costly and not very powerful, I like the beating agility thing.

1st turn: Brits build an aircraft carrier, Americans move two airplanes onto it, move units into Eastern Canada, build in Eastern US.

2nd turn: Russia takes Norway, Britain reinforces the aircraft carrier, the units in Eastern Canada get convoyed to Norway, US builds in Eastern US, moves previous Eastern US units to Eastern Canada.

Eventually the death knell is the US taking Eastern Europe and the Soviets reinforcing it from Karelia before any potential counterattack can get through (two Allied moves in a row).

Any German air attack has to punch through the numerous transports while the fighters and carrier defend, the US makes godawful numbers of units and just pours them into Europe and there is nothing short of a minor miracle that stops it.

Wow, all this time I thought the game was called MECHwarrior!
:rolleyes:


I like your house rules, Warflail! They put the MECH back in
MECHwarrior! :)

Well, dont get the impression that we want mechs to totally dominate the game and make everything else unplayable. We dont. We LIKE combined arms. But combined arms in this game needs to include mechs.

We find this ruleset strikes a good balance.

I don't get that impression for a second. I'm all for combined
arms - including mechs.

However, contrary to what some folks around here believe, the
game is still called MECHwarrior. ;)

ok warflail heres what i think on your houserules

everything seems good except id leave the plus 4 on los for arty

why should vehicles be able to still fire something basing them if they have a minimum aka behemoths would become too powerful.
other then that you seem ok

Which is like the idea of a defense bonus equal to the units minimum range... would at least make vehicles capable of defending themselves without needing a base screen of infantry at all times.

Warflail,

I have to say that I like your rule mods. I think that the mods will really make playing combined arms easier, more fun and alot more necessary.

I believe certain people on these boards feel threatened by
proposed rules changes that would take away the "bad rules
loopholes" they exploit to win. Hence, the reason they
vehemently attack those who propose said changes, even
when it's clearly stated that they're only house rules.

These are the folks who blythely claim that "there is nothing
wrong with the game" and "if you can't play under the current
rules set, you're just not a very good player" and so on. I
don't need to name them. We all know who they are.

These people are afraid that these house rules, because they
make sense, might catch on and (GASP! :eek: ) be made official.
Then, where would they be? How would they compete without
their broken rules crutch?

I think this is probably a little too much of a nerf. I would just keep the defense check rule and get rid of the "flak" and "normal" types. This way artillery has trouble hitting anything with a 20 defense and above. Not sure about that point defense modifier, I don't feel it's needed, but I don't think it matters too much. The other modifier stuff sounds fine.


Whoa! I find this way over the top! Not only have you removed tank drop, but you've removed the whole point of transporting vehicles.

For your tank drop fix, as I stated earlier, I think removing tank drop takes an option to attack first away from the player. I feel giving the unloaded units a token or something similar is more appropriate. I feel that not even being allowed to give a vehicle a move order after unloading is too much as well.


I REALLY disagree with your change that makes vehicles physically towed and exposed on the board. Why have you removed an unloaded unit's ability to fire/move AND made this change? I think it's overkill.

I believe that making vehicles being physically towed and exposed on the field will remove the usefulness of transports in the case of vehicles. The whole point of the transport is to safely transport a unit, and with this change, the transport cannot protect the vehicle. On top of this, after I unload I can't do a single thing with my tank, not even simply move it.

In essence, for vehicles, you have changed transport capacity into a 2 vehicle movement formation. Why would I take a transport for my tank when it's still exposed and vulnerable? Not only can I not tank drop it, but I can't protect it from charge, artillery, infantry, etc.

Any tanks that were made useful by a transport become unplayable in this case, reducing the playable tank pool even further, and so does removing tank drop. Also I feel this will probably hurt towed artillery too much as well.

I feel this change makes transporting vehicles utterly worthless. May as well say "No vehicle may be transported."


No complaints here, not certain if they're needed, but no complaints.


Hrm I'm not sure about this one, perhaps dangerous, perhaps not. Unsure.


Definitely disagree with this.

Minimum ranges are accounted for in the cost of units. This will make quite a few tanks undercosted. On top of that, it weakens infantry far too much. Now infantry cannot stop those big fat tanks unless they can get out of those arcs, and in a lot of cases, will not be able to.

If you really want to change minimum ranges, I recommend that a vehicle may make an indirect fire attack against a unit basing it, so long as it can trace a line of fire through the front arc. On top of that, streaks may NOT be used (not a real indirect attack, just uses same rules). Allowing streaks against basing units would make those big tanks with minimum ranges and streaks underpriced.

This way the basing unit gets +3 defense and can only take a max of 2 damage. Thus it still hurts a lot to be based, but the tank can whittle away at the basing unit.


Just my thoughts. I do not claim to be all knowing! XD
I enjoy the brainstorming though.

Quote

Originally posted by David Wilson I believe certain people on these boards feel threatened by proposed rules changes that would take away the "bad rules loopholes" they exploit to win. Hence, the reason they vehemently attack those who propose said changes, even when it's clearly stated that they're only house rules. These are the folks who blythely claim that "there is nothing wrong with the game" and "if you can't play under the current rules set, you're just not a very good player" and so on. I don't need to name them. We all know who they are. These people are afraid that these house rules, because they make sense, might catch on and (GASP! :eek: ) be made official. Then, where would they be? How would they compete without their broken rules crutch?

And they don't even have a good reason to feel threatened. We all know WizKids is going to copy the tried and true WotC M:tG approach by introducing the retirement of sets, so a significant change of the rules isn't necessary at all. With a bit of luck this business decision, when it's taken, will stimulate people to abandon official play and start their own housecampaigns, with alternative rulesets and everything. Maybe the people mentioned by David Wilson are afraid that there won't be enough official tournament-playing people left, resulting in the decline of the number of official play-supporting venues and chances to get some LE stuff to dump on eBay. Now wouldn't that be sad?

Warflail,

thanks for posting your house rules. I may adapt some or all of them into my groups set.

I particularly like the idea of ECM negating improved targetting.

See, I think this rule (the indirect fire while based) is necessary for many tanks.

It just plain sucks that one infantry unit can tie up a tank and force it to push. With 'Mechs, at least, pushing can be done. With tanks, it's entirely possible (and easy!) to neutralize them with a couple of infantry for the whole game.

And let's face it, most tanks in the game have MGs and SRMs, which are MADE to take out infantry.