Warflail, generally good house rules. I only have one point that I disagree with.

On tank drop, you say they remain tokened, and drop without being able to take an order. You also have vehicles specifically towed behind transports able to be attacked and targeted.

I disagree with this as it completely neuters and transporting of vehicles other than towed arty. One, the attack while being towed, or the other, being tokened (adorabilly's idea) or no order issued (yours), would be sufficient to challenge and or make it more expensive to tank drop. However, both defeats the purpose of the 3 cap transport other than infantry. And that would remove several vehicles from the game, whether intentional or not.

Otherwise, no complaint, interesting house rules.

@ Dragon...

I think you misunderstand. The towed unit can clear normally while being towed, but doesnt automatically clear in the act of being loaded. An example...

Your turn begins:
Tank has a token already, pushes to fire. Transport loads Tank, moves half speed. Tank keeps its two tokens.

Your next turn: Transport pushes to tow Tank full move. Tank does nothing that turn (it cant, being towed _and_ already pushed) but clears at end of turn.

Your next turn: Transport cant be given an order because it is pushed already and clears. Tank cant be issued an order because it is being towed. It would clear, but it doesnt have any tokens anyway.

Your next turn: Transport moves half-speed and unloads. Tank cant be issued an order because the crew is busy unhooking tow equipment, remanning combat stations, etc.

Yes, the whole process is clunky, cumbersome, and makes both units easy prey. There generally isnt much reason to do it. As it should be! That is how it works in the real world. Ask a tank crewman what he thinks of the idea of an APC towing his tank across a hostile battlefield.

Warflail, perhaps, but then how does the tank become playable? Will you be putting anti-infatry machine guns and/or flamers on them, what of their minimum ranges? Otherwise, there still is no point to having large tanks in the game.

;)

Warflail, how do you address the nerfing of infantry this results in? Just curious.

Infantry are priced like Nerf items anyway.

It doesnt nerf infantry. They can still perform many necessary roles. And as Kinra points out, infantry are inexpensive in the first place. They shouldnt be able to tie up a 90+ point tank indefinitely for less than 20 points without at least getting hurt a little.

Things they are still good for:

Base/break/blast/base.
Infantrydrop.
Harassers.
Capture teams.
Base screeners.
Grapple goons.
Base artillery/repair.
Air cavalry.
... and more.

I disagree, this would take away the most important role of infantry. You're proposing to allow a DI Schmitt make a full on ranged attack on a basing unit. This severely overpowers the big nasty drop tanks. The best you can do is throw an infantry unit every other turn to tie it up for a single turn, and each time you're feeding your opponent VC 1. Additionally, it makes perfect sense that a mech would have all the advantages against a tank once it gets up close, and it's a good balancing mechanism, but how can a mech hope to take on a DI Schmitt in close combat with your proposed change? This also weakens mechs vs tanks somewhat.

I argue that infantry are nerfed by this change, there is little incentive to take more expensive infantry (ie more than 15 points) to tie up tanks as they will only last a single turn when that Schmitt opens up on them, and no need for players to bring more expensive 'fighting' infantry to fight off the basing infantry from their tanks. In order to keep that tank based, you'll have to now include even more basing infantry, which is probably more points than one can usually spare on fast infantry.

Honestly, WK put minimum ranges on tanks like the DI Schmitt to balance their extreme offensive capability. 'Fighting' infantry is a solution to the basing problem anyways, but if you absolutely have to make tanks able to attack basing units, then I recommend what I proposed earlier, which is to give the basing unit +3 defense and only allow the tank to do a max of 2 damage. Thus a peasant only keeps the tank based for 2 turns, and other infantry 3, this is much more reasonable in my opinion.

I don't like the idea of tanks becoming giant radii of death on the battlefield that are only vulnerable to artillery. Especially since a lot of you want more realism in this game, and in reality infantry are very good counters to tanks in close quarters (thus the reason tanks are near useless in urban environments).

However if you still disagree with me, then we'll agree to disagree.

We have been trying out some of these rules on our own!

I would point out to all who read these post. If more than one group is tinkering with the same rules, might thier not be a problem that needs addressing.

I have not read you ruleset that is being spoke of here. (someone send me a link.)

We are playtesting the Following.
1. No Specials on Artillery.
2. Expenditure of half movement points allow any unit to fire.
3.Electronic Camo negates Improved Targeting.
4. Mech can only charge units in its forward arc.
5. Armor Piecing do not effect Decoy
6.Charges have to be in a streight line.
7.Streak does not drop a point of damage.


These changes we are working on are for two reasons.
1. realism without hamstringing the game mechanics. Most of us are former military and Law Enforement officers.

2. Cost. I have the most units in our home group but have found little use for most of the pieces compared to what I have to play in tournements to stay competetive. (P.S. I still cant beat the artillery armor any help?)
The games is supposed to fun and challenging. When indiviual pieces unbalance the game we as players have to find a way to stop the Kings of Brokenness from destroying the game. Yet keep it realistic.

First post, first page, of this thread. ;)

Thanks when I first hit the link I was reading back to front. A bit confusing.