Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser
I can logically see it. There are lots of "beach-side" roads that could be taken advantage of by a force of GEVs roaring in off the water of a large lake or ocean. This could be an advantage in scenarios where reinforcements come in from a map edge that is water: Get them GEVs to the combat zone quickly!!
And as far as the definition of what a beach is, it is what the scenario's designer decides it is. Just like any ramp. That's the beauty of it: If the designer forgets to indicate it, it ain't there no matter what you think the terrain looks like "for real".
But as I've said before, what I really like is that it takes a situation that might or might not be implicit and explicitly states what a scenario's designer could or could not do. Anything that removes ambiguity means that's one less "house rule" that someone will have to juggle.
[I'm not disparaging your efforts, they are well argued. And Steve seemed to lean in your direction. I simply disagree, but don't read into my reply "strongly" disagree. I can live with it either way. :) ]
|
Actually, I can see your point regarding beaches, but I still don't think they need to be explicitly called out. "Ramp" as a generic term would suffice, since a beach could be a ramp just as much as a boat slip is. The distinction, therefore, is man-made vs natural. In that case, it would be easy enough to leave it to the scenario to describe what type of ramp it actually is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D351
It seems to me that all of these transferability issues are inherently resolved by the use of the word "that" in this line, although it might need to read "road, rail, or water". Either way, I think the rule's already clear about this.
|
I will agree that it is clear, but don't forget that this whole discussion started because of the
errata regarding ramps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D351
As for the beach thing, it sounds like it either needs to be scenario-specific or clarified through a system of map-marking.
|
If it's included at all, it would most likely be scenario-specific, which is exactly what we are discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D351
What I'd be more interested in is whether a direct intersection of road and rail would count as one continuous road movement.
|
Not implicitly. These hexes are 1.5km across. There's no reason to assume they are close enough together for any kind of transference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D351
Also, I'm curious as to whether there will be terrain markers for ramps (I've never played), because, if not, it's going to be confusing to keep track by hex number. And if there are markers, then will there be enough to mark an entire beach front? Otherwise, there needs to be some form of map-based clarification.
|
It's not uncommon for scenarios to designate specific characteristics regarding the state of a particular hex, so there is a fairly well established precedent for simply saying "hex so-and-so is a ramp/rubble/BBQ joint"
I think the only reason to change the current draft rules would be if Steve feels that there is sufficient cause to explicitly continue to include the usage of ramps (ie, lay the groundwork to officially allow them in scenarios). The rule as it stands, disallows movement transference.
Now on a related topic... what about the rules for other units? Can a HVY or an Ogre use a rail as a road (ie, GEVs using the rail as a road is new)?