08-22-2018, 11:19 AM | #31 | |
Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
|
Re: Presenting the Israeli Golem (unofficial)
Quote:
I think I see it more like missile racks. Again, assuming INF only; target the hatch and on a D, INF is reduced, on an X the hatch is blown and the INF is lost. That way there's a way to permanently damage the hold, which is probably the biggest hangup I have. That would also open the door for another Vulcan/CE task that can be fixed. The reason I keep talking about it for INF only is because the _intent_ is an APC, not a cargo system. It also simplifies a lot of the damage rules quirks potential.
__________________
GranitePenguin Ogre Line Editor |
|
08-22-2018, 12:03 PM | #32 |
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
|
Re: Presenting the Israeli Golem (unofficial)
The rules should be able to address, cleanly (simplicity), both aspects though, INF for the Golem and the Ninja's 'Shuriken'. I agree you should be able to target and destroy the hatch or door -- the trick is what happens to internal items, and how much should it take to destroy?
Assume the door is thick, and seals quite tightly to the ogre hull, and has internal hinges and mechanism -- how does one damage a thick plate of BPC made to withstand such rigors? |
08-22-2018, 01:18 PM | #33 |
Join Date: May 2007
|
Re: Presenting the Israeli Golem (unofficial)
Noooo, let's not go down that route. That's exactly what I was trying to avoid, as it invites lots of little fiddly edge case rules along. I am trying to consolidate rules, not make up new ones.
Besides, look at it from a gameplay stance. Let's say you do come up with a scenario about a Vulcan carrying some sort of Macguffin. It's far more in the spirit of Ogre to have to cripple the cybertank entirely rather than just destroy one little bit of it, because then the game devolves down to a the luck of a single die roll. |
08-22-2018, 02:40 PM | #34 | |
Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
|
Re: Presenting the Israeli Golem (unofficial)
Quote:
__________________
GranitePenguin Ogre Line Editor |
|
08-22-2018, 04:28 PM | #35 |
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
|
Re: Presenting the Israeli Golem (unofficial)
Maybe just assign the Hatch a standard defense number, and whatever is inside when the hatch is X'ed, the payload is gone ... whether INF, CE, LGEV, LAD, etc.
Nothing too complex ... |
08-22-2018, 06:29 PM | #36 |
Join Date: May 2007
|
Re: Presenting the Israeli Golem (unofficial)
|
08-22-2018, 07:56 PM | #37 |
Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
|
Re: Presenting the Israeli Golem (unofficial)
ok, so no targeting at all. I think there needs to be _something_; otherwise you have an impenetrable APC, which is a bit munchkinly.
__________________
GranitePenguin Ogre Line Editor |
08-22-2018, 09:37 PM | #38 | |
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Re: Presenting the Israeli Golem (unofficial)
Quote:
D4 or D5 is probably the right number. (An ogre MB is a big gimbaled BPC ball with a gun port. A SHVY is a lump of BPC with treads and gun ports.) An attack that blows that door off will be pretty huge relative to an INF or LGEV. If the attack were 1:1 vs the door it will be 4:1 or 5:1 vs a D1 target inside. (Same die roll a la INF riding on tanks.) Last edited by dwalend; 08-23-2018 at 07:10 AM. |
|
08-23-2018, 06:54 AM | #39 |
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
|
Re: Presenting the Israeli Golem (unofficial)
So this then replaces the relevant lines I'd posted above:
2 Utility Bays (D4 or 5) (may release one unit per turn) O O 2 units; either 3/1 INF, LGEV, or LAD O O |
08-23-2018, 07:11 AM | #40 | |
Join Date: May 2007
|
Re: Presenting the Israeli Golem (unofficial)
Quote:
...but I can also dig D5, destroys the bay and anything inside; Vulcans can repair the bay but not the contents. D4 seems a bit weak, and the D8 from the Assault Pack playtest rules is way too much. |
|
|
|