04-24-2012, 06:59 PM | #21 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Genoa, NE
|
Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)
I still stand by what I said: I LIKE the modified version.
Quote:
Quote:
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. :) ]
__________________
S+++ O1() O2+ G+++ S++ RP++ OM() B++ GO() O6e() PO+++ HR/NU- MK3() MK5-- CM-- W() KS+++ based on Michael Powers' message in 2001/gevfeb23.txt |
||
04-24-2012, 07:16 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Negaunee, MI
|
Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)
Quote:
As for the beach thing, it sounds like it either needs to be scenario-specific or clarified through a system of map-marking. What I'd be more interested in is whether a direct intersection of road and rail would count as one continuous road movement. 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. |
|
04-24-2012, 08:13 PM | #23 | |||||
Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
|
Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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)?
__________________
GranitePenguin Ogre Line Editor |
|||||
04-24-2012, 08:21 PM | #24 | |
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Negaunee, MI
|
Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)
Quote:
If that's the case, I'm probably going to go get some flat marbles for keeping track special hexes (probably the sanity from Cthulhu Dice). Otherwise, I'm very likely to lose track of where things are. |
|
04-24-2012, 08:33 PM | #25 | ||
Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
|
Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)
Quote:
Quote:
random counter markers is not a bad idea, though. I tend to use other chits that aren't being used to accomplish the same goal.
__________________
GranitePenguin Ogre Line Editor |
||
04-25-2012, 06:09 AM | #26 |
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Negaunee, MI
|
Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)
|
Tags |
editions, gev, revisions |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|