02-05-2019, 01:45 PM | #11 | |
Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
|
Re: LAD pallet in spillover - wha?
Quote:
They "feel like" something that should blow over in a stiff breeze, but that's why we are talking about this in the first place. Rule Lawyers, unite!
__________________
GranitePenguin Ogre Line Editor |
|
02-07-2019, 09:06 AM | #12 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: LAD pallet in spillover - wha?
What's interesting is that the LAD rules as currently written make them more fragile than when they were originally created. Originally they ignored D results, though this was removed in the proposed revised rules in the OM Update. OM2 uses the same rule (verbatim) as the BattleBox rules, as discussed here. So LADs have gotten flimsier over time, not stronger.
I think that given the lack of crew, making an operational LAD ignore D results makes sense - the only way I can think of a robotic LAD becoming "disabled" makes sense is if it's either knocked over or otherwise jammed in a way that it's not going to be able to recover from on its own anyway, making it more of an "effective kill" unless CEs go fix it. And since making a LAD "disable" more like a "stuck" is a lot more complicated, I don't think it's worth it even if it is realistic. Maybe make an optional rule that CEs get 1 chance to try and repair/recover a "killed" LAD on an unmodified 6, but that's about it. That said, if an operational LAD should ignore D results, I think a palletized LAD should be affected by them in some way. The simplest is to make it a kill, but perhaps another optional rule would be that a disabled LAD in pallet form can also be fixed by a CE task (maybe even by normal INF), or that it needs to roll to recover (essentially a D result bounces it around, and the roll is to see if anything got borked or not). As much as a pallet may be harder to destroy, one thing bent the wrong way can prevent it from deploying properly, whereas once deployed it's presumably designed to handle near-misses. Whatever the answer, I think that the LAD D0 vs disabled question also highlights the need for a streamlined ruleset for exactly what D0 means in various circumstances, and then we can decide if LADs really are D0, and when. As I said before, I have a few ideas about that, and may make a separate post just to keep it clear.
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
02-08-2019, 09:38 AM | #13 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: LAD pallet in spillover - wha?
OK, based on the D0 rules discussion, I'd like to propose the following rule change for LADs. This changes the second- and third-to-last paragraphs of the LAD rules, and nothing else:
Quote:
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
|
02-08-2019, 02:04 PM | #14 |
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Geltendorf, Germany
|
Re: LAD pallet in spillover - wha?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|