shadowhooch
02-20-2007, 03:36 PM
I've decided to take a step back and look at what WotC might be trying to accomplish with the new Defensive Fire and Overwatch rules. Seems to me, they are trying to be more historical. If we wanted to be completely accurate, there would be no "movement" phase or "assault" phase. You either move or shoot, period. But if we allowed shooting in the movement phase, the game would be very boring as both sides would form a line, standoff, and shoot. So how could you keep the strategical manuevering in the game?
All these movement phase attacks and defensive fire attacks result in "disruption", so I thought, what does disruption really mean?
As an infantry unit that is disrupted, it means to me that the enemy bullets got REALLY close and I have to duck my head and stop shooting.
As a vehicle, disruption means I just got practically knocked out of my seat and have to regain control of the vehicle or weapon.
What would the game be like if you COULD fire as normal in the movement phase UNLESS you were disrupted. If you were disrupted, you could only fire with your -1 in the assault phase of each turn. There would still be movement. But it would be wise to "disrupt" your enemy first. In other words, that would force you to "cover" for flanking manuevers and such - kind of like real life. I would also include that new Enfilade rule to encourage flanking.
And why does your defense lower if you are disrupted? As a soldier, it just means close call and I duck my head. As a vehicle - no "damage" is really done. So maybe just stick with the -1 to attack penalty and no lowering of defenses.
Finally, for vehicles in the assault phase, I think a disrupted vehicle should get the choice to move 1 in the same direction as they are facing OR they can shoot at a -1. Why can't they hit the gas pedal instead of manning the gun eh? But as a rule, they can't move or shoot in the movement phase though.
Anyway, just trying to relook at the game from a real life prespective. I don't know if playing in this fashion would be fun or realistic. Just thinking outload. I'm not suggesting or proposing to change the game this drastically. Just wondering what it would be like and what the drawbacks would be. So what does "disruption" mean to you?
All these movement phase attacks and defensive fire attacks result in "disruption", so I thought, what does disruption really mean?
As an infantry unit that is disrupted, it means to me that the enemy bullets got REALLY close and I have to duck my head and stop shooting.
As a vehicle, disruption means I just got practically knocked out of my seat and have to regain control of the vehicle or weapon.
What would the game be like if you COULD fire as normal in the movement phase UNLESS you were disrupted. If you were disrupted, you could only fire with your -1 in the assault phase of each turn. There would still be movement. But it would be wise to "disrupt" your enemy first. In other words, that would force you to "cover" for flanking manuevers and such - kind of like real life. I would also include that new Enfilade rule to encourage flanking.
And why does your defense lower if you are disrupted? As a soldier, it just means close call and I duck my head. As a vehicle - no "damage" is really done. So maybe just stick with the -1 to attack penalty and no lowering of defenses.
Finally, for vehicles in the assault phase, I think a disrupted vehicle should get the choice to move 1 in the same direction as they are facing OR they can shoot at a -1. Why can't they hit the gas pedal instead of manning the gun eh? But as a rule, they can't move or shoot in the movement phase though.
Anyway, just trying to relook at the game from a real life prespective. I don't know if playing in this fashion would be fun or realistic. Just thinking outload. I'm not suggesting or proposing to change the game this drastically. Just wondering what it would be like and what the drawbacks would be. So what does "disruption" mean to you?