Re: [DS] Mixed units?

On  7-Oct-01 at 16:28, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:
> Roger Books wrote:
> 
> >Just double checked.   Unit Integrety is pretty specific: "The only
> >other time when elements can be outside integrity limits WITHOUT
> >the unit being Disorganized is when destroyed or disabled elements
> >are `left behind'..."
> >
> >This is the first rule we threw away.  Why?	One damaged tank drops
> >the whole unit to 1/2 speed.  In a crunch situation that's ludicrous.
> 
> Uh?
> 
> As I understand it, "disabled" is a collective term for the damage
results 
> "Damaged", "Mobility" and "Systems Down". You left an important bit
out of 
> the above quote; there should be an "(eg: immobilised)" after
"disabled". 
> AFAIK "eg." means "for example", so other types of non-fatal damage
also 
> appear to be considered "disabling". (Had it said "(ie: immobilised)"
it 
> would have meant "disabled = immobilised" exclusively, but it
doesn't.)

Our interpetation of that was different from yours.  I like yours better
though so will lobby for playing that way.

> As for mixed units, I agree with Noel: nothing in the rules prevents
them.

I'm not really after mixed units in my TO&E.  What I am really after
is scenario driven mixed units.  The tanks escorting trucks is a
big example.  I don't want too move them as seperate units, that
just doesn't feel right.  It also leaves the trucks open to attacks
during the time period the escorting tanks are seperated.  If they
are together targetting priorities mean the tanks must die first.