Re: [SG] Discussion about weekend questions

From: Adrian Johnson adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca

>that's an example of pushing the rules to cover a situation for which
they
were clearly not designed... and so they break or don't make sense.

My point was that a squad which stops its vehicle, debusses and runs,
can
get father (at end of turn) than a squad which spends the same amount of
time driving.  Okay, flexible time scale and all that, but that still
doesn't make sense to me.

>If the vehicle had to spend the action to disembark the infantry, then
what
you're saying is that an APC is limited, in a roughly 5 minute period,
to
driving 120 meters, depositing infantry, and doing nothing else.  Now,
*that* is absurd.  

But that derives from the fact that vehicles in the game are hobbled.  

All the guns in AD 2190 are stabilized, so you should be able to drive
and
shoot simultaneously, right?  But vehicles have to burn an action to
fire a
weapon.  It would be just as logical to say they have to burn an action
to
"fire" their passengers.

Not that it bothers me greatly the way it is--my suspension of disbelief
is
pretty flexible.

>And this doesn't address the issue of breaking the activation sequence,
which is what Tom's method does.

I agree that I'd rather not have the squad and the vehicle activate
simultaneously.

What you might do is say *either* the vehicle *or* the squad has to pay
the
action.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .