|
|
Post by maduncleandy on Sept 1, 2012 14:36:39 GMT -5
If a single gunship gets into a dogfight with another single gunship, it seems as though neither can ever be killed...am I reading this wrong?
From what I can tell, it takes two "kills" in the same turn to harm a gunship in a dogfight, but a gunship can only deal out one per turn.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Sept 2, 2012 14:01:27 GMT -5
You are correct!
|
|
|
|
Post by maduncleandy on Sept 2, 2012 18:47:03 GMT -5
Seems a bit odd, doesn't it?
Anyone out there house rule that one yet in a way that seems to work?
I guess it probably just wouldn't come up that often given the other things that your average gunship would probably rather be doing than engaging another gunship in a dogfight, but still...kind of makes my head explode.
|
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Sept 3, 2012 16:08:25 GMT -5
Yes, gunships in a dogfight is wasting their abilities. Use your fighters to crush them then you can. After all, how many pure bombers dog-fought each other in WWII? Can't remember a Betty fighting a B-17...
|
|
hamilton
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 141
|
Post by hamilton on Sept 3, 2012 20:59:58 GMT -5
There is a valid reason to engage in Gunship-on-Gunship dogfights even though you can only get a draw - prevent ship strikes/nukes.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Sept 4, 2012 10:47:44 GMT -5
LOL. . . looks like somebody found a "bug".
I'd say in a gunship on gunship fight, the high roll + modifiers wins.
Or you can say they just don't pack the firepower to finish each other off.
|
|
|
|
Post by maduncleandy on Sept 4, 2012 19:23:48 GMT -5
Personally I'd go with the former. Again, not that it should come up that often, but it makes more sense to me given what I envision when I think of a heavy reaper or tiger...at least on the rare occasion when the 'tiger' was outfitted for combat.
A middle position I'd considered was to (only in gunship v. gunship fights) allow both gunships to roll two dice and still require two 'kills' to eliminate one, but given what I think of as the fluff, I think your more deadly version would be more appropriate.
I'd be curious to consider a house rule to allow the option of an unarmed tiger...still keeping recon and ECM, but foregoing the offensive capability. Naturally wouldn't replace the armed version...just have unarmed as an option for fewer 'points.'
|
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Sept 9, 2012 9:34:16 GMT -5
We considered many versions including unarmed, but at 5 tons each it didn't seem like a stripped down model was needed. I have used a tug version to pull ships from dock yards, a marine version for packing in more troops, and a transport for evacuations-used in one of the scenarios provided.
|
|
|
|
Post by maduncleandy on Sept 9, 2012 16:11:52 GMT -5
Sounds cool...especially given that models exist for different versions of what I use forr the Tiger.  |
|
