daithi1

Dream on and I'm serious I do

__________________

skullhedman

Heck, I'd kill for them to release an actual Bf2142 editor. That way we can just do our own x-pacs.

__________________

*11th AIR Tactical Wiki*TG Gentleman's Agreement*Become a Supporting Member *New To TG? Start Here! *

Freeboter

I'm going to necro this topic to suggest that maybe this rule should be expanded to walkers.

Mech__Warrior

Yeah, I was in an APC squad and people who weren't in it got into the APC and we ended up being normal infantry. What's up with that?

__________________
Also known as The Kamikaze Kid
"Ah! Blue Screen of Death! My mortal enemy...."

Freeboter

What now?

Mech__Warrior

Well, the APC squad never got into the APC because somebody took it. It's similar to people taking the walker from the Walker squad.

__________________
Also known as The Kamikaze Kid
"Ah! Blue Screen of Death! My mortal enemy...."

Freeboter

The thread was about not using gunships as transports, I was wondering if that rule should also apply to walkers.

Mech__Warrior

Oh, sorry about that.

__________________
Also known as The Kamikaze Kid
"Ah! Blue Screen of Death! My mortal enemy...."

Lorax74

How is the walker like a gunship?

__________________
TG-9th Lorax74

machowner

Funny you should post that. I asked the same question in the "Contact an Admin" forum.

It is not. But however it is also nothing like an APC or FAV. APC is clearly a transport vehicle. The FAV is fast insertion vehicles which cannot sustain much damage without falling apart.

I believe it should against TG rules. While it might not be "game breaking" it clearly fits into this part: "The gunship(WALKER) is a vehicle for two people, a pilot and a gunner, much like modern-day attack helicopters(?TANK?) The gunship(WALKER) team should work together to destroy enemy armor and decimate enemy infantry, and in capable hands is a valuable and dangerous asset to the team. However the gunship(WALKER) does lack certain features, for example drop pods(APC). But this can be excused since the gunship(WALKER) is not a transport aircraft(VEHICLE)." I don't think the fact that it is not "game breaking" should be where we decide the rules. The rules should be set by the primer. Using the walker in that way is not the intended use, this clearly violates our primer. Regardless of it is similiar to the gunship or not. It shouldn't matter, it should be evaluated on its own terms with the primer.

I'm just saying, its not a cozy spot for an SL to sit while they run past flags and ultimately lose the walker in order to get there.

Again, it is nothing like the gunship, except that they both share the following:
two seats
anti armor missiles
anti air
attack emphasis

How is the walker like a transport?

__________________

Flexon

These is one major difference between the two:
You can throw down mines, emp nades, etc to stop a walker but you can't do this for a gunship (or atleast the gunship can move well beyond range of any of these)

__________________

machowner

Like posted, I don't consider it to be the same as a gunship, but I do not consider either a transport vehicle.

__________________

Lorax74

So, by that logic a 2 person locked APC squad should also be against the rules. It is a transport after all, not a tank...

__________________
TG-9th Lorax74

Freeboter

Since when was a three man ROFLCOPTER squad against the rules?

Uranium - 235

Since when is using a gunship as a transport against the rules? Gentlemen's agreement yes, real rule, no - someone mentioned that fact on the first page (well unless that changed recently).

The APC is sickeningly overpowered on infantry maps - everyone knows of the 'ROFLCOPTER' squads that end the game with 80 kills, 200 points, and 0 deaths.

The APC also isn't a tank, a combat vehicle, so why should it be allowed to be treated as such? His point was that the door swings both ways.

__________________