Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:59:27 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
wubwub@wildlink.com=avoidspam=
|
Viewed:
|
1319 times
|
| |
|
|
> > ...IMHO, this would leave the players able to come up with weapons
> > specific to their army/race/whatever. To an extent, you start that path
> > with close combat siege weapons.
>
> Actually, it seems to me that the cc siege weapons rules take a lot more work
> to keep track of during the battle, and more pre-game design as well. But
> I'll think of something.
...They are more complex both beforehand and during, but if the player came up with a
'claw arm' during design, he could equip all his vehicles with them so it wouldn't be as
complex during the game. that's the kind of idea I was thinkin of. Spend a bit of time
design wise to come up with a 'standard weapon' for your team. Then once its fielded, you
would know what your guys do without much looking up. And what your figs did would be a
reflection of your idea of fielding them, which would be different than other ppls... so
could be a much more dynamic and interesting game possibly :-)
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: brikwars...
|
| (...) It's something that takes some getting used to. The important thing is to have a way to tell them apart when you need to, the method isn't really that important. (...) Did you really think so? I'll make a note to put siege weapon ranges up for (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.gaming)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
