|
|
 | | Re: Zombies!
|
| (...) [snip] (...) Agreed. The most obvious answer is to restrict that actual amount of townsfolk. I'm just not sure what the right balance might be. I mean, the scenario is sort of dependent on there being this pool of potential units for each side (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.gaming.brikwars)
| | | | | Re: Zombies!
|
| (...) You're right, I really worded this poorly; That's what I get for trying to sneak it in at work. I was thinking, more closely that if a zombie got hit with gunfire enough to reduce it's movement to zero it would "fall down" and automatically (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.gaming.brikwars)
| | | | | Re: Zombies!
|
| "Wayne McCaul" <wmccaul@comcast.net> wrote in message news:HpC52o.1B1L@lugnet.com... (...) it's (...) that (...) player? (...) at all (...) I (...) on a (...) Alternativley, (...) figs. While I like this approach, it still will ultimate slow down (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.gaming.brikwars)
| | | | | Re: Zombies!
|
| "Wayne McCaul" <wmccaul@comcast.net> wrote in message news:HpC58K.1C60@lugnet.com... (...) say (...) a turn (...) Would make (...) Actually, if a unit has zero or negative movement, it actually loses a turn! After all, if you can't move, what can (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.gaming.brikwars)
| | | | | Re: Zombies!
|
| (...) See, Adrian knows the easiest way into our hearts! (...) ... seems to me that the easy fix to that problem involves a Ryder truck, a 2-day drive, and a little matter of a job search or two :P There is only Brikwars ... the rest is just (...) (21 years ago, 3-Dec-03, to lugnet.gaming.brikwars)
|
|
