Subject:
|
Re: NLDA [aka Medieval] Brikwars*
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:14:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1186 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
>
> Request for Clarification:
>
> The rules state that there can only be one champion per army. Up to now,
> we've typically allowed one champion per participant, even when we've then
> combined into two teams, which has consequently resulted in multiple
> champions per side.
>
> Since we are organizing our forces ahead of time, I would like to pose this
> as a question to the participants ... should we adhere to the one-per-army
> rule, or allow for the more lax one-per-participant rule?
>
> Personally, I favor the strict one-per-army interpretation - that is, each
> side would only be allowed one champion. These mighty individuals should be
> unique, beacons of example for their fellow troops. Of course, I will
> understand if Team Approachingtheirowndemise would prefer to negotiate for
> all the advantages they can haggle.
Glad to see you make it easy for us to present a dissenting oppinion...
I know you guys are lazy and don't wat to have to score to many champions so I
guess I can live with demoteing my champion to a Hero if I must. I suppose I
don't mind conceding this rule interpretation to Team
Abouttobedisemboweledbythierownsword.
>
> Any thoughts, comments, or dissenting opinions?
Thoughts... "I think you are ugly"
Comments... "You are ugly"
Dissenting oppinion... "no they are hideous"
Eric Kingsley
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: NLDA [aka Medieval] Brikwars*
|
| Request for Clarification: The rules state that there can only be one champion per army. Up to now, we've typically allowed one champion per participant, even when we've then combined into two teams, which has consequently resulted in multiple (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
58 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
