>From: Marco Croce <marcocroce_at_...>
>Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Terminators
>Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:10:18 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:00:22 +0100, Lorenzo Canapicchi wrote:
>
> > Marco Croce wrote:
> > > If I don�t make a mistake those are similar to the 1st edition rules
>but
> > > it�s missing the pportunity to lose them in the warp.(Ithink it was
>someting
> > > with the same number on both dice or something similar)
> > > It �s only to balance if you can teleport them without any problem
>they
> > > became too strong (I think)
> >
> > I don't know 1st edition rules, but anyway consider that they never
> > charge when deployed and they're subject to the enemy advance fire
> > (every player not completly dumb place some detachment on advance for
> > cover), maybe a double 6 can be useful to represent something similar
>to
> > be engulfed in the warp.
> >
> > --
> > Lorenzo Canapicchi
> > mailto:canapicc_at_...
> > mailto:canapi_at_...
> >
> > Personal Page:
> > http://www.cli.di.unipi.it/~canapicc
> >
> >
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic/
> > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>If I remember the original rule was:if you make a double you will lose that
>number of stand (es double 1 mean that you lose 1 terminator stand and so
>on)so you have 1/6 possibility of lose stands but only 1/12 possibility
>(double 4-5-6) to lose all of them,but in those rules for the point you did
>not have the land raiders.
actually on a roll of 2-4 on your 2d6 you lost the number rolled.
______________________________________________________
Received on Thu Dec 02 1999 - 07:13:42 UTC