Dan Lobb wrote:
>
> INFANTRY, QUEEN OF THE BATTLE FIELD, NOT KING
> Infantry don't need and shouldn't get a save. Armored units usually have
[snip]
> The additional rules have tended to clear up ambiguities and imbalances
> without adding unnecessary complexity. Infantry has the advantage of
> seeking cover where vehicles can't go. They are also relatively cheap. This
> is the nature of the unit. Lets keep them simple and cheap.
I completly Agree
> HERE I BLATHER ABOUT HEROES AND THEIR ROLE IN THE GAME
> I think individuals, ie heroes, should have indirect effects only. That is,
> they can effect morale, leadership, and thus the performance of other
> units, but should not have special attacks of their own, beyond the
> abilites of their base unit type. As for effecting the performance of other
> units, a leader can do one of the following:
This is difficult, usually an Hero is taken from background and have
some original ability sometimes different from all the others, the key
is IMHO describe those stuff without making them killing machines, just
give them some original flavour
[snip]
> Ok, on this one I am complicating things. I admit it. The whole issue of
> hero or leader is complicated just because we want to give them importance
> distinctive from the units under their command. A leader can take his unit
> to a higher level, but can't do it without that unit.
Wxactly, for this reaseons when I designed my "Phoenix lords" I decided
to stick them to the Aspect warriors card :o)
--
Lorenzo Canapicchi
mailto:canapicc_at_...
mailto:canapi_at_...
Personal Page:
http://www.cli.di.unipi.it/~canapicc
Received on Thu Dec 16 1999 - 08:33:01 UTC