Thane Morgan wrote:
>
> Andy Skinner wrote:
> >
> > Los wrote:
> > >
> > > Well I guess it depends on whether you can afford to spare some extra
> > > figures. People will go to extrvagant levels and spend lots of money to make
> > > a realistic tabletop battlefield with terrain craters etc, then you just flip
> > > the bases over for casualties? I'm willing to sacrifice an extra sprue or two
> > > for effect. Also some black cotton for burning wrecks. Never once has anyone
> > > whose seen it complained about the efeect. I guess there's a little modeller
> > > in me <g>
> >
> > Does this bit of modeling have an effect on the game? Should it?
> > Remember that someone joined the list (still here, I assume) and
> > said that in one of his first games, his opponent got some Rhinos
> > on a crucial bridge. The Rhinos got shot, and there was the question
> > of whether they stay there and block the way or are removed. We
> > normally remove casualties from the board--the shots that blew them
> > up must have blown all the bits right off the bridge! Epic 40K doesn't
> > say anything about this in the rules that I remember, but does suggest
> > making smoke clouds or separate casualty figures. ("GW mail order? I'd
> > like to order a second Space Marine army for casualties. I'm going to
> > paint them up the way I did the good ones, then spend extra work on to
> > make 'em look blown up. I'll be getting into Orks soon, so I'll two
> > of those armies, too. You guys always seem so happy when I call." :-)
> >
> > If you do use wrecked vehicles as scenery, do they count as terrain?
> > I assume they don't affect line of sight (they didn't when they were
> > alive), though a Land Raider is as big as at least a part of some of
> > my scenery. Would it add interesting (not complicating) bits to the
> > game to handle this? (Engineers or vehicles needed to get enemy
> > wreckage off the bridge.)
> >
> > Citadel Journal allowed infantry units to follow a friendly tank
> > closely and use it for cover. Seems like a blown up tank would offer
> > pretty much the same thing. (I wonder if the bulk of that CJ rule
> > would have been handled by saying that vehicles could block LOS,
> > and not infantry. I know it doesn't handle the CC part, but I don't
> > think that's necessary, anyway.)
> >
> > some ramblin'
> >
> > andy
> >
> > --
> > Andy Skinner
> > askinner_at_...
>
> I wonder about those CJ guys; why would you want to let your tanks get
> killed first. I guess you could take fewer casualties as an imperial
> player with this tactic, but most infanty is 1/3 the cost of the armies
> vehicles, so losing just a few vehicles cost more than losing a lot of
> infanty. My infantry leads until the rules let opponents target vehicles
> over infantry (even 40K allows this . . . ).
>
> Thane
WHEN a stand of people die some may be still 'ok'. Mortally wounded,
slowly dieing, or just getting in the way.
I FEEL that casualties should be left where they died (face down to
remind gamers) and if anyone enters an area heavily strewn with these
dieing heroes they should count it as dangerous for all infantry and
vehicles, not war machines. This is to represent the warriors attempts
at killing 'just one more before they die!'
Any comments on this??
--
Sam
Nurgatomic Dustbim
www.special.reserve.co.uk/n64
Received on Fri Jan 09 1998 - 05:19:56 UTC