Re: [CON] ECC IV - March 2-4, 2001 - Call for participation

Chris DeBoe wrote:
> 
> > >First CanAm War (Proposed Rules):
> >
> > Second set of questions (much like the first)
> >
> > What about those Canadians who have no FB1 miniatures, or limited
FB1
> > miniatures ?  What substitutions will be acceptable ?
> 
>   Unless we end up with the "losing the ship means losing the mini"
mode, I
> imagine we can live with seeing heathen ships on the table if we have
to.
> I'd like them to be painted, I'd like them to be in about the same
scale as
> GZG ships if possible, and my personal preference is not to see any
St*r
> Tr*k ships if it can be avoided by any means other than excluding
players.
> Star Wars ships (not fighters, not Death Stars) would be okay with me
if the
> minis about the right size.
>   Does anyone vociferously object?

I don't see why you can't use substitute minis to represent ships that
are in FB1 if you do not have the particular mini (for any number of
reasons). As long as it is clear to all what it is representing (and
in games I've run/been in where this has happened, there's never been
a problem in people asking "what ship is that [supposed to be]?"

>   If we decide that the minis are the rewards of victory, then they
would
> need to be GZG ships but I'd almost certainly adjust the squadron size
down
> a bit.
[...]

I would caution against pursuing the 'losing the ship means losing the
mini' idea (didn't GW do something like this in the not too distant
past? no, wait, that was Magic: The Gathering; same idea, but they
eventually recognized it as a Bad Move and have since dropped it except
for certain highly competitive events). It sets up a dangerous precedent
for some people to gun specifically for other people, whether in jest,
fun, or with malicious intent, thereby knocking the target player out of
the game (and acquiring all their minis). It would be no fun for said
target to participate in something like this. 

Mk