Prev: Re: [FT] Weapon/Defense Archive Update Next: Re: [OT] another modelling Q

Mech Cavalry and Holy Bats

From: "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@b...>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:10:05 -0500
Subject: Mech Cavalry and Holy Bats

It was written thus:

Dismounted MechCav with thier MCV, may NOT go 'In Possition' in the
open,
unless they abandon the MCV (becoming normal infantry). 

[Tomb] Inestimable author, I must disagree with thee. Motorcycle units
that
have historically been toyed with have learned how to drop the bike, get
behind it, and use it as cover and a firing rest if need be. Ideally one
does not like to have this situation occur, but it hardly involves
abandoning the vehicle. If you have a large metallic object, you're
never
really in the open - you bring your own cover. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------

And Mike spake on the Holy Bat of Gkar....

...and I think that is a blazingly good idea! After all, the Book of
Gkar is
large and heavy and no doubt sufficiently weighty on both a literal and
metaphorical level to be used as an instrument of beating. But I really
think it is kind of an abuse of a good book to use it to flog the
heathens... it seems like some for of Holy Mace would be in order. 

And being (although it is a little known fact) great fans of the Earther
game "Baseball" (though they can't quite figure out why the Earthers
club
small balls rather than each other), the Narns would probably favour
some
form of reinforced club that could be (in translation) named a "Bat". 

"And thus, in the Year of the Shadows, the prophet Gkar revealed to his
faithful the secret of the Holy Bat. He instructed each of his disciples
personally, and many contusions later, they had mastered the use of the
Holy
Relic... and woe betide their foes!"

------------------------------------------
Thomas R. S. Barclay
Voice: (613) 722-3232 ext 349
e-mail: tomb@bitheads.com

2001: To the New Millenium! The next thousand years
are MINE. 
------------------------------------------


Prev: Re: [FT] Weapon/Defense Archive Update Next: Re: [OT] another modelling Q