Prev: Re: [GZG] [SG3]: What if? Next: Re: [GZG] [SG3]: What if?

Re: [GZG] [SG3]: What if?

From: Stephen Scothern <stephen.scothern@G...>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:00:16 +0000
Subject: Re: [GZG] [SG3]: What if?

Robert Makowsky wrote:
> It seems to me that much of the justification for H2H weapons is based
on a few obscure cases among thousands of combat actions.  With similar
cherry picking I wonder what other items we should put at the forefront
of the rules.
> Bob Makowsky

I would prefer it if close assaults were more abstract, and resolved at 
the squad level, rather than the current method of matching up 
individual figures. Something like the quality dice, and a 'close 
assault' dice that could be shifted based on the relative numbers in 
each squad (and maybe also shifted if the squad has effective CA weapons

- shotguns, flamers, (and axes and swords if you like that sort of thing

) etc.). There should be more casualties than would occur by shooting 

Has anyone tried to do this before?


This email (and any attachments) is private and confidential, and is
intended solely for the
addressee. If you have received this communication in error please
remove it and inform us via
telephone or email. Although we take all possible steps to ensure mail
and attachments
are free from malicious content, malware and viruses, we cannot accept
any responsibility
whatsoever for any changes to content outwith our administrative bounds.
The views represented
within this mail are solely the view of the author and do not reflect
the views of the organisation
as a whole.
Graham Technology plc
Registered in Scotland company no. SC143434
Registered Office India of Inchinnan, Renfrewshire, Scotland PA4 9LH

Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] [SG3]: What if? Next: Re: [GZG] [SG3]: What if?