|
|
|
Mordel's Bar & Grill |
|
  |
» |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EmeraldaWebb
ComStar
Private, First Class
Joined: 23-Mar-2010 19:44
Posts: 28
Location: United States
|
 Posted: 23-Mar-2010 20:09 Post subject: My review of Total Warfare & Tactical Operations books |
  |
|
What I’m posting is not official; it’s merely a review & recommendations for Total Warfare & Tactical Operations in a rather lengthy review I'd like you all to read. TW & TO were, for the most part very well typed rules.
First, on the inside of each of the covers of each of these two books is a picture of a ‘Mech (Marauder? MadCat?). I would rather those pictures be omitted in favor of more rules (preferably rules for Land Air Mechs).
Second, in TW, combat vehicles and aerofighters should have same tonnages per tonnage class as BattleMechs (this makes more sense).
Third, in TW combine movement phases of ground and aerospace into one movement phase (in reality, ground units can move after aerospace units).
Fourth, in TW on p. 39 where it says “Vehicle crews have Driving Skill, used in the same way as Piloting Skill” would be better typed “Vehicle crews have Driving Skill, used basically in the same way as Piloting Skill”.
Fifth p. 41 the ‘Mech’s cockpit control area internal structure should prevent MechWarrior from taking damage during an attack that does not penetrate the ‘Mech’s head armor (internal structure would act as a protective barrier), a MechWarrior strapped in a ‘Mech using seat belts does not take damage from that ‘Mech when it falls as long as falling damage does not damage internal structure, a MechWarrior/aerofighter/small craft does not take electric shock damage from an ammunition explosion (fuses prevent this, having electric shock per ammo exploding is unbalancing), and 21 points of heat equate to 150 degrees Celsius, water evaporates at 100 degrees Celsius and a human body is 70% water (heat damage to MechWarrior/aerospace pilot when life support takes critical hit makes not much sense).
Sixth, TW p. 53 omit rule that requires jumping unit to use shortest jumping path (requiring shortest path is unbalanced due to usage of BV accounting for jumping and is unrealistic due to how a MechWarrior could choose a longer path & also difficult to program “shortest paths” in an egame), and have jump jets’ heat be 1 heat point per standard jump jet used (this is easier to make sense & program).
Seventh, TO p. 18 evading movement should be in TW & allow unit using evasive MP to attack (if aerospace units can evade in TW , then ground units should be capable of using evasive MP)).
Eighth, TO p. 20 crawling movement should be in TW (since babies can crawl, so should ‘Mechs) and omit “destroyed gyro” rule for crawling movement (‘Mech sensors should be able to compensate for lack of gyro to keep ‘Mech balanced).
Ninth, TW p. 81, low altitude level heights are unbalanced.
Tenth, TO p. 79 LOS rules should be in TW (realistic & balanced & provides for better LOS Clan zelbridgen rules).
Eleventh, TW p. 106 player should not be allowed to cancel attack if modified to-hit number is higher than 12 (this is realistic) at least optionalize this rule recommendation.
Twelfth, TO TO p. 85 & TW p. 115, firing when down and linking weapons rules in TO should be in TW (realistic & balanced & speeds up game play and in TW p. 115 it says “Everyone’s jaw hits the floor as Ray makes a successful to-hit roll for all weapons to both targets” – this is basically linked weapons rule); LOS range rule in TO p. 85 could perhaps be very unbalanced and/or difficult to program BVwise for each weapon each unit attacking at LOS range.
Thirteenth, TW Dumper p. 134 & Lift Hoists p. 136 should have been published in TO (dumper & lift hoists aren’t really battle equipment but LAMs certainly are).
Fourteenth, TW p. 140 armor piercing ammo should be capable of inflicting armor piercing critical hits against aerospace targets massing 500 tons or less (is realistic & balanced).
Fifteenth, TO p. 103 missiles rule for 3D6 must clarify what player must do when all three die rolls are same number.
Sixteenth, TO p. 107 vehicle firing arc rules are realistic & should be in TW and have in TW TO rules for VTOL bombing attacks.
Seventeenth, TO black ice rules should not allow unit to fall through pavement when using breaking through ice rules on p. 50.
Eightteenth, TO p. 24 speed rules & p. 25 turn modes & advanced maneuver rules should be in TW (they are realistic & balanced enough & make driving skill rolls more balanced & useful & more on a par with ‘Mech piloting skill rolls).
Nineteenth, TW p. 235 I recommend using ‘Mech/vehicle ranges instead of aerospace ranges (more balanced & realistic) and 3 km space hex length instead of a space 18 km hex while letting aerospace unit use one thrust point to move through six of those new 3 km space hexes (this is more balanced) and let units in 18 km space hex attack every 10 seconds like ground units (so that attack times are more on a par with each other).
Twentieth, TW p. 242 & 243 & 245 it doesn’t make sense for one aerospace unit at same altitude as another to have 16 times the range when that other aerospace unit is attacking ground target(s), attack path should not have to be a straight line (I’ve played Star Fox on SNES and I’ve never had to fly a straight line when attacking ground target(s) and I also made air to air and nape of the earth attacks to targets at nape of the earth and ground and targets high in the air too; let weapons in aft locactions mounted on aerodyne units attack if target is in aft firing arc and let spheroid DropShips use fore, fore left, and fore right firing arcs (a spheroid DropShip might be going fore towards one or more targets);rapid fire weapons should not have to fire at max rates (this is realistic & balanced); and strafing rules should be in TO or not published at all (it’s unrealistic that an aerospace unit can use each of its energy weapon multiple times against multiple targets without heat increasing for each of those energy weapons for each time they’re used per strafing attack).
Twenty-first, TW pp. 265, 267-271 these tables should be omitted – have players use Rick Raisley’s HM programs to find out what units they should use; let improved rules for LAMs be in TW instead of those tables (this will satisfy more players since more players want LAM rules published than wanting those unit tables).
Twenty-second, TO Mobile Structure rules are more complicated than rules for LAMs (I’ve met players on internet that want LAM rules published but I’ve not met players that talked about rules for mobile structures).
Twenty-third, TO p. 198 fatigue rules should not be applied to vehicular unit personnel – my mom drove for hours & dozens of miles throughout the U.S. without getting very fatigued).
Twenty-fourth, scanning p. 219, armor scanning colors I recommend these colors: clear for 100% armor mounted intact or zero armor mounted (unit has cleared maintenance inspection, clear for departure/combat), purple 99% to 97% (accounts for missed shots, see TO p. 81), bluish purple 96% to 89%, blue 88% to 81%, greenish blue 80% to 73%, green 72% to 65%, yellowish green 64% to 57%, yellow 56% to 49%, orangeish yellow 48% to 41%, 40% to 33% orange, 34% to 25% reddish orange, and 24% to 0% red for armor remaining, red represents blood and a unit with 24% armor is likely to have taken critical hits resulting crew being injured(?) and it doesn’t say whether 90% should be green or yellow or both, whether 50% should be yellow or red; and for heat I recommend clear for 0 heat level, 1-3 for green, 4 for yellow, 5 (50 degrees Celsius & 122 degrees Farenheit) for orange, and 6+ red (at 60 degrees Celsius, unarmored infantry can’t be deployed outside).
Twenty-fifth, TO p. 221 & 222, visual range for ground vehicle & ‘Mech & aerospace units should be equal (this is more balanced) and sensor ranges for ‘Mechs, vehicles, aerospace units, mobile structures, etc. should be equivalent (this is more balanced).
Twenty-sixth, TO p. 293 ‘Mech partial wing rules should clarify how far a ‘Mech may jump with partial wing (3 times standard jump MP like LAMs?) and there should be rules for LAMs if there’s going to be rules for partial wings.
Twenty-seventh, TO p. 327, clarify if Narc, iNarc, and Artemis are the only upgrades that can't be used with ELRMs and I recommend subtracting minimum range flown to from cluster hits roll rather than rolling on a lesser column (this is realistic & more balanced).
Twenty-eighth, TO p. 376 fractional accounting should work with gyro tonnages (this is realistic & more balanced).
Twenty-ninth, TO p. 381 & 382, hand held weapon BVs should be calculated with unit's hex movement speed factor and vehicular sponson turrets should increase BV of all weapons mounted on the sponson turrets since sponson turrets increase firing arc volume.
Thirtieth, TO p. 282 armored motive systems tonnages seem too high (a 100 ton tracked tank could have 10 tons devoted to armor for 160 points of armor instead of armored motive system); I recommend dropping Clan armored motive system to 1% and Inner Sphere armored motive system to 1.5%.
Thirty-first, TO p. 342, IndustrialMechs and ProtoMechs and Land Air Mechs should be able to be made out of composite armor (this is realistic & balanced).
Thirty-second, TW p. 91 a VTOL, small craft, and fighters should be able to fly out of a grounded aerospace unit.
Thirty-third, replace "physical attack phase" with "physical action phase" (some units might make nonphysical attack actions like blocking (see TO p. 88), construction, maintenance, dumping, etc.; and omit heat phase in favor of resolving heat phase rules in end phase.
Thirty-fourth, TW p. 142 let stealth armor have effect on aerospace units (this makes sense & is BV balanced).
Thirty-fifth, TW p. 143 let a TAG attack designate a single infantry trooper (this makes sense & is BV balanced); have typed "Each ProtoMech of a ProtoMech point may declare a target for any TAG it has mounted" (easier to comprehend, also some ProtoMech points might be reduced to four, three, two, or one ProtoMech(s); don't let TAG be mounted in a vehicle's body (this makes sense since TAG can't shoot through front armor/internal structure); and let TAG be targeting computer compatible and have each TAG attack be subject to terrain modifiers multiplied by 3 (this is realistic and balanced).
Thirty-sixth, let SRMs be vectored indirectly like LRMs (this is realistic & balanced & SRMs contain less missiles per ton than LRMs do so that indicates that SRMs could have indirect guidance controls and in MechCommander Gold it's show that SRMs can be vectored indirectly).
Thirty-seventh, TW p. 249 grounded DropShips should be capable of having a -2 to-hit modifier against aerospace units in range since grounded DropShips have -2 to-hit modifier against non-aerospace units.
Thirty-eighth, TW p. 258 have greater flexibility for each player in regards to forced withdrawls, imminent danger of being destroyed should be more clarified (as in non-drone unit in imminent danger could be subject to overkill attacks), some units can't move backwards using TW rules, recommennd omitting rule that says "All players should agree to the use forced withdrawl ...", if a unit's weapons are destroyed it could make physical attacks and/or be used like a decoy, unit equipped with weapons that's ranges are less than 6 hexes & can do 5 or less points of damage in a turn could still be used to attack with, "component ProtoMechs" should be replaced with "companion ProtoMechs" (a component is a piece of unit/building construction), a vehicle that has armor lost "in a single location" I recommend changing to "one or more locations" & also that vehicle could still attack with intact weapons or if all it's weapons are destroyed it might be able to make charging attacks presuming it has sufficient armor to withstand damage.
Thirty-ninth, TW p. 259 I recommend having hidden units rules merged into movement & weapon attack phase rules for better clarity.
Fortieth, TW p. 103 Obakemono 'Mech picture should not be in TW (Obakemono 'Mech uses artillery weapons so that picture belongs in TO; LAMs that are part aerofighter part 'Mech belong in TW).
Forty-first, TW pp. 273 to 275 Clan dueling rules & restrictions applying to only enemy 'Mechs (what about aerospace units?), if Clan players don't have to abide by Clan rules of engagement because of "foolhardiness" then Inner Sphere/Periphery/mercenary/pirate players shouldn't have to either, non-Clan units that can't find alternative targets can lead to unbalanced and/or biased and/or erroneously battles, what happens when a dueling unit moves out of opponent's LOS due to physical actions (physical attacks, falling, etc.?), why not let dueling unit not fire at opposing unit so he/she can save ammo, not create heat, wait for opposing unit to move into perhaps a different range, etc.?, how about letting dueling unit move out of firing range of all of its weapons to perhaps lure opposing unit into moving less so it can be targeted easier?, what happens if units only have area-effect weapons?, how do Clanners know if opposing unit(s) is/are using C3 network(s)?, I say scratch dezgra point system in favor of good BV system.
[Last edited by EmeraldaWebb on 25-Mar-2010 16:48; edited 3 times in total]
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Mordel
Mordel.Net
Administrator
Joined: 03-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 6087
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 23-Mar-2010 20:16 Post subject: My review of Total Warfare & Tactical Operations books |
|
|
Wow! That's a pretty long list of stuff. Wish I had the time to read it all. 
_________________
Mordel Blacknight - Site Administrator
|
|
| Back to top |
    
|
Vagabond
Mercenary
Mr. Referee
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 5792
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 24-Mar-2010 00:23 Post subject: My review of Total Warfare & Tactical Operations books |
|
|
an interesting post. I'll not comment on most of it but more on thee general trend.
1. As a board game (and one that has existed 25+ years) it has a lot of established rules and universe physics. Just because something something is unrealistic does not mean it should be changed unless this change would in fact benefit the game. This is the simple reason why the BT Core rules are split into TW, TO, and SO. Some players want more options or realism but most do not. Most just want to play a quick game not bogged down by extraneous rules just for the sake of realism. Better a game that's playable then one that takes an hour per phase just so its realistic.
2. Balance more often then not is a matter of opinion. Yes, there exists things that are unbalanced in BT but most of the times its not the systems fault but a players. A great example is found on the Mekwars server I play on in which we have ground support turned on. Most will not play against a force employing aero as ground support because they say it is unbalanced. In reality they just don't want to learn and use strategies and tactics that counter ground supporting aero. To them, the aero is over powered when it is really their inability to adjust that is unbalancing the game. Same goes for Vehicle swarms or Artillery or Indirect LRM fire or a long list of tactics that can be used to some effect when the opponent cannot or does not know how to counter it. So I am weary whenever your post says "more balanced." Is it or does it just appear to be so?
3. LAMs. LAMs do not belong and should never be included in the base game's Core rules. They were a specialized unit used and employed for a specific mission profile during a distinct period in the universe's history. Yes, they are very popular and have a massive following in the fan base (myself included). However, they are just not something that belongs in the general rules. Their future publishing the the Star League Era campaign book is just the right spot for the rules to exist. That is the period they were most heavily used and were designed. Only 3 cannon designs (4 if you count that Clan bastardized project) ever existed and they were mechanical nightmares to maintain. To have included them in TW would have been a poor decision at the least. Any argument otherwise simply opens the discussion to every single item that has ever existed in the canon universe. Its like saying Nukes should have been in TW because they were used during the SL and 1st and 2nd Succession Wars; or that rules for terraforming should have been included. While the division of rules that they chose could have been done differently, they selected a good way of doing it.
Those are my comments.
_________________
one must work hard to cultivate the mind and body. and one must always cultivate the mind.
//^(^_^)^\\
|
|
| Back to top |
|
jymset
Scavenger
in pursuit of LosTech
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 956
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: 24-Mar-2010 09:37 Post subject: My review of Total Warfare & Tactical Operations books |
|
|
Yeah, I gotta ask: what is it with that obsession with LAMs?
A) everything that Vagabond said
B) as has publicly been stated by TPTB, they will be included as era-specific tech in Interstellar Operations
C) you obviously know BT to know about LAMs; why then do you question some fundamental game mechanics that have been around since the 80s as if you were reading the rules for the first time? And then get caught up in the fineties of splitting rules between TW and TO? Seems like a bit of a disconnect within your own list there
_________________
"Rear armour is defeatist!" - unknown Kuritan Mechwarrior
The AC5 is a great gun!
On heat, 3025 style:
A Rifleman knows no heat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
EmeraldaWebb
ComStar
Private, First Class
Joined: 23-Mar-2010 19:44
Posts: 28
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 25-Mar-2010 17:16 Post subject: Re: to Vagabond's & jymset's replies |
|
|
Vagabond,
| wrote: | | 1. As a board game (and one that has existed 25+ years) it has a lot of established rules and universe physics. Just because something something is unrealistic does not mean it should be changed unless this change would in fact benefit the game. This is the simple reason why the BT Core rules are split into TW, TO, and SO. Some players want more options or realism but most do not. Most just want to play a quick game not bogged down by extraneous rules just for the sake of realism. Better a game that's playable then one that takes an hour per phase just so its realistic. |
See below where I tell you to check my original posting. Much of what I said wouldn't make a game last longer in exchange for realism.
| wrote: | | 2. Balance more often then not is a matter of opinion. Yes, there exists things that are unbalanced in BT but most of the times its not the systems fault but a players. A great example is found on the Mekwars server I play on in which we have ground support turned on. Most will not play against a force employing aero as ground support because they say it is unbalanced. In reality they just don't want to learn and use strategies and tactics that counter ground supporting aero. To them, the aero is over powered when it is really their inability to adjust that is unbalancing the game. |
That's false. Scroll down to where I say "Check 3rd" and you'll discover why.
| wrote: | | Same goes for Vehicle swarms or Artillery or Indirect LRM fire or a long list of tactics that can be used to some effect when the opponent cannot or does not know how to counter it. |
I have not encountered vehicle swarms before. Artillery I have and it's too unbalanced. Artillery attacks don't have to account for target movement modifier(s), range modifier(s), and/or terrain modifier(s). Indirectly vectored missiles can be countered by AMSes/laser AMSes.
| wrote: | | So I am weary whenever your post says "more balanced." Is it or does it just appear to be so? |
Yes, my recommendations indicate how to improve game balance.
| wrote: | | 3. LAMs. LAMs do not belong and should never be included in the base game's Core rules. They were a specialized unit used and employed for a specific mission profile during a distinct period in the universe's history. Yes, they are very popular and have a massive following in the fan base (myself included). However, they are just not something that belongs in the general rules. Their future publishing the the Star League Era campaign book is just the right spot for the rules to exist. That is the period they were most heavily used and were designed. Only 3 cannon designs (4 if you count that Clan bastardized project) ever existed and they were mechanical nightmares to maintain. To have included them in TW would have been a poor decision at the least. |
I totally disagree. LAMs would attract more people to CBT. Why are LAMs not included in TW, let alone TO? It's because those that type CBT rules have a "me only Clanner mindset". You'll notice that there's no combined arms tournaments.
Jymset,
| wrote: | | C) you obviously know BT to know about LAMs; why then do you question some fundamental game mechanics that have been around since the 80s as if you were reading the rules for the first time? |
I didn't question CBT game mechanics; I pointed out flaws with them and how they must be remedied.
| wrote: | | And then get caught up in the fineties of splitting rules between TW and TO? Seems like a bit of a disconnect within your own list there |
I totally disagree. My original message made significant connections between TW & TO rules.
The following clarifies what I posted originally for this topic. The words "self explanatory" also indicate that what I posted doesn't hinder game balance and/or realism.
Check 1st: rules for LAMs instead of picture of 'Mech. There shouldn't be anything wrong with allowing LAMs in TW (that would attract more players to CBT. Players could have the option of allowing LAMs in tournament games or not. Using BV system and with updated corrected LAM rules, LAMs would not be unbalanced. Optionally allowing LAMs would not lengthen games.
Check 2nd: consistency of aerofighter, conventional vehicle, and 'Mech tonnage classes would be realistic and balanced (reduces confusion, therefore game time length is lessened).
Check 3rd: to have ground & aerospace movement phases into one movement phase would be more balanced and more realistic and wouldn't increase game length time so that aerospace units must not be allowed to move after ground units to establish firing arcs that would enable those aerospace units to stay out of ground units' firing arcs (current movement phases provide aerospace units with the ability to move after ground units to get where ground units can't effectively attack aerospace units).
Check 4th: Driving Skills are not always used the same way Piloting Skills are (my recommendation in 4th is a clarification which wouldn't hinder game balance or realism & it wouldn't lengthen game time).
Check 5th: allowing MechWarrior(s) to be injured when head armor is damaged but internal structure isn't is unbalancing and unrealistic. Also, 'Mech cockpits should enable MechWarriors to be secured safely inside to avoid damage when falling. Again, I claim that fuses should protect personnel from ammo explosions. Current rules regarding said comments in 5th lack game balance, realism, and lengthen game time.
Check 6th & 7th: self explanatory (it takes unnecessary time for player to determine shortest path and is unrealistic & unbalanced, and evasive MP rules in TO should be in TW; evading rules wouldn't lengthen game time).
Check 8th: crawling rules are realistic & more game balancing & wouldn't lengthen game time.
Check 10th & 11th & 12th & 13th: self explanatory. 11th recommendation would lessen game time; 12th linking weapons would lessen game time.
Check 14th: it makes no sense that a 'Mech or conventional vehicle can be subject to armor piercing effects whereas aerospace units (at least those that are 500 tons or less).
Check 15th: self explanatory; recommendation wouldn't lengthen game time.
Check 16th: TW vehicle firing arcs are unbalanced whereas TO vehicle firing arcs are balanced (provides side and rear weapons better firing ability), and if aerospace units should be allowed to do bombing attacks using TW rules, then rules for VTOL bombing attacks should be in TW instead of TO.
Check 17th & 18th & 19th & 20th: self explanatory. 17th & 19th recommendations wouldn't lengthen game time;
Check 21st: those tables should be in CBT RPG book (it's realistic & game balanced to believe that a player could have access to parts to make practically any unit and wouldn't lengthen game time).
Check 22nd: self explanatory (LAMs are more realistic & game balanced than mobile structures).
Check 23rd: it doesn't make sense that vehicle personnel (tracked, hover, VTOL, etc.) can suffer fatigue so quickly and is also unbalanced; recommendation wouldn't lengthen game time.
24th: self explanatory; I understand that some players want a game quickly played.
Check 25th (wouldn't lengthen game time) & 26th & 28th (would lessen game time) & 29th & 31st (wouldn't lengthen game time) & 32nd (wouldn't lengthen game time) & 33rd (would lessen game time) & 34th & 35th & 36th & 37th: self explanatory rule ideas of mine that are game balanced & realistic.
Check 38th: my rule recommendations don't hinder game balance and/or realism and/or lengthen game time because actually they improve game balance because some units might start out with marginal armor and/or weapons and still be desired by player(s) worthy of combat; and less game time would be used for forced withdrawls.
Check 39th & 40th: self explanatory.
Check 41st: important information I posted.[/img]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
PlaywithLAMs
Capellan Confederation
Si-ben-bing
Joined: 08-Mar-2010 14:01
Posts: 98
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 07-May-2010 15:03 Post subject: My review of Total Warfare & Tactical Operations books |
|
|
| Yeah, many interesting points. I wish I had time to reply to each of them. Hey EmeraldaWebb, how do you feel about letting a TC aim a TAG to target a location and have semiguided LRMs, Arrow IV homing missiles, and laser guided bombs all attack that location?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
EmeraldaWebb
ComStar
Private, First Class
Joined: 23-Mar-2010 19:44
Posts: 28
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 12-May-2010 13:02 Post subject: Reply to Mordel & PlaywithLAMs' replies |
|
|
| Mordel, I'm in no hurry for you to read my review. And PlaywithLAMs, I did say in my 35th note in my review that TAG should be TC compatible so yes semiguided LRMs, laser guided bombs, and Arrow IV homing missiles should be able to attack a location that TAG targets via a TC. I also think that a single shot from an AMS/laser AMS should be capable of destroying all those attacks simultaneously (a location is a small target and all damage takes effect simultaneously in the Weapon Attack Phase and the blast radius of a SG missile/LG bomb/Arrow IV from being destroyed by an AMS shot should be big enough to destroy the others that are simultaneously homing in).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
ICER
Clan Hell's Horses
Galaxy Commander
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1663
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 03-Jul-2010 14:10 Post subject: My review of Total Warfare & Tactical Operations books |
|
|
HOT DAMN!!! I have missed these discussions and debates. It is so kewl to watch two people talk over something that
1, they know alot about,
2, can discuss it without it blowing up a bloodly fight that gets everyone locked down.
I haven't said it yet. But I really did miss you guys.
That being said. I have to agree with Vagabond on this. keep it a classic Btech with alterntive rules for LAMs.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8081
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 03-Jul-2010 14:25 Post subject: Re: My review of Total Warfare & Tactical Operations books |
|
|
| ICER wrote: | HOT DAMN!!! I have missed these discussions and debates. It is so kewl to watch two people talk over something that
1, they know alot about,
2, can discuss it without it blowing up a bloodly fight that gets everyone locked down.
I haven't said it yet. But I really did miss you guys.
That being said. I have to agree with Vagabond on this. keep it a classic Btech with alterntive rules for LAMs. |
Two of the posters in this thread are the same person. 
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
ICER
Clan Hell's Horses
Galaxy Commander
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1663
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 03-Jul-2010 14:42 Post subject: My review of Total Warfare & Tactical Operations books |
|
|
AHH, That answers a whole slue of questions then. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sleeping Dragon
Draconis Combine
Tai-i
Joined: 06-Apr-2005 00:00
Posts: 4820
Location: Czech Republic
|
| Posted: 06-Jul-2010 13:54 Post subject: My review of Total Warfare & Tactical Operations books |
|
|
Aye, so core LAM ruless have one supporter less here. What would be your oppinion on this matter anyway?
_________________
The dragon NEVER sleeps!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
» |
All times are GMT-05:00 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
