G'day guys,
I've been watching all this fighter discussion with interest, but it has
suddenly struck me that I think I've been working under a misguided
assumption. How many of you guys use the moral rules (i.e. got to roll less
than remaining number of fighters in thr group for the attack to go in -
not that turkey/ace stuff which is different again)?
I had just assumed most of you were [as we do - got to try and think
beyond the square I live in;)], but some of the comments about "attacking
willy nilly for 6 turns" suggests I'm wrong (again).
Cheers
Beth
Most players I know tend not to use the fighter morale rules unless there's a
specific reason. When morale is being used, there is a tendancy to use more
torpedo fighters, as they only need to attack once to use their potential.
Wheras other fighter types, if forced to make morale checks, probably won't
get to attack before they're wiped out by multiple turns of PDS. This is more
accented against fleets with plenty of ADFC, as I found out at CanCon last
year (when I used morale for the first game.)
'Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
Commodore Alfred K Hole - RNS Indy's Folly [CB]
Captain Nicolette O'Teen - RNMS Golden Spear [CB]
EBD Medusa
> -----Original Message-----
G'day Brendan,
> Most players I know tend not to use the fighter morale rules unless
Ahhh, now I'm beginning to understand the problem people are having with
fighters - we always use the morale rules and so the fighters don't seem
overly deadly for the points you pay.
Thanks
Beth
> I've been watching all this fighter discussion with interest, but it
The Knights Templar use moral rules. Pilots do not drink alcohol, use
intoxicants or narcotics, or view lewd or other inappropriate Tri-D's.
They also have high morale....:)
Uhh...i dunno about the high Morale and lack of inappropriate Tri-Ds
working
together.....
> -----Original Message-----
G'day.
> The Knights Templar use moral rules. Pilots do not drink alcohol,
I could claim to have slipped it in to see if you were all awake, but my
conscience won't brook that. So I'll fall back on the same defense I've
been using since I got -157 (due to spelling) on an essay at high
school.
"I'm a mathematican not a spell checker dammit!";)
Cheers
Beth
In a message dated 99-07-08 21:36:20 EDT, you write:
<< I could claim to have slipped it in to see if you were all awake, but my
conscience won't brook that. So I'll fall back on the same defense I've
been using since I got -157 (due to spelling) on an essay at high
school.
"I'm a mathematican not a spell checker dammit!";)
> [quoted text omitted]
And how did that go over, Beth?
-Stephen
> In a message dated 7/9/99 0:03:55 AM EST, DracSpy@aol.com writes:
<<
"I'm a mathematican not a spell checker dammit!";)
> [quoted text omitted]
Actually the computer could say that, too!