OO Said:
> No. While it would shorten the rules' text somewhat, I think you'd be
Actually, probably not and you are right to point it out. Confession: I
_teach_ such basic maths and IT to "adults" (Post-compulsory education,
at
least). :-/ I've been wondering how to use FT in lessons for the
younger
groups.... :-D
> FWIW I'd prefer to adopt the Ion Cannon mechanic for the standard
or
'1'
Given the above this would be easier. It would *certainly* be easier for *me*:
"count the tracks destroyed: roll that or below and you're damaged."
;-) . Get's my vote (FWIW!).
> Tim Bancroft wrote:
> >No. While it would shorten the rules' text somewhat, I think you'd be
I
> _teach_ such basic maths and IT to "adults"
<shudder> Then you would know what I'm talking about, yes...
> >FWIW I'd prefer to adopt the Ion Cannon mechanic for the standard
or '1'
> Given the above this would be easier. [...] Get's my vote (FWIW!).
Thanks <g> Now let's see if we can sway Jon, too...
> Actually, probably not and you are right to point it out. Confession:
I
> _teach_ such basic maths and IT to "adults"
<shudder> Then you would know what I'm talking about, yes...
"One, two three, many. Many-one, many-two..."
> Laserlight wrote:
> >>Actually, probably not and you are right to point it out.
Confession: I
> >>_teach_ such basic maths and IT to "adults"
"...many-three, LOTS."
<g>
Simple and neat. I like it. Also goes along better with the "1" is bad, "6" is
good paradigm of weapons damage.
Nick
[quoted original message omitted]