Main
Registration
Login
Welcome Guest

RSS
 
[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 3 of 4«1234»
Archive - read only
Forum » Archives » AT-43 - Club, News & Gossip » AT-43: Frostbite Campaign - Phase II Wk4 (The battle for Élysée continues in the Emerald Mountains!)
AT-43: Frostbite Campaign - Phase II Wk4
zellakDate: Tuesday, 11-Oct-2011, 9:49 PM | Message # 41
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1526
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
No way.

All results stand...suck it up.

You cannot change what happened during the game.

Its too late. Fair play is not the issue....we cannot replay games because of an error.


DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
BalrogDate: Tuesday, 11-Oct-2011, 10:18 PM | Message # 42
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Now that sounds like a Poll to the club members if ever I've seen one ... "Fairplay or Not? - Should a player benefit from his own rule error?" ... 2 be or not 2 be?? ... should we replay the game??? ... what say u plebs! Nice Roman speech if I say so myself! wink ... Walts
 
pavlovDate: Tuesday, 11-Oct-2011, 10:39 PM | Message # 43
Major general
Group: Member
Messages: 289
Reputation: 27
Status: Offline
Hi

When will the map be updated and could we maybe get a casualty count from games as an added feature.

Alan

There is f&*k all cool about 10+ civil engineers running around every battlefield
 
BalrogDate: Tuesday, 11-Oct-2011, 11:19 PM | Message # 44
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
@AlanB: I've asked Banksi if he wants to begin updating the Frostbite Campaign battlemap again, so once I get some feedback from him, we'll get the map updated one way or the other.

There's little room for casuality lists on the current battlemap, but maybe Banksi can tweak things or add an extra page? But, we are moving onto Week 5, so I'm not sure if he would be interested in doing this now? We'll let u know asap ... Walts
 
CheDate: Thursday, 13-Oct-2011, 8:27 PM | Message # 45
Lieutenant general
Group: Member
Messages: 509
Reputation: 58
Status: Offline
Quote (Balrog)
Thanks Commander Che!


Hey Walts. I wasn't trying to get at you or anything. Sorry if I offended and let's leave it at that cry .

Wargamers like to paint their privates!!
 
BalrogDate: Thursday, 13-Oct-2011, 9:16 PM | Message # 46
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Soz IanW friends my "Thanks Commander Che" was a genuine thanks for ur remark ... "This is all too exciting" ... comment! friends

You know I'm always happy to entertain the masses, so I was thanking u for knowing that I can still entertain? Does that make sense? biggrin cool biggrin
PM & Txt's can sometimes be lost in translation ... Walts friends
 
gerrywithaGDate: Saturday, 15-Oct-2011, 12:54 PM | Message # 47
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Hi Guys,

Having read the posts regarding the Alleged mistakes in The Therian company( I wasn't there so I'm not taking sides) from last Sunday, there are two issues to look at

1/ RESULTS STAND. If I recall correctly when Ian, Hugh, and myself played the original campaign, we set this in place with the thinking that, if we made a mistake no matter how much of a doosy it was, then the results stood. Whether that was a misinterpretation of the rules, or an error in somebody's army list, it didn't make a difference. The important thing was to correct that from that point onwards, apologies were made, AND ACCEPTED and then it became water under the bridge and we moved on to the next game no matter how badly it affected one side

We are a club, not a tournament club. We are all human and mistakes get made. If I also recall is there not a copy of everybody's army list kept at the club therefore available for anybody to look at and check, therefore the onus is not just on Hugh to make sure his army is correct( Although that would be nice!! biggrin ) We wargame for fun

2/ UMPIRES and FAIR PLAY. Everybody has a different interpretation of what Fair Play is, and whether something is played in the spirit of the game. I'm afraid to say that if we lose that then what's the point in gaming?? For me Fair Play is owning up to mistakes when you make them, using the rules as written, being generous in defeat and Even more in Victory, letting players play the game by THEMSELVES and not coaching from the sidelines and for all the spectators to do just that ...Spectate. When you can't find a rule that covers what you're looking for do what's sensible and if you can't do that throw a bloody die and argue about it after.
Regarding Umpires, if we end up going down that route for every game we play then we've already lost what we're about. Some games need umpires e.g Dand D where the GM fills that position, ROE to an extent where there are hidden forces that the Umpire knows where they are, but generally most of all our other games are self policed with a third party stepping in if there's no agreement between players. last resort would be throw a die and check it out afterwards.

Last thoughts on this is that disagreements should be sorted out in private or at the club face to face. Posting complaints on the forum like this, in my opinion, just lead to bad feeling and, dare I say it, Flame Wars!!

Cheers

Gerry

Added (15-Oct-2011, 12:47 PM)
---------------------------------------------

Quote (Balrog)
As to the UNA ... ur guess is as good as mine! Nether Gerry or Marko have given me any notice as too what factions where, so I've given up PM'ing ether of them for some feedback. Even I get bored PM'ing all the time!


Walts,

Would like to know when you PM'd me about where the UNA forces are??? I've checked my emails going back to December 2010 and I have a total of ZERO messages regarding questions , from you, about the position of UNA forces. Could you provide me with a list of those instances when you did, otherwise we may have a bug in the PM system of the forum??

Cheers

Gerry

Added (15-Oct-2011, 12:54 PM)
---------------------------------------------

Quote (zellak)
I will not replay the game. The result stands.

If the majority of players want to change the Arachn rules then i will abide by their decision.

But we cannot replay games because of a players mistake.

Where would it all end !!!

In this case, i had a Arachne unit count as having a free Overseer.... as that is the faction advantage.

My bad.


Play the rules as written for goodness sake. I thought we'd got past all this nonsense about changing rules mid campaign........ Obviously not!!!! angry

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
CheDate: Saturday, 15-Oct-2011, 3:06 PM | Message # 48
Lieutenant general
Group: Member
Messages: 509
Reputation: 58
Status: Offline
Quote (Balrog)
Soz IanW


wink Phew! Glad that's sorted out, comrade.

Added (15-Oct-2011, 3:06 PM)
---------------------------------------------
To Gerry,
Thanks for the reasoned post.


Wargamers like to paint their privates!!
 
BalrogDate: Saturday, 15-Oct-2011, 3:09 PM | Message # 49
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Thank F&%K for Gerry-with-a-G!

At last, someone (an original AT-43 Frostbite Campaign player) has actually had the decency to explain the "Results Stands" rule, which I will concede too.

Just for furture ref, I ALWAYS approach players directly about situ's which come up, to reach an amicable solution without dragging the club into the fray, and if z had clarified that the "Results Stand" at the beginning of my rants was an inHouse rule (which should have been added to our inHouse rules PDF we all know about!), I wouldn't have had to go off on one ... again! God ... u guys know me by now, I'm always up to entertain the masses, eh Che! wink friends

BUT Personally, I think the rules a major cop-out. If we can't sit round the table and resolve situ's which come up on a game-by-game bases ... well, I think the games been done no justice. The precedent set here is for players to take little or no regard for the rule guidelines and simple keep making odd mistakes here and there. If VP's, AP's and Sectors are removed from players who field incorrect companies, or are found to have used rules incorrectly (by accident or not) then they would never make the effort to remember next time, else be penalized. However, all that said and done, I will adhere to the ruling from the beginning of the campaign and move onto Week 5 ... sadly, a little bit worst for wear ... beaten, but never defeated ... Red Blok, Hell Yeah! victory

Fair comments by Gerry-With-A-G about fairplay. See previous paragraph for "sorted in private" comments.

One last headache ... even game designers get rules wrong! That's why inHouse rules spring up all over the wargamming world.

Once again ... thanks Gerry!

PS: Are there any other inHouse rules we should be pulling out of the rabbits hat to avoid another situ!?
 
pavlovDate: Saturday, 15-Oct-2011, 3:12 PM | Message # 50
Major general
Group: Member
Messages: 289
Reputation: 27
Status: Offline
Hi

I have made this suggestion before and some folk are already doing this but could we all start using the open r-community program for army lists then they can be posted on the club download section for all players to view/crit/ laugh at etc etc.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/openrcomtools/

It's easy to use easy to install takes up little space and more importantly helps stop mistakes (but do check lists with army books). biggrin

The result stands issue has been brought up in phase 1 week 2 with the Red Blok Supra, Ian put his hand up after the game when he realised but it was pointed out that the result stood.

http://www.northayrshirewargamesclub.co.uk/forum/7-84-4

The bottom of this page.



Alan

There is f&*k all cool about 10+ civil engineers running around every battlefield
 
BalrogDate: Saturday, 15-Oct-2011, 3:33 PM | Message # 51
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hi Alan ... I use the Open R tool, but only cause I'm lazy! It's brilliant ... does all the sums, shows pretty pictures, it takes into fact all the faction advantages & disadvantages ... so yes, ALL players should use it to create PDFs, which could be uploaded to this website for everyone to check that armylists are OK before the beginning of the new weeks. However, it's not 100% working. Just a minor bug I found was being able to increase arty ... it seems stuck on "1", but we all know that u can buy more if u have the MP's.

I wasn't involved in the AT-43 campaign then. My interest was in the "rep" Che asked about. And it's over a week old .. wellllll forgotten by my "selective memory" pea brain! umnik

Once again, this rule SHOULD have been added to the AT-43 inHouse Rules, which all players know about. Are there any others? I don't have time to trawl through all the forums, as much as I would like too, but there's a paint brush in the bathroom shouting at me! wacko ... Yes, I'm high on gloss paint!!! wink

Walts
 
CheDate: Saturday, 15-Oct-2011, 3:33 PM | Message # 52
Lieutenant general
Group: Member
Messages: 509
Reputation: 58
Status: Offline
Is there an argument for printing off the inhouse rules and keeping a hard copy at the club? I, personally, am not very au fait with things cyberspace so would be more comfortable with bits of paper. And this is another reason I don't get involved much with rules change discussions 'cos it generally goes over my head and I lose the will to play the game. I have to admit that Frostbite: The Emerald Mounts has not been enjoyable thus far. Too much mass debating going on tongue .

Wargamers like to paint their privates!!
 
BalrogDate: Saturday, 15-Oct-2011, 4:33 PM | Message # 53
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hey Che ... A printed copy of the inHouse Rules would be OK. Also, I can bring my laptop and quickly process any army lists against the Open R tool and see if the two match OK, that's if their not created by the said tool.

sad Sorry to hear ur not enjoying urself, but for me, a bit of clarity makes a whole load of difference to the game. Arguments have all come up because of the learning process of the rules, and not everyone knowing 100% about them. There's nothing like a bit of a "forum barney" to keep the mind sharp!

As zellak has said before, the AT-43 game is brilliant, and I agree 100%! It's probably why I'm so passionate about it, especially when I get my butt kicked having thought I'd covered all the angles of the Therian defenders. I think it's why "tempers" can flair up now and again, during & after a game ... and I guess u like the quiet life ... so soz for all the aggro. unsure Remember, u don't need to get involved. Forums are open for all to discuss, when they want. I'm happy to give advice (abuse?!?!) or take it, and not take it personally ... I enjoy the banter. But don't feel pressured into joining in if u don't want too ... free-spirit and all that! friends I have a saying that I've carried around with me all my life ... "never expect anything from anyone, that way ur never disappointed in people and when someone gives u something, it's always a surprise!"

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

What is the general rule-of-thumb for opponents knowing ur armies? Should everyone know what everyone else has? Seems to spoil the gameplay a bit, but as the most experienced players are still making basic errors in their army lists, it seems the only way to stop a recurrence of what happened last Sunday? ... Walts
Message edited by Balrog - Sunday, 16-Oct-2011, 10:14 AM
 
gerrywithaGDate: Sunday, 16-Oct-2011, 1:51 AM | Message # 54
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Quote (Balrog)
BUT Personally, I think the rules a major cop-out. If we can't sit round the table and resolve situ's which come up on a game-by-game bases ... well, I think the games been done no justice. The precedent set here is for players to take little or no regard for the rule guidelines and simple keep making odd mistakes here and there. If VP's, AP's and Sectors are removed from players who field incorrect companies, or are found to have used rules incorrectly (by accident or not) then they would never make the effort to remember next time, else be penalized. However, all that said and done, I will adhere to the ruling from the beginning of the campaign and move onto Week 5 ... sadly, a little bit worst for wear ... beaten, but never defeated ... Red Blok, Hell Yeah!


There was never an intention to set a precedent with this agreement. It was put in place to deal with errors/mistakes that were made during games. You've completely misread the part about the mistake/error being corrected ongoing. The circumstances you described that occurred have happened once, and now flagged up will not happen again.( and that is what the Results Stands was put in place to deal with) Being perfectly frank, and considering the number of rule systems the club plays it is inconcievable that people will know every rule for every game system we use, and the other extreme you are describing smacks off somebody deliberately cheating and I for one wouldn't put up with that. I'm afraid I also find it disappointing that you think that players will take little or no regard for the rules.

Considering the number of new players in the campaign it's surprising that there haven't been more mistakes. Do we go back and retrospectively punish them? I think not. The other option is for new players not to be allowed to participate in the campaign until they know the ALL the rules properly which again is not feasable

Quote (Balrog)
One last headache ... even game designers get rules wrong! That's why inHouse rules spring up all over the wargamming world.

Disagree entirely with your comments there. You are assuming that the Games designers got the rules wrong because we disagree with them. There's a fundemental difference there. House rules spring up because we( the gamers) don't like a particular rule and so change it to suit our needs. Through THOROUGH playtesting and feedback to games designers then, yes sometimes, they come back and tweak the rules but not always and I'll use the flamers as the example here. Because one player disagreed with the way it was written and was comparing it to another game system it opened up a whole debate on that particular weapon's use, rather than playing it as the rules were written. It was a classic case of second-guessing the designers because it had affected the events of a game in a way that player hadn't liked. And that then set a precedent about changing rules mid- campaign which, in my humble opinion, should never have been entertained.

Anyway , 'nuff said

Cheers
Gerry

Added (16-Oct-2011, 1:51 Am)
---------------------------------------------

Quote (Che)
And this is another reason I don't get involved much with rules change discussions 'cos it generally goes over my head and I lose the will to play the game. I have to admit that Frostbite: The Emerald Mounts has not been enjoyable thus far. Too much mass debating going on .

Thoroughly agree with Ian's comments here. The campaign , thus far has been a thorough waste of time, and work has fortunately, to an extent, led me to withdraw from it. However, and I have to be honest here, I won't be taking part in the next one as my gaming time is far too valuable to be taken up with arguements over the wording of rules, spirit of the game, putting in New House rules cause we don't like something, etc, etc. This is my hobby and I do this to switch off from real life and if I want to go home frustrated and with a sore head i'd rather that my employer was paying me for the privilege. It says a lot when I find it easier and easier to do something else other than come into the club on my Sunday's off.
Cheers

Gerry

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
BalrogDate: Sunday, 16-Oct-2011, 1:40 PM | Message # 55
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hi Gerry ... Once again, thanks for your feedback.

I guess my interpretation of a precedent is a bit wonky and exaggerated and lessons are being learned as players are rectifying their rule hiccups, but IMHO, I think when an error happens during any CAMPAIGN environment, there must be an investigation into what has occurred, that way we all learn. IMHO, it doesn't seem fair that a player who makes an error during a CAMPAIGN game should benefit from his misdemeanour and other players should suffer, because in a CAMPAIGN setting each battle can & will make a difference too the next battle and campaign itself, IF the error causes major win bonuses or major losses to opponents. If the mistake is minor and win/losses minor, then I would just ignore it, but this is why each battle needs some attention to make sure the game rules are being adhered too.

Now, as an example of what I've just said, the post that AlanB's brought to my attention has proved my point. Che made an error in winning the Spaceport during one battle, but even with the "Result Stands!" rule in place, he still had the gamesmanship to offer that his Red Blok boys VACATE the Spaceport ...

>>> http://www.northayrshirewargamesclub.co.uk/forum/7-84-4#892

Che, a gentleman & scholar! This is what I mean by examining each case in turn, and as I've said before, within a reasonable time frame of the battle, not going back months ... please read my previous posts fully. Some will be obvious and easily rectified, others not so, and if a decision can't be agree, roll the dice and let the gods decide!

I think ur (& Che's) comments about doing the Frostbite Campaign justice is true ... players still have a long way to go about learning the rules and should have used the various scenario's in the Frostbite Campaign to play individual battles to hopefully iron out any bugs which crop up, BEFORE even contemplating playing the campaign itself. We're still having odd conversations/interpretations on the scenario's as we come too them, so we're all a long way from having a quiet life at playing the Frostbite Campaign, I'm afraid.

Your comments on inHouse rules are well put. IMHO Game designers can test rules thoroughly till they drop, but until their released to the masses, they never know what's going to come from the masses of players who always throw curve balls. It's one of the reasons game designers/publishers accept comments, suggestions & inHouse rule ideas after their rules are published and for their next editions to improve the game, e.g. 40k 6th edition, AT-43 2nd edition (never released as Rackham went bust!), etc. I think u would be hard pushed to find a set of rules that's been around a few years that's not been updated by the game designers in some way, for whatever reason. In some cases, designers go off on their own too other publishing houses to create a whole new ruleset based on previous rules ... so new rules & games are always being developed. It's the law of the land that no player is 100% happy with any set of rules ... well, not that I've ever seen!, but for me that's not a headache to have an open discussion about. Players can join in on the debates if they want. There's no pressure if they don't want to participate or give an opinion. It's what the forums and free-speech are all about. I never take anything personal and understand players can agree-to-disagree ... I luv the banter and mindset some players come back with, yet still hold to my own principles, right or wrong!

Part of the fun of playing, for me, is trying to understand the mentality of the game designers. It's one of the reasons I luv the AT-43 ruleset ... it has loads of minor intricacy's within each army and unit composition which all add to the gameplay, with a ton of variables in weapons, fighters, etc, to make it a game to play forever and never be able to fully conquer! And then there's the goddam dice rolls .... grrrrrrr!!!! ... luv it!

Anyway, that's my Sunday afternoon rant over with. Soz for going on ... any excuse to get away from finishing the bathroom! Walts
 
gerrywithaGDate: Monday, 17-Oct-2011, 0:39 AM | Message # 56
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Quote (Balrog)
I guess my interpretation of a precedent is a bit wonky and exaggerated and lessons are being learned as players are rectifying their rule hiccups, but IMHO, I think when an error happens during any CAMPAIGN environment, there must be an investigation into what has occurred, that way we all learn. IMHO, it doesn't seem fair that a player who makes an error during a CAMPAIGN game should benefit from his misdemeanour and other players should suffer, because in a CAMPAIGN setting each battle can & will make a difference too the next battle and campaign itself, IF the error causes major win bonuses or major losses to opponents. If the mistake is minor and win/losses minor, then I would just ignore it, but this is why each battle needs some attention to make sure the game rules are being adhered too.


Walter, No offence but we're not the Wargaming Police. The mistake has been discovered, it's been corrected, time to move on. This is a game for goodness sake not life or death. We're going to end up tying every game /campaign we play up in knots if we replay/ penalise every mistake that happens, and potentially end up with campaigns of one person!! wacko

Quote (Balrog)
Now, as an example of what I've just said, the post that AlanB's brought to my attention has proved my point. Che made an error in winning the Spaceport during one battle, but even with the "Result Stands!" rule in place, he still had the gamesmanship to offer that his Red Blok boys VACATE the Spaceport ...
Not entirely sure what you're getting at here, whether you mean that Ian was using gamesmanship offering to replay knowing that we'd say "No, the Results Stands" or if you're inferring that the rest of us are poor sports when it comes to issues in the games, and I'd rather you clarified that because I'm not particularly happy with that comment if it's the latter.

Cheers

Gerry

Added (17-Oct-2011, 0:39 Am)
---------------------------------------------

Quote (Balrog)
Your comments on inHouse rules are well put. IMHO Game designers can test rules thoroughly till they drop, but until their released to the masses, they never know what's going to come from the masses of players who always throw curve balls. It's one of the reasons game designers/publishers accept comments, suggestions & inHouse rule ideas after their rules are published and for their next editions to improve the game, e.g. 40k 6th edition, AT-43 2nd edition (never released as Rackham went bust!), etc. I think u would be hard pushed to find a set of rules that's been around a few years that's not been updated by the game designers in some way, for whatever reason.


Think using Warhammer 40K as an example of a designer going back to fix rules after playtesting/ feedback from players is probably the poorest example out there. It's not been the same rules writer who has produced the different versions and these have never been tweeks or updates. They have been almost complete rewrites or revisions with huge sections changed. And I won't even start on the " It's a money making theory!!! ....."

Cheers

Gerry

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
BalrogDate: Monday, 17-Oct-2011, 7:18 AM | Message # 57
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hi Gerry ... Thanks for pointing out my crazy "over enthusiastic" approach to wargaming ... I am a bit like a dog with a bone when I get going! That and getting high on gloss paint didn't help!

I'll try and tone it down a bit, and put away my baton loony But, my point about Che putting his hand up to his error and offering to vacate the Spaceport ... as an example ... shows what great gamesmanship ALL u guys have, which is why the "Result Stands!" rule seems like a cop out, when I know u all would have been able to reach quick & easy resolutions to any errors in game play which cropped up.

The thing is, I've asked about other gaming clubs (via PM and their forums) as too how they deal with campaigns and errors which occur, not just in AT-43, and ALL where shocked by our "Result Stands!" ruling. I explained all the guys where wink "seasoned" wink gamers, with bags of gamesmanship, so they where confused even more by the rule. Not having any campaign gameplay for over a decade, I've lost track of any guidelines clubbers imposed to rectify errors in game play, but the "Result Stands!" just seemed wrong, in my mind. That all being said, it is in place and the campaigns in it's fourth week, so I'm happy to continue as is, now that I know about it. The not knowing of the "Result Stands!" rule was the biggest problem for me as we have an inHouse Rulesheet that it should have been in if I was to be honest. Now I know, I can move on ... huzzzaahhhhh!

One forum buff did say that I was as much to blame for the error as z as I knew there was a problem yet said nothing, but as I'm the ruleset "dunce" and newbie to AT-43, and zellak's been playing forever, I didn't have the confidence to make an issue of it at the time. I know now that no player knows the rules 100%, so will keep this in mind should another oddity crop up and question it at the time. It's not like it will hold up the AT-43 game, we always seem to finish in two rounds ... lolol ... it takes longer for the guys to set the table up than play the rounds!

I should keep quiet really, It's more than likely I'll be the one who gets his knuckles rapped over wonky rules during the next AT-43 gameplay .... I'm hopeless when I'm playing! I can hear everyone agreeing ... stop it, or the baton will be out again!!!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


40k 6th Ed ... lolol ... yeah ... 6th Ed rip-off ... ching-ching for GW. DEFINITELY the worst example I could have used! But I do believe inHouse Rules make a game better. They bring clarity more than anything else to a game, not just AT-43, but a wide range of games I've played over the generations.

Anyway, thanks for keeping me right! friends As always, cack I write seems OK to me at the time, until someone points out an obvious "boo-boo" towards other players I always make, but I hope I've clarified things better for u, and others reading this thread ... Walts
 
zellakDate: Sunday, 23-Oct-2011, 7:47 PM | Message # 58
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1526
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
Can who ever is doing the map update be aware that i said to Valts to add the 860 AP back on to the RB Company which lost its casualties due to my error.

Also, we counted the RP for the second game today as the Monkeys being the attacker,wrong !, so there should be -250 RP on their total.
(-50 RP for a captured chrystal and -200 RP for two captured containers)

DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
BanksiDate: Sunday, 23-Oct-2011, 7:56 PM | Message # 59
Major general
Group: Administrators
Messages: 417
Reputation: 33
Status: Offline
Still need the points for the first game, Can you supply please Che

Of course I know your name, it's your face I can't remember - Parahandy
 
CheDate: Sunday, 23-Oct-2011, 8:20 PM | Message # 60
Lieutenant general
Group: Member
Messages: 509
Reputation: 58
Status: Offline
Quote (Banksi)
Still need the points for the first game, Can you supply please Che


I didn't get any points and you ended with 440 as I recall. By the way, sorry for not giving you a better game. Naughty me wasn't really trying as you probably guessed. wink angry

Wargamers like to paint their privates!!
 
Forum » Archives » AT-43 - Club, News & Gossip » AT-43: Frostbite Campaign - Phase II Wk4 (The battle for Élysée continues in the Emerald Mountains!)
Page 3 of 4«1234»
Search:

Copyright MyCorp © 2017