FA+
Shop
So I herd u liek Democrats
Posted 16 years agoI heard Houston has now taken the spot of "largest North American city to elect an openly-gay mayor". I understand the sheriff of Dallas County is also honest about her sexuality.
For better or for worse, Berlin (AFAIK) remains the largest city in the world to have elected an openly-gay mayor, but doesn't Houstin fall short by only 200,000 people in terms of size?
Now, the victory of Mayor-Elect Annise Parker shouldn't be too surprising, since Houston itself turns out to be reliably Democratic - although the suburbs, which are in the next county, are either more contested or solidly Republican. I didn't know that, though. I thought, outside of Austin, it was teabaggers as far as the eye could see.
Anyway, here's hoping the day will come (soon) that "City X elects openly-gay mayor" won't be remarkable.
For better or for worse, Berlin (AFAIK) remains the largest city in the world to have elected an openly-gay mayor, but doesn't Houstin fall short by only 200,000 people in terms of size?
Now, the victory of Mayor-Elect Annise Parker shouldn't be too surprising, since Houston itself turns out to be reliably Democratic - although the suburbs, which are in the next county, are either more contested or solidly Republican. I didn't know that, though. I thought, outside of Austin, it was teabaggers as far as the eye could see.
Anyway, here's hoping the day will come (soon) that "City X elects openly-gay mayor" won't be remarkable.
Viral meme: triple feature
Posted 16 years agoWell, it's a Friday night, I'm sick and I saw a "New journal!" update. Clicked on Ainoko Ironrose's journal and saw this... and dropped a comment.
1- For each of the first 10 people commenting here I will put their avatar and three pics I like from their gallery on the list
2- If I feature you, you'll have to do the same in your journal, putting me on the first place, completing this way the list with 10 people.
The idea of this is not to get a free feature, it is to spread art around for everyone!!!
So, yeah. I am not bringing my blue pencil to this.
1.
Ainoko Ironrose.
I can't say his subject matter is especially relevant to my interests, but he writes stories that are fun to read, and I get to like the characters and wonder where they'll end up.
Item: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2822353/ - the first chapter of what could be a fairly dramatic series, plus a fun introduction.
Item: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2586165/ - the first chapter of a different potentially dramatic series.
Item: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2838480/ - the second chapter of the above.
[2,10]
1- For each of the first 10 people commenting here I will put their avatar and three pics I like from their gallery on the list
2- If I feature you, you'll have to do the same in your journal, putting me on the first place, completing this way the list with 10 people.
The idea of this is not to get a free feature, it is to spread art around for everyone!!!
So, yeah. I am not bringing my blue pencil to this.
1.
Ainoko Ironrose.I can't say his subject matter is especially relevant to my interests, but he writes stories that are fun to read, and I get to like the characters and wonder where they'll end up.
Item: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2822353/ - the first chapter of what could be a fairly dramatic series, plus a fun introduction.
Item: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2586165/ - the first chapter of a different potentially dramatic series.
Item: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2838480/ - the second chapter of the above.
[2,10]
Oi'm workin' on sumfin!
Posted 16 years agoBut while I'm doing that: two questions.
First, is there any way to trim your beard or mustache that doesn't generate large numbers of very sharp hair fragments?
Second, what is the best way to get hair fragments out of your fingertips?
First, is there any way to trim your beard or mustache that doesn't generate large numbers of very sharp hair fragments?
Second, what is the best way to get hair fragments out of your fingertips?
Just thought I'd post this recipe
Posted 16 years agoWhat you need:
- A full-sized skillet (what is that, twelve inches?). Cast iron is win.
- A good stewpot, 2+ gallons capacity.
- Spatula, slotted spoon, ladle.
- Clean water. If your tap water is mineralized or heavily chlorinated, filter it.
- A good stove, with at least two large burners (what's that, 800W ea.? 1200?).
- A good sharp knife.
- A vegetable peeler.
- Olive oil.
- Vinegar.
Ingredients:
- 1 lb lentils.
- 1 regular white potato of moderate size.
- 1 regular onion of moderate size.
- 3 large carrots.
- 3 celery branches, or whatever you call them.
- Possibly a can of beans of some kind, to add beaniness (protein and iron, right?).
- Spices: garlic, cumin, cayenne pepper, black pepper, ginger, cinnamon maybe, and whatever "curry powder" is. I use powdered everything.
- 3 reasonably fresh jalapeños.
1. Pour the lentils into the pot with 6-8 cups of water. Put that sucker on full heat until it boils, then leave it for two minutes, stirring regularly. Afterward, turn it off and let it sit for 20 min.
2. Oil the skillet, with enough oil to form a shallow standing layer at the bottom of the pan. Peel and chop the vegetables, throwing them into the skillet. Add all the spices except the garlic, stir them into the vegetables. Put the skillet on medium heat.
3. This would be a good time to dump out the polysaccharide-laden greywater in the lentil pot. Those sugars make you fart terribly. You don't want them. After you dump them out, though, put another 6-8 cups of water in the pot, and set it on medium heat for 20 minutes.
4. Go back and forth between stirring the vegetables (spatula) and stirring the lentils (slotted spoon) until either (a) 20 minutes have passed or (b) the vegetables are satisfactorily cooked. If you don't know what this looks like, stick with the timer.
5. Pour the vegetables, now cooked, into the pot with the lentils. Then, deglaze the skillet - pour a little water, a little vinegar, and a little extra oil into the skillet. Then scrape that shit with the spatula like crazy. You'll get a sludgy residue that's made of leftover spices and some sugars from the vegetables. You want those, they're tasty. Pour them into the pot, then clean and put away the skillet (instructions abound on the internet).
6. Add the garlic (and if you want, the canned beans) to the pot at this point. Go crazy with it. You cannot possibly put too much garlic in - I probably put in more than a quarter of a cup of ground garlic. Anyway, when you're done, set the pot to cook on low heat for another twenty minutes. Stir periodically, every five minutes should do.
7. When this last 20min period is up, turn off the heat. Chop up the jalapeños into little rings, and throw these into the pot. Stir things up.
It's now ready to eat. Two ladles of this stuff is pretty hearty.
- A full-sized skillet (what is that, twelve inches?). Cast iron is win.
- A good stewpot, 2+ gallons capacity.
- Spatula, slotted spoon, ladle.
- Clean water. If your tap water is mineralized or heavily chlorinated, filter it.
- A good stove, with at least two large burners (what's that, 800W ea.? 1200?).
- A good sharp knife.
- A vegetable peeler.
- Olive oil.
- Vinegar.
Ingredients:
- 1 lb lentils.
- 1 regular white potato of moderate size.
- 1 regular onion of moderate size.
- 3 large carrots.
- 3 celery branches, or whatever you call them.
- Possibly a can of beans of some kind, to add beaniness (protein and iron, right?).
- Spices: garlic, cumin, cayenne pepper, black pepper, ginger, cinnamon maybe, and whatever "curry powder" is. I use powdered everything.
- 3 reasonably fresh jalapeños.
1. Pour the lentils into the pot with 6-8 cups of water. Put that sucker on full heat until it boils, then leave it for two minutes, stirring regularly. Afterward, turn it off and let it sit for 20 min.
2. Oil the skillet, with enough oil to form a shallow standing layer at the bottom of the pan. Peel and chop the vegetables, throwing them into the skillet. Add all the spices except the garlic, stir them into the vegetables. Put the skillet on medium heat.
3. This would be a good time to dump out the polysaccharide-laden greywater in the lentil pot. Those sugars make you fart terribly. You don't want them. After you dump them out, though, put another 6-8 cups of water in the pot, and set it on medium heat for 20 minutes.
4. Go back and forth between stirring the vegetables (spatula) and stirring the lentils (slotted spoon) until either (a) 20 minutes have passed or (b) the vegetables are satisfactorily cooked. If you don't know what this looks like, stick with the timer.
5. Pour the vegetables, now cooked, into the pot with the lentils. Then, deglaze the skillet - pour a little water, a little vinegar, and a little extra oil into the skillet. Then scrape that shit with the spatula like crazy. You'll get a sludgy residue that's made of leftover spices and some sugars from the vegetables. You want those, they're tasty. Pour them into the pot, then clean and put away the skillet (instructions abound on the internet).
6. Add the garlic (and if you want, the canned beans) to the pot at this point. Go crazy with it. You cannot possibly put too much garlic in - I probably put in more than a quarter of a cup of ground garlic. Anyway, when you're done, set the pot to cook on low heat for another twenty minutes. Stir periodically, every five minutes should do.
7. When this last 20min period is up, turn off the heat. Chop up the jalapeños into little rings, and throw these into the pot. Stir things up.
It's now ready to eat. Two ladles of this stuff is pretty hearty.
What is this I don't even
Posted 16 years agoWelcome to /tg/: someone posted a photo of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan with the caption, "Counts as Word Bearers Dark Apostle."
http://zip.4chan.org/tg/res/6678465.html
http://zip.4chan.org/tg/res/6678465.html
Material removed.
Posted 16 years agoGot rid of the Dark Eldar story. I don't believe it's suitable for this website.
Alien autopsies? Overdone.
Posted 16 years agoNew twist: the examiner is handed the body of a creature belonging to a sentient species. The individual has obviously been murdered (gunshot wound to the side of the head, with powder burns). The biologist is told: take this thing apart and tell us what you find. Feel free to speculate on the nature of what you see, based on the known or suspected physical and mental capabilities of this species.
Put yourself in the shoes of the examiner. A pair of soldiers accompanied by Captain Miller have delivered the body to you, and watched as you signed a death certificate for John Doe (XF) 01, the still-warm body leaking its most intimate fluids onto your table and floor.
Now: make that so people reading it can imagine what it's like - the feel of vital organs as they are cut away from supporting membranes, the fermented-fruit odor of the open head wound mixed with the rankness of blood, the structure of the creature's vocal apparatus to visual inspection as the skin is peeled back...
I think my best writing has those little details.
Just know this. Capt. Miller isn't evil: he's afraid. He knows humanity has the rifles, has the machine guns, has the air power to hold off the natives if they become hostile. But for how long? Bullets can't be reused, after all. The factories to supply them can't be brought fully on-line until a suitable source of metals is exploited. The gunships burn precious petrochemical fuel faster than the bacterial fermenters can synthesize it. Miller is convinced the only way to ensure the survival of that part of humanity he must defend is to prevent the locals from ever being able to pose a threat. Miller's experience as a ship's commander has taught him to take the long view, the logistical view, where others might concern themselves with short-sighted expedience.
If that means slaughtering ninety percent of the local HILFs and exiling the survivors, so be it.
And part of you says: is Miller wrong? Don't we owe a strong defense to humanity before we owe any kind of xenophilia to the locals?
Put yourself in the shoes of the examiner. A pair of soldiers accompanied by Captain Miller have delivered the body to you, and watched as you signed a death certificate for John Doe (XF) 01, the still-warm body leaking its most intimate fluids onto your table and floor.
Now: make that so people reading it can imagine what it's like - the feel of vital organs as they are cut away from supporting membranes, the fermented-fruit odor of the open head wound mixed with the rankness of blood, the structure of the creature's vocal apparatus to visual inspection as the skin is peeled back...
I think my best writing has those little details.
Just know this. Capt. Miller isn't evil: he's afraid. He knows humanity has the rifles, has the machine guns, has the air power to hold off the natives if they become hostile. But for how long? Bullets can't be reused, after all. The factories to supply them can't be brought fully on-line until a suitable source of metals is exploited. The gunships burn precious petrochemical fuel faster than the bacterial fermenters can synthesize it. Miller is convinced the only way to ensure the survival of that part of humanity he must defend is to prevent the locals from ever being able to pose a threat. Miller's experience as a ship's commander has taught him to take the long view, the logistical view, where others might concern themselves with short-sighted expedience.
If that means slaughtering ninety percent of the local HILFs and exiling the survivors, so be it.
And part of you says: is Miller wrong? Don't we owe a strong defense to humanity before we owe any kind of xenophilia to the locals?
In today's news,
Posted 16 years agoNew Jersey voters rejected the snake of an incumbent governor in order to elect another snake, who promises tax cuts without, as far as I can recall, promising spending cuts to balance the budget. It makes sense, though: Christie's a Republican.
---
I am meanwhile going through some mental roller-coaster shit, which makes my lack of access to weapons a very fortunate thing. Anyone have any advice? (Apart from "seek professional help", already doing that)
---
I do believe I am shit out of ideas, and also I wonder how one goes about commissioning artists. I can't do any art trades until I fulfill one that I abandoned YEARS ago due to a similarly sudden attack of I-can't-write-anymore.
---
I am meanwhile going through some mental roller-coaster shit, which makes my lack of access to weapons a very fortunate thing. Anyone have any advice? (Apart from "seek professional help", already doing that)
---
I do believe I am shit out of ideas, and also I wonder how one goes about commissioning artists. I can't do any art trades until I fulfill one that I abandoned YEARS ago due to a similarly sudden attack of I-can't-write-anymore.
Dear New Jersey politicians,
Posted 16 years agoI voted straight-ticket Democrat, not because I particularly like the Democratic candidates but because I really don't want the Republican candidates in office.
Can we please have someone worth voting for, instead of people to vote against?
Wishing you a sincere fuck you,
FJS
Can we please have someone worth voting for, instead of people to vote against?
Wishing you a sincere fuck you,
FJS
Computer question.
Posted 16 years agoMy brother's desktop computer is doing something strange.
When it's turned on, the internal speaker makes a rapid chirping sound every few seconds - more or less regularly, although it will suddenly stop in the middle, then restart.
When it's turned off, the sound changes to a breathing noise - two clicks and a sigh. Tktkwssshh...
When the computer is unplugged, the sound continues for a second or two and then suddenly cuts out with a high-pitched pop.
It's not from the desktop speakers. It's not from the PSU fans or anything - anyway, they all stop when the computer's turned off. It's from the computer's internal speaker, which is bolted to the inside of the front panel.
He solved the aesthetic problem of sitting next to a "haunted" computer by simply unplugging the internal speaker, but I wonder if this is a sign of any impending hardware failure or other unspecified doom. Ever heard of this problem, guys?
When it's turned on, the internal speaker makes a rapid chirping sound every few seconds - more or less regularly, although it will suddenly stop in the middle, then restart.
When it's turned off, the sound changes to a breathing noise - two clicks and a sigh. Tktkwssshh...
When the computer is unplugged, the sound continues for a second or two and then suddenly cuts out with a high-pitched pop.
It's not from the desktop speakers. It's not from the PSU fans or anything - anyway, they all stop when the computer's turned off. It's from the computer's internal speaker, which is bolted to the inside of the front panel.
He solved the aesthetic problem of sitting next to a "haunted" computer by simply unplugging the internal speaker, but I wonder if this is a sign of any impending hardware failure or other unspecified doom. Ever heard of this problem, guys?
Here's what I wonder.
Posted 16 years agoHow many others here come from an Orthodox Jewish background?
---
Working on a bit of "Omnivory" that will hopefully go right before "In Media Res", describing first contact between man and dawg.
---
Working on a bit of "Omnivory" that will hopefully go right before "In Media Res", describing first contact between man and dawg.
Ever heard of the movie "Cat People"?
Posted 16 years agoThere are two versions - one from, I think, 1942, and one from 1982. It combines a number of horrible things, such as incest, identity failure, vore, implied zoophilia, and an awful lot of murders. There's a remarkable tweest in it when one of the characters has a sudden terrible revelation, and things start to get really creepy, really fast.
It relates to the D&D convention of werewolves, and certain other were-beasts, having fixed racial alignment. Now, I don't happen to like that. It makes sense to me that, say, werewolf culture would be chaotic evil, and would generally expect its members to act out the role of the Destroyer, but as werewolves are also sentient creatures, you'd think that they would have a choice in the matter. For example, Sgt. Angua von Uberwald is from a Lawful Evil background, but at some point she fled her parents' household (as it's implied many werewolves do; on a related note, hormonal adolescents are True Neutral) and then, remarkably, neither returned home nor started her own fiefdom but decided to be Lawful Good, or at least up in that corner of the alignment field.
I wonder if there's a way to retain some of the "Oh god what the fuck" aspect of Cat People, including the sexual tension, in a story without including the actually horrible parts like murdering people to consume their flesh.
Addendum: as I posted on /tg/, you could put the plot of Cat People into an RPG system of your choice with the following:
1. Your party is warned by the city folk about a dangerous predator appears to have been eating people in their homes, with no sign of having forced its way in.
2. Your party is enhanced by a local guide who is remarkably charismatic, although he seems a little eager to get in bed with your characters.
3. The guide looks remarkably like one of your party members, and takes a close interest in the life of this person, as well as making more direct romantic advances. He'll take no for an answer but he'll be back the next day.
4. Sometimes the guide disappears for up to a day at a time, and returns cocky, arrogant and appearing well-fed.
It relates to the D&D convention of werewolves, and certain other were-beasts, having fixed racial alignment. Now, I don't happen to like that. It makes sense to me that, say, werewolf culture would be chaotic evil, and would generally expect its members to act out the role of the Destroyer, but as werewolves are also sentient creatures, you'd think that they would have a choice in the matter. For example, Sgt. Angua von Uberwald is from a Lawful Evil background, but at some point she fled her parents' household (as it's implied many werewolves do; on a related note, hormonal adolescents are True Neutral) and then, remarkably, neither returned home nor started her own fiefdom but decided to be Lawful Good, or at least up in that corner of the alignment field.
I wonder if there's a way to retain some of the "Oh god what the fuck" aspect of Cat People, including the sexual tension, in a story without including the actually horrible parts like murdering people to consume their flesh.
Addendum: as I posted on /tg/, you could put the plot of Cat People into an RPG system of your choice with the following:
1. Your party is warned by the city folk about a dangerous predator appears to have been eating people in their homes, with no sign of having forced its way in.
2. Your party is enhanced by a local guide who is remarkably charismatic, although he seems a little eager to get in bed with your characters.
3. The guide looks remarkably like one of your party members, and takes a close interest in the life of this person, as well as making more direct romantic advances. He'll take no for an answer but he'll be back the next day.
4. Sometimes the guide disappears for up to a day at a time, and returns cocky, arrogant and appearing well-fed.
Okay, so...
Posted 16 years ago...I write what's on my mind.
Sometimes what's on my mind is very dark, depraved stuff.
I'm somewhat ashamed of the latest story I completed. You know, I felt bad about the slime-girl story I wrote, and this is basically that, times ten.
So,
1) What the hell is wrong with my head?
2) Should I post it, delete it or just... save it somewhere?
Sometimes what's on my mind is very dark, depraved stuff.
I'm somewhat ashamed of the latest story I completed. You know, I felt bad about the slime-girl story I wrote, and this is basically that, times ten.
So,
1) What the hell is wrong with my head?
2) Should I post it, delete it or just... save it somewhere?
To-Do List for this weekend
Posted 16 years ago- Absorb all of Part 1 of the Probability textbook
- Get my laundry back-load done
- Obtain confidence / Reduce anxiety
- Eliminate or permanently silence self-destructive and suicidal impulses
- Eliminate obsessive and addictive behavior
- Get my laundry back-load done
- Obtain confidence / Reduce anxiety
- Eliminate or permanently silence self-destructive and suicidal impulses
- Eliminate obsessive and addictive behavior
Resources are limited
Posted 16 years agoIs it just me, or... do brains have a limited amount of creative power, which they can apply either to understanding things, or to creating things ex nihilo, but not both, or at least, not both and well?
I ask because as I spend more time trying to grok probability maths, I feel I have less creative power to spend on, say, writing. It's one of the reasons I'm really conflicted about an academic career, but I think I'll pursue the career anyway, because research and teaching are the things that most satisfy me at the end of the day...
I ask because as I spend more time trying to grok probability maths, I feel I have less creative power to spend on, say, writing. It's one of the reasons I'm really conflicted about an academic career, but I think I'll pursue the career anyway, because research and teaching are the things that most satisfy me at the end of the day...
"Uh-oh..." or, "Problems of Character"
Posted 16 years agoIn an attempt to multi-class as Scientist and Artist, I appear to have accidentally taken some Traits I now regret, like Disadvantage: Phobia (Calculus) and Disadvantage: Awkward Moments (Inappropriate Levity). I don't want to quit and reroll and spend another twenty-five years leveling up. What do I do?
Interesting relationship meme (slowpoke.jpg)
Posted 16 years ago1- Would you rather have a fun fling or a lasting relationship?
Probably a lasting relationship. A fling is fun while it lasts, but leaves you feeling soiled afterward.
2- What was your longest relationship?
Was it a year and a half, two years? Something like that.
3-What is your favorite personality trait?
My sense of humor. I am not by nature a patient person, or a particularly friendly person, I struggle to be calm and I am easily spooked, but I usually try to cope by making a joke out of things, because I love to laugh.
4- What is the most romantic thing a significant other could do?
Go with me for a long walk, maybe lie down and look at the stars, and just appreciate the glory of being, together.
5- When you are dating someone, what is the most important thing to you?
Communication. I need to know where I stand with respect to you, and vice versa. I need to know what I'm doing right, and what I'm doing wrong, so that I can maintain or improve the former and stop doing the latter.
6- Do you like pet names (ex: baby, sweetheart...)?
To an extremely limited degree.
7- What is your ideal night out with a significant other?
A nice long walk, possibly with dogs.
8- What is your ideal night in with a significant other?
I'll cook dinner and we'll have a bite, sit, talk, cuddle on the couch, etc.
9- Would you be able to tell someone you love them, even if you didn't feel it?
Yes, much to my shame. I'm trying, with... some success, I think, to break myself of manipulative habits.
10- Do you like relationships that involve serious commitments?
Yes. I just need to know, in a fairly specific way, what is needed of me. I am not good at figuring these things out - in fact, I suspect I'm deliberately bad at them on some level. They're so nerve-wracking I'd rather avoid my responsibilities than try to figure them out.
11- If you ever got engaged, how would you want it to happen?
Much like I described in "Life, Together", just coming to the conclusion and asking: shall we marry?
12- If you were engaged, would you want a wedding as soon as possible?
No. A few months to get to know each other better, and of course prepare.
13- Do you like to talk about the future when in a serious relationship?
I didn't, when I was in one (see No. 10), but I think it really needs to be talked about, anyway.
14- Do you prefer a sensitive open relationship or a strong silent type?
I switch back and forth between the two, being mercurial and moody by nature. I suspect my preferences on this would change with my mood.
15- When in a relationship do you have to have contact with your partner on a daily basis?
I would definitely try to.
16- Do you like public displays of affection?
Define affection. Hugs, sure. Holding hands, sure. Kiss on the cheek, sure, in a safe and reasonably private environment (say, with family). More involved kissing? Groping? Dry-humping? No.
17- Is there anything you won't tolerate while in a relationship?
Being lied to, or having a simple request repeatedly and very deliberately ignored (e.g., "Please, can restroom time be private?").
18- What is one thing that you value most in a relationship?
Honestly, I don't know. Mutual support, maybe.
19- Would you ever be able to handle a long-distance situation?
Yes, but I gave up on that a while ago.
20- Do you believe in moving in together before engagement or marriage?
I wouldn't do it until and unless we had decided that the marriage was definitely going to happen. Otherwise... it's wanting to eat your cake and have it too, you know, get the benefits of commitment without the actual cost of commitment. That's not right. Nor is it conducive to a healthy relationship.
Probably a lasting relationship. A fling is fun while it lasts, but leaves you feeling soiled afterward.
2- What was your longest relationship?
Was it a year and a half, two years? Something like that.
3-What is your favorite personality trait?
My sense of humor. I am not by nature a patient person, or a particularly friendly person, I struggle to be calm and I am easily spooked, but I usually try to cope by making a joke out of things, because I love to laugh.
4- What is the most romantic thing a significant other could do?
Go with me for a long walk, maybe lie down and look at the stars, and just appreciate the glory of being, together.
5- When you are dating someone, what is the most important thing to you?
Communication. I need to know where I stand with respect to you, and vice versa. I need to know what I'm doing right, and what I'm doing wrong, so that I can maintain or improve the former and stop doing the latter.
6- Do you like pet names (ex: baby, sweetheart...)?
To an extremely limited degree.
7- What is your ideal night out with a significant other?
A nice long walk, possibly with dogs.
8- What is your ideal night in with a significant other?
I'll cook dinner and we'll have a bite, sit, talk, cuddle on the couch, etc.
9- Would you be able to tell someone you love them, even if you didn't feel it?
Yes, much to my shame. I'm trying, with... some success, I think, to break myself of manipulative habits.
10- Do you like relationships that involve serious commitments?
Yes. I just need to know, in a fairly specific way, what is needed of me. I am not good at figuring these things out - in fact, I suspect I'm deliberately bad at them on some level. They're so nerve-wracking I'd rather avoid my responsibilities than try to figure them out.
11- If you ever got engaged, how would you want it to happen?
Much like I described in "Life, Together", just coming to the conclusion and asking: shall we marry?
12- If you were engaged, would you want a wedding as soon as possible?
No. A few months to get to know each other better, and of course prepare.
13- Do you like to talk about the future when in a serious relationship?
I didn't, when I was in one (see No. 10), but I think it really needs to be talked about, anyway.
14- Do you prefer a sensitive open relationship or a strong silent type?
I switch back and forth between the two, being mercurial and moody by nature. I suspect my preferences on this would change with my mood.
15- When in a relationship do you have to have contact with your partner on a daily basis?
I would definitely try to.
16- Do you like public displays of affection?
Define affection. Hugs, sure. Holding hands, sure. Kiss on the cheek, sure, in a safe and reasonably private environment (say, with family). More involved kissing? Groping? Dry-humping? No.
17- Is there anything you won't tolerate while in a relationship?
Being lied to, or having a simple request repeatedly and very deliberately ignored (e.g., "Please, can restroom time be private?").
18- What is one thing that you value most in a relationship?
Honestly, I don't know. Mutual support, maybe.
19- Would you ever be able to handle a long-distance situation?
Yes, but I gave up on that a while ago.
20- Do you believe in moving in together before engagement or marriage?
I wouldn't do it until and unless we had decided that the marriage was definitely going to happen. Otherwise... it's wanting to eat your cake and have it too, you know, get the benefits of commitment without the actual cost of commitment. That's not right. Nor is it conducive to a healthy relationship.
WoT:TG Support Vehicles and Air Power
Posted 16 years agoWelcome back to War on Terror: The Game. Today I wish to talk about support vehicles, and their use.
By far the most common support vehicles are supply trucks. These are armed with a single LMG, AV 10 all around, and you seriously do not want to let one actually get involved in a battle. I think I will be composing rules in such a way that minimizes the importance of these - of course in a real battlefield, people run out of fuel or food or ammo, but this is a game.
So, the next most common support vehicle is going to be the gun carrier.
Artillery is at this point a few hundred years old, but only fairly recently did very heavy ordnance make its way onto self-powered chassis. At one time, if you wanted your gun to fire a shell of over 500 kg in weight, you had to be bolting the gun onto a battleship or building it in a hole in the ground. But during the second world war, that changed, and the biggest gun ever mounted on a self-propelled, all-terrain vehicle was (to my knowledge) a 380mm rocket mortar.
Also, unlike tanks, artillery vehicles break the Rule of Armor Proportional to Armament. Generally, you build a weapon platform for front-line combat to be able to withstand multiple hits from its own weapon or equivalent weapons; hence, front-line tanks and battleships are incredibly sturdy, compared to everything else. However, no land vehicle yet devised can shrug off a direct hit from a fifty-pound shell, much less anything bigger.
So the makers of artillery support vehicles didn't even bother. Their hulls typically offer protection against machine-gun fire, and that's about it.
The advantage, though, is range. An artillery crew can sit well back from an actual armored conflict, responding only to calls for fire support by hurling shells over the horizon.
So, what am I talking about? Well, let's look at a reasonably common weapon these days: the M109 Paladin chassis.
It mounts a reasonably heavy gun on a light tank body. Apart from its main gun, a 155mm artillery cannon, it may also have machine guns bolted to various parts of the hull. It is well-enough armored to ignore infantry firepower, but even the lightest anti-vehicle weapons threaten it. In essence, its job is to hurl shells long distances, as I described just above. An advanced artillery FCS may allow the vehicle operators to drive and fire at the same time, or to fire their cannon as precisely as a rifle.
There's another option: rocket artillery.
Although rocket-artillery platforms are more lightly armored than gun-artillery platforms, and may never move and fire, they have two advantages. One is an increased range of warhead upgrades they may use - incendiary ones, for example, or submunition clusters - and the other is rate of fire. Unlike a gun, which has only one barrel and must be reloaded by the crew after every shot, the rocket-artillery launcher has many barrels and may fire them off in rapid succession. This allows a single vehicle to achieve the courage-sapping effect of a whole battery of guns, and a battery of rocket-artillery platforms creates a terrifying hail of ordnance referred to as "steel rain" by those who have survived it. There are few who can truly make this claim.
The downside is that reloading takes much longer and is more mechanically complex. Hence, unless attended by a supply truck (whoops - I thought I said I wasn't going to bring those in?), a rocket-artillery platform may only fire once every other turn.
See what I'm saying here? The artillery tank is Ordnance (1), but its barrage can be made more precise; the rocket-artillery truck can be Ordnance (6), but is less precise and may only fire once every other turn, unless a resupply crew are on hand to keep them stocked.
There are some regional differences.
The above describes NATO and Asian artillery platforms reasonably well. The Kingdom and the Israelis, for their part, only own guns, extremely limited rocket artillery if they have any (that's the Kingdom, mostly, using cheap, unpredictable but scary home-made missiles). But the Russians are the masters of ordnance, bar none.
Available only to the Russian player is the giant mortar tank, whose main gun is big enough to allow a man to fit his shoulders inside. It's not particularly heavily armored, despite being a short-ranged weapon, but its shells are so massive that it strikes fear into all who hear the eerie ringing sound it makes when fired. (Also, it may take an FCS which allows infantry to spot for it, making it much more accurate.)
They have a gun carrier comparable to the Paladin, this is true, but a more recent invention is a fully automatic artillery cannon - with its twin barrels, each shot from one loads and cocks the other. This makes it rather more cost-effective, in terms of number of shots per point per turn, than a battery of single-barreled, hand-loaded guns.
Russian rocket artillery is also somewhat more advanced: the main rocket platform has many more barrels, and longer range, than NATO's rocket artillery. The standard platform, throwing high-explosive, incendiary or cluster warheads, may fire a limited number of rounds per turn and fire every turn, without resupply, or may fire its maximum number of rounds per turn and fire every other turn. Unfortunately, due to the increased mechanical complexity, this vehicle does not gain from the presence of resupply vehicles. However, the Russians have a second, and in its way more terrifying, rocket artillery vehicle. It fires modified incendiary rounds. Unlike the white-hot phosphorus clusters thrown about by typical incendiaries, this weapon releases a cloud of liquid petrochemical on impact... and milliseconds later, ignites the cloud. It explodes with tremendous heat and force, literally sucking the air out of the lungs of anyone caught nearby who isn't caught in the wall of intense flame it creates.
And, yes, it does benefit from the resupply rule.
---
So! Let us then speak of air power.
Air power comes in several forms - long-range support, close support, and air-superiority.
Close support and air-superiority aircraft, first, may be deployed normally or from reserve; treat these models merely as fast-moving normal unit.
However, there are some restrictions.
First, for calculating ranges, all aircraft should be considered to be half again as far from the ground for weapons that are not explicitly anti-air. For example, a heavy machine gun might have 54" effective range on the table; however, it would not be able to fire on an aircraft until the aircraft was within 36". Keep in mind that most close-support aircraft do have long-range weapons, and you will see that close support aircraft are incredibly deadly... against an enemy who didn't come prepared. (However: any weapon designated "anti-air" may target aircraft normally, whether or not it may engage surface targets. In addition, all aircraft other than helicopters may attempt to engage other aerial targets at maximum range.)
Second, any non-VTOL aircraft must move every turn - they do not have a choice, because failure to move means that the aircraft stalls out and crashes. This minimum move is generally quite long, meaning it's very easy for a conventional aircraft to be forced to either fly off the table (and leave the battlefield) or cross the enemy lines, exposed to ground fire.
Long-range support aircraft are never placed on the battlefield at the start of the game, barring special deployment rules: it is assumed that their great weight and bulk prevents them from operating out of forward air bases, and that they instead require purpose-built runways. (Only two scenarios allow first-turn deployment: Homeland Defense and Blitzkrieg!.) These don't even need to be represented by models - a simple token with an arrow on it will suffice, to show which way it's facing. These enter play from the owner's own table edge, cross the board in a pre-determined pattern, and then retreat.
To use them, the player who owns them secretly writes down the pattern the bomber will attack in, in a predetermined path, including both an initial point and a closing point for the attack, using an ordnance and heavy weapon loadout chosen from the proper army list. Please be aware that heavy bombers, being enormous, tend not to be agile; the maneuver pattern should be as much straight lines or gentle curves as possible. Be reasonable about this; that's all I'm going to say, though.
Anyway, on the turn the bomber arrives, place the token representing its position at your edge of the table. It may not shoot, nor be shot at, at this point; this is merely a warning to your enemy to get prepared, as he surely has radars or spotting scopes capable of picking out the glint of a bomber flying at high altitude.
In your next turn, move the bomber to the initial point of its attack, and reveal the pattern of the bombing run.
Then, on your next turn yet, assuming the bomber hasn't been destroyed, calculate the distance between the initial point and the closing point of the bombing run. Using a number of small markers (such as push-pins) equal to the number of bombs the bomber is carrying, as determined by its loadout, space its attacks evenly. Then place the appropriate blast template over each push-pin and resolve each bomb impact separately.
Please note: because of the altitude at which they fly, heavy bombers may only be attacked by air-superiority craft or by dedicated long-range (100" and up) air defense units. Make note of the direction the bomber is facing, though: once it has officially entered play, any heavy weapons it carries (e.g., machine guns or missile launchers) may fire at air-superiority craft, subject to normal weapon-mount restrictions. That is, a tail-mounted gun may not fire forward. Defensive weapons such as decoys, ECM, active defense systems, etc. should be considered to be deployed automatically, although each will have its own rules relating to what attacks are affected and how.
A note on the difference between close-support and air-superiority aircraft: a number of aircraft are capable of operating in multiple roles. However, the heaviest firepower they carry comes in the form of single-shot weapons: a helicopter gunship may only carry a maximum of sixteen heavy missiles, for example, and only four short-range air defense missiles. (Another note here: helicopters shall be considered equivalent to being on the ground, for purposes of firing at heavy bombers.) Given the limited number of weapon and equipment slots on a given airframe, multi-role aircraft are typically given loadouts that allow them to specialize in one role or another - e.g., anti-armor support OR anti-infantry support OR anti-air defense OR whatever.
The Russians, Alliance, and NATO have both heavy bombers and multi-role aircraft. However, note that (as described above) heavy bombers are clumsy weapons, only useful in the largest battlefields, and very, very expensive. Israel and Iran have only multi-role aircraft and helicopter gunships; the Kingdom has only helicopter gunships.
All factions, however, own aerial transports in the form of helicopters. Some factions have dedicated transport helicopters while others combine transport and gunship in one hull - notably the Alliance and the Kingdom, although to a lesser degree also Iran and (to a much lesser degree) Russia, as these latter two are teching up and integrated gunship-transport helicopters are somewhat of an old and possibly obsolete technology.
By far the most common support vehicles are supply trucks. These are armed with a single LMG, AV 10 all around, and you seriously do not want to let one actually get involved in a battle. I think I will be composing rules in such a way that minimizes the importance of these - of course in a real battlefield, people run out of fuel or food or ammo, but this is a game.
So, the next most common support vehicle is going to be the gun carrier.
Artillery is at this point a few hundred years old, but only fairly recently did very heavy ordnance make its way onto self-powered chassis. At one time, if you wanted your gun to fire a shell of over 500 kg in weight, you had to be bolting the gun onto a battleship or building it in a hole in the ground. But during the second world war, that changed, and the biggest gun ever mounted on a self-propelled, all-terrain vehicle was (to my knowledge) a 380mm rocket mortar.
Also, unlike tanks, artillery vehicles break the Rule of Armor Proportional to Armament. Generally, you build a weapon platform for front-line combat to be able to withstand multiple hits from its own weapon or equivalent weapons; hence, front-line tanks and battleships are incredibly sturdy, compared to everything else. However, no land vehicle yet devised can shrug off a direct hit from a fifty-pound shell, much less anything bigger.
So the makers of artillery support vehicles didn't even bother. Their hulls typically offer protection against machine-gun fire, and that's about it.
The advantage, though, is range. An artillery crew can sit well back from an actual armored conflict, responding only to calls for fire support by hurling shells over the horizon.
So, what am I talking about? Well, let's look at a reasonably common weapon these days: the M109 Paladin chassis.
It mounts a reasonably heavy gun on a light tank body. Apart from its main gun, a 155mm artillery cannon, it may also have machine guns bolted to various parts of the hull. It is well-enough armored to ignore infantry firepower, but even the lightest anti-vehicle weapons threaten it. In essence, its job is to hurl shells long distances, as I described just above. An advanced artillery FCS may allow the vehicle operators to drive and fire at the same time, or to fire their cannon as precisely as a rifle.
There's another option: rocket artillery.
Although rocket-artillery platforms are more lightly armored than gun-artillery platforms, and may never move and fire, they have two advantages. One is an increased range of warhead upgrades they may use - incendiary ones, for example, or submunition clusters - and the other is rate of fire. Unlike a gun, which has only one barrel and must be reloaded by the crew after every shot, the rocket-artillery launcher has many barrels and may fire them off in rapid succession. This allows a single vehicle to achieve the courage-sapping effect of a whole battery of guns, and a battery of rocket-artillery platforms creates a terrifying hail of ordnance referred to as "steel rain" by those who have survived it. There are few who can truly make this claim.
The downside is that reloading takes much longer and is more mechanically complex. Hence, unless attended by a supply truck (whoops - I thought I said I wasn't going to bring those in?), a rocket-artillery platform may only fire once every other turn.
See what I'm saying here? The artillery tank is Ordnance (1), but its barrage can be made more precise; the rocket-artillery truck can be Ordnance (6), but is less precise and may only fire once every other turn, unless a resupply crew are on hand to keep them stocked.
There are some regional differences.
The above describes NATO and Asian artillery platforms reasonably well. The Kingdom and the Israelis, for their part, only own guns, extremely limited rocket artillery if they have any (that's the Kingdom, mostly, using cheap, unpredictable but scary home-made missiles). But the Russians are the masters of ordnance, bar none.
Available only to the Russian player is the giant mortar tank, whose main gun is big enough to allow a man to fit his shoulders inside. It's not particularly heavily armored, despite being a short-ranged weapon, but its shells are so massive that it strikes fear into all who hear the eerie ringing sound it makes when fired. (Also, it may take an FCS which allows infantry to spot for it, making it much more accurate.)
They have a gun carrier comparable to the Paladin, this is true, but a more recent invention is a fully automatic artillery cannon - with its twin barrels, each shot from one loads and cocks the other. This makes it rather more cost-effective, in terms of number of shots per point per turn, than a battery of single-barreled, hand-loaded guns.
Russian rocket artillery is also somewhat more advanced: the main rocket platform has many more barrels, and longer range, than NATO's rocket artillery. The standard platform, throwing high-explosive, incendiary or cluster warheads, may fire a limited number of rounds per turn and fire every turn, without resupply, or may fire its maximum number of rounds per turn and fire every other turn. Unfortunately, due to the increased mechanical complexity, this vehicle does not gain from the presence of resupply vehicles. However, the Russians have a second, and in its way more terrifying, rocket artillery vehicle. It fires modified incendiary rounds. Unlike the white-hot phosphorus clusters thrown about by typical incendiaries, this weapon releases a cloud of liquid petrochemical on impact... and milliseconds later, ignites the cloud. It explodes with tremendous heat and force, literally sucking the air out of the lungs of anyone caught nearby who isn't caught in the wall of intense flame it creates.
And, yes, it does benefit from the resupply rule.
---
So! Let us then speak of air power.
Air power comes in several forms - long-range support, close support, and air-superiority.
Close support and air-superiority aircraft, first, may be deployed normally or from reserve; treat these models merely as fast-moving normal unit.
However, there are some restrictions.
First, for calculating ranges, all aircraft should be considered to be half again as far from the ground for weapons that are not explicitly anti-air. For example, a heavy machine gun might have 54" effective range on the table; however, it would not be able to fire on an aircraft until the aircraft was within 36". Keep in mind that most close-support aircraft do have long-range weapons, and you will see that close support aircraft are incredibly deadly... against an enemy who didn't come prepared. (However: any weapon designated "anti-air" may target aircraft normally, whether or not it may engage surface targets. In addition, all aircraft other than helicopters may attempt to engage other aerial targets at maximum range.)
Second, any non-VTOL aircraft must move every turn - they do not have a choice, because failure to move means that the aircraft stalls out and crashes. This minimum move is generally quite long, meaning it's very easy for a conventional aircraft to be forced to either fly off the table (and leave the battlefield) or cross the enemy lines, exposed to ground fire.
Long-range support aircraft are never placed on the battlefield at the start of the game, barring special deployment rules: it is assumed that their great weight and bulk prevents them from operating out of forward air bases, and that they instead require purpose-built runways. (Only two scenarios allow first-turn deployment: Homeland Defense and Blitzkrieg!.) These don't even need to be represented by models - a simple token with an arrow on it will suffice, to show which way it's facing. These enter play from the owner's own table edge, cross the board in a pre-determined pattern, and then retreat.
To use them, the player who owns them secretly writes down the pattern the bomber will attack in, in a predetermined path, including both an initial point and a closing point for the attack, using an ordnance and heavy weapon loadout chosen from the proper army list. Please be aware that heavy bombers, being enormous, tend not to be agile; the maneuver pattern should be as much straight lines or gentle curves as possible. Be reasonable about this; that's all I'm going to say, though.
Anyway, on the turn the bomber arrives, place the token representing its position at your edge of the table. It may not shoot, nor be shot at, at this point; this is merely a warning to your enemy to get prepared, as he surely has radars or spotting scopes capable of picking out the glint of a bomber flying at high altitude.
In your next turn, move the bomber to the initial point of its attack, and reveal the pattern of the bombing run.
Then, on your next turn yet, assuming the bomber hasn't been destroyed, calculate the distance between the initial point and the closing point of the bombing run. Using a number of small markers (such as push-pins) equal to the number of bombs the bomber is carrying, as determined by its loadout, space its attacks evenly. Then place the appropriate blast template over each push-pin and resolve each bomb impact separately.
Please note: because of the altitude at which they fly, heavy bombers may only be attacked by air-superiority craft or by dedicated long-range (100" and up) air defense units. Make note of the direction the bomber is facing, though: once it has officially entered play, any heavy weapons it carries (e.g., machine guns or missile launchers) may fire at air-superiority craft, subject to normal weapon-mount restrictions. That is, a tail-mounted gun may not fire forward. Defensive weapons such as decoys, ECM, active defense systems, etc. should be considered to be deployed automatically, although each will have its own rules relating to what attacks are affected and how.
A note on the difference between close-support and air-superiority aircraft: a number of aircraft are capable of operating in multiple roles. However, the heaviest firepower they carry comes in the form of single-shot weapons: a helicopter gunship may only carry a maximum of sixteen heavy missiles, for example, and only four short-range air defense missiles. (Another note here: helicopters shall be considered equivalent to being on the ground, for purposes of firing at heavy bombers.) Given the limited number of weapon and equipment slots on a given airframe, multi-role aircraft are typically given loadouts that allow them to specialize in one role or another - e.g., anti-armor support OR anti-infantry support OR anti-air defense OR whatever.
The Russians, Alliance, and NATO have both heavy bombers and multi-role aircraft. However, note that (as described above) heavy bombers are clumsy weapons, only useful in the largest battlefields, and very, very expensive. Israel and Iran have only multi-role aircraft and helicopter gunships; the Kingdom has only helicopter gunships.
All factions, however, own aerial transports in the form of helicopters. Some factions have dedicated transport helicopters while others combine transport and gunship in one hull - notably the Alliance and the Kingdom, although to a lesser degree also Iran and (to a much lesser degree) Russia, as these latter two are teching up and integrated gunship-transport helicopters are somewhat of an old and possibly obsolete technology.
Yet More on WoT:TG
Posted 16 years agoArabic Elite choice: Prince Afzal abd-el-Rahman. This somewhat elderly gentleman is a general, and the head of his state's secret police. His marksmanship and skill with hand-to-hand are only slightly better than average. His real advantage comes from being famous, although he is a polarizing figure: all who know of him either love him or fear him, but they all respect his strategic thinking and wisdom. Rumor has it that he meets with notable figures of other factions, including the President of the USA and the Chinese Premier, to play chess. This rumor has never been substantiated.
An army led by Prince Afzal gains a massive bonus to rolls against command rating.
---
...anyway.
Let's talk about armor, shall we?
Russian heavy armor: the front-line vehicles of the Russian army are among the more common ones in the game, as Iran, the Kingdom and the Alliance also use the same models. While they lack the speed and precision of NATO- and Israeli-made tanks, they are solidly built, mechanically simple and easily repaired in the field. Unfortunately for customers of Russian merchandise, though, the Russians keep their best heavy tanks for themselves.
NATO heavy armor: expensive, fast, and decently well-armored. While the basic hull is not as tough as that of the Russian heavy tanks, it may take a wider range of upgrades, including bolt-on armor.
In style, NATO and Russian light armor is similar, although in this case it is the NATO light cavalry vehicle that is tougher and more heavily armed by default and the Russian light cavalry vehicle which has the broader range of upgrades.
Israeli heavy armor: the basic Israeli heavy tank is solidly built, terrifyingly fast, has few weak points, and has the best tank FCS in the game - allowing it to fire on moving aircraft without penalty. However, it is extremely expensive and has a limited range of upgrades (although these do include a range of ammunition types and a defensive weapon capable of shooting down incoming projectiles).
Israel has no light cavalry vehicles in the same range as NATO or Russian light cav, relying instead on old-fashioned, purpose-built battle-taxis. However, the Israelis and NATO share a scout-armor vehicle that can mount a tank-killing gun turret but still remains significantly faster.
The fastest cavalry vehicle, however, belongs to the Kingdom. In the same armor class as the scout-tank described above, but open-topped (and therefore more vulnerable), the Kingdom has up-armored heavy pickup trucks and bolted heavy weapon mounts in the beds to make "technicals". While it may take no FCS, and therefore suffers from poor fire control as well as poor armor, it has quite a wide range of weapons that can be attached to it - including light machine guns, heavy machine guns and rapid-fire cannons (which double as anti-aircraft guns), or even a crew-served recoilless rifle. In addition, up to ten passengers may ride in the back (eight, in case of the recoilless rifle), and may fire their weapons at any target they can see. It is the standard armored support for Martyr's Brigades, as it is inexpensive and can be made out of any suitable vehicle and some scrap metal. Technicals may enter play through infiltration.
New rule: if a vehicle has external weapon mounts, crew, or even passengers, these may be targeted with a -4 modifier to BS. However, it must be declared before rolling to hit. A miss with any non-barrage weapon means that the shot has flown off over the horizon.
However, if a vehicle that is open-topped takes damage, the attacker may choose to re-roll for the result; that said, he MUST abide by the second roll, even if it ends up being less damage than the first.
Also, open-topped vehicles may never ignore attacks based on poor AP characteristics. Instead of the to-wound roll being modified by (Strength - Resilience) and (AP - AV), it is only modified by (Strength - Resilience).
Serious advice here: never use technicals when your enemy has heavy firepower pointed at you. The damn things are AV 10, and a couple of bursts from a heavy machine gun will wreck them.
Oh, right, and let's talk about infantry platoons, now.
---
The basic organization is as follows: five or six men is a section; ten to twelve is a squad; twenty to twenty-five is a platoon; three to five platoons is a company.
The typical NATO squad is armed with assault rifles, which are "rapid fire 3:1", so they allow three attacks per turn at short range, one attack per turn at long range. One member of the squad may carry either a long rifle (rapid fire 1:1 - the bearer may only fire once per turn, once at long range or once at short range, but he hits much harder) or an automatic rifle (assault 4, but only useful at short or medium range).
For additional points, they may choose to have a light machine gun. This is a crew-served weapon requiring two people to operate; it hits as hard as the long rifle, although at shorter range, and at a much higher rate of fire (heavy 4). Because it is too complicated for one person to use alone, the squad may not fire the LMG if it has moved; furthermore, firing the LMG sacrifices the rifle fire not only of the LMG gunner, but also of one other trooper, who should be considered to be his loader.
A heavy machine gun is essentially the same as a light machine gun, but hits much harder, ignores all but the heaviest infantry armor (it's AP 6), has a longer effective range, and requires three people to operate it instead of two. Furthermore, the gunner may never fire a rifle; consider him to be armed only with a personal weapon (e.g., sidearm or submachine gun).
Please note that vehicle-mounted machine guns may be fired by one person, as they do not require any form of setup. Heavy armored vehicles often have one heavy machine gun mounted coaxial to the main ordnance weapon, plus a light machine gun mounted at one of the hatches; this allows the commander of the vehicle to track and fire at lightly-armored targets independently of the gunner.
Next journal: support vehicles and air power.
An army led by Prince Afzal gains a massive bonus to rolls against command rating.
---
...anyway.
Let's talk about armor, shall we?
Russian heavy armor: the front-line vehicles of the Russian army are among the more common ones in the game, as Iran, the Kingdom and the Alliance also use the same models. While they lack the speed and precision of NATO- and Israeli-made tanks, they are solidly built, mechanically simple and easily repaired in the field. Unfortunately for customers of Russian merchandise, though, the Russians keep their best heavy tanks for themselves.
NATO heavy armor: expensive, fast, and decently well-armored. While the basic hull is not as tough as that of the Russian heavy tanks, it may take a wider range of upgrades, including bolt-on armor.
In style, NATO and Russian light armor is similar, although in this case it is the NATO light cavalry vehicle that is tougher and more heavily armed by default and the Russian light cavalry vehicle which has the broader range of upgrades.
Israeli heavy armor: the basic Israeli heavy tank is solidly built, terrifyingly fast, has few weak points, and has the best tank FCS in the game - allowing it to fire on moving aircraft without penalty. However, it is extremely expensive and has a limited range of upgrades (although these do include a range of ammunition types and a defensive weapon capable of shooting down incoming projectiles).
Israel has no light cavalry vehicles in the same range as NATO or Russian light cav, relying instead on old-fashioned, purpose-built battle-taxis. However, the Israelis and NATO share a scout-armor vehicle that can mount a tank-killing gun turret but still remains significantly faster.
The fastest cavalry vehicle, however, belongs to the Kingdom. In the same armor class as the scout-tank described above, but open-topped (and therefore more vulnerable), the Kingdom has up-armored heavy pickup trucks and bolted heavy weapon mounts in the beds to make "technicals". While it may take no FCS, and therefore suffers from poor fire control as well as poor armor, it has quite a wide range of weapons that can be attached to it - including light machine guns, heavy machine guns and rapid-fire cannons (which double as anti-aircraft guns), or even a crew-served recoilless rifle. In addition, up to ten passengers may ride in the back (eight, in case of the recoilless rifle), and may fire their weapons at any target they can see. It is the standard armored support for Martyr's Brigades, as it is inexpensive and can be made out of any suitable vehicle and some scrap metal. Technicals may enter play through infiltration.
New rule: if a vehicle has external weapon mounts, crew, or even passengers, these may be targeted with a -4 modifier to BS. However, it must be declared before rolling to hit. A miss with any non-barrage weapon means that the shot has flown off over the horizon.
However, if a vehicle that is open-topped takes damage, the attacker may choose to re-roll for the result; that said, he MUST abide by the second roll, even if it ends up being less damage than the first.
Also, open-topped vehicles may never ignore attacks based on poor AP characteristics. Instead of the to-wound roll being modified by (Strength - Resilience) and (AP - AV), it is only modified by (Strength - Resilience).
Serious advice here: never use technicals when your enemy has heavy firepower pointed at you. The damn things are AV 10, and a couple of bursts from a heavy machine gun will wreck them.
Oh, right, and let's talk about infantry platoons, now.
---
The basic organization is as follows: five or six men is a section; ten to twelve is a squad; twenty to twenty-five is a platoon; three to five platoons is a company.
The typical NATO squad is armed with assault rifles, which are "rapid fire 3:1", so they allow three attacks per turn at short range, one attack per turn at long range. One member of the squad may carry either a long rifle (rapid fire 1:1 - the bearer may only fire once per turn, once at long range or once at short range, but he hits much harder) or an automatic rifle (assault 4, but only useful at short or medium range).
For additional points, they may choose to have a light machine gun. This is a crew-served weapon requiring two people to operate; it hits as hard as the long rifle, although at shorter range, and at a much higher rate of fire (heavy 4). Because it is too complicated for one person to use alone, the squad may not fire the LMG if it has moved; furthermore, firing the LMG sacrifices the rifle fire not only of the LMG gunner, but also of one other trooper, who should be considered to be his loader.
A heavy machine gun is essentially the same as a light machine gun, but hits much harder, ignores all but the heaviest infantry armor (it's AP 6), has a longer effective range, and requires three people to operate it instead of two. Furthermore, the gunner may never fire a rifle; consider him to be armed only with a personal weapon (e.g., sidearm or submachine gun).
Please note that vehicle-mounted machine guns may be fired by one person, as they do not require any form of setup. Heavy armored vehicles often have one heavy machine gun mounted coaxial to the main ordnance weapon, plus a light machine gun mounted at one of the hatches; this allows the commander of the vehicle to track and fire at lightly-armored targets independently of the gunner.
Next journal: support vehicles and air power.
Notable heroes and elites for WoT:TG
Posted 16 years agoRussian Elite choice: Industrial Mutant. These are men and women whose bodies (and minds) have been warped by a lifetime of exposure to radiation and toxic waste. The changes wrought are unpredictable, but those who grow large and aggressive are recruited for the Army with promises of good food, decent pay and a chance to "smash little baby men". Unfortunately, their temperament is ill-suited to training in any discipline that does not involve said smashing, so while they're very tough, and terrifyingly good at hand-to-hand combat, their ability to actually aim the weapons they wield is quite poor. They typically wield automatic shotguns, although veterans among them may earn the right to wield heavier weapons, such as full-auto grenade launchers or, in one notable case, a converted light howitzer.
Russian Elite choice: War-bears. These are bears with cortical and subcortical brain implants that allow operators to control them remotely. They're just as tough as the mutants, but they are also equipped with internal failsafes: when a war-bear dies, the failsafe device explodes with great force, tearing apart anyone unfortunate enough to be standing nearby, and splattering the landscape with bear parts.
Western Elite choice: Glory Hounds. These are a noteworthy company, skilled at fighting both on foot and mounted. They are renowned, or feared, for their cunning, marksmanship and ruthlessness. They may re-roll misses (but not reflected attacks) in close combat, and when shooting they may choose either to re-roll missed shots at long range, or to fire twice as many shots at short range. However, they must press the attack - they will move automatically to engage the nearest enemy unit.
Western Elite choice: MSgt. Alvin Murphy. Murphy may lead any armor, mounted or infantry unit. While not notably tougher or stronger than any other Sergeant, he is an astoundingly good marksman. Furthermore, his skill with ranged weaponry and his fearlessness allow him to mount any wrecked friendly vehicle and fire any non-ordnance weapon that was not explicitly destroyed.
Israeli Elite choice: Black Widow squad. These men and women are among the best sharpshooters in the world, and may fire on any target regardless of conventional targeting restrictions. Furthermore, no target may claim the protection of cover from them: if they can see you, they can kill you. They may also mount transport helicopters and use them as firing platforms for longer range, although they do so with a -3 modifier on their to-hit rolls. (Ever tried to shoot out of a moving helicopter?)
Israeli Elite choice: Cherry platoon. Almost exclusively male, these soldiers are masters of disguise and infiltration. In fact, they look just like enemy soldiers, and are deployed by the opposing player as his own, before their true identity is revealed. They may never fire on Israeli or allied forces... but any Israeli or allied force has a chance to attack them! (I need to introduce leadership value or command rating or something like that, against which squads would have to roll in order to pick a target other than the closest enemy or apparent enemy.) Cherry soldiers fight with the statline of Israeli veterans, but with the weapons and equipment of whichever army they are disguised as.
Iranian Elite choice: the Summoner. This is a man who has studied the arcane lore that forms the foundation of the secret Iranian energy project. Using the knowledge he has thus gained, he may call forth entities from other planes of existence to do his bidding.
Iranian Elite choice: Extraplanar Being (requires Summoner). These entities are drawn by the Summoner's will from their home planes to the material world. They're typically fairly annoyed by this, and will take out their anger on the first thing they see - which is almost always the Summoner. However, if he succeeds in his attempt to dominate them, they must obey him. Incidentally, most of them are very, very hard to kill, as they lack internal organs as we would understand them; most can claim a degree of invulnerability to all forms of attack except fire. (Fire demons, of course, are not affected, but have other weaknesses.)
Asian Elite choice: Lord Commander Hong. His theory of war suggests that the best way to win is by overwhelming the enemy with manpower, something few armies can afford to do in the age of machine guns and heavy bombers. As a result, armies with Hong as a commander may take an extra three platoons of Conscripts or two platoons of Regulars.
Asian Elite choice: Blade-Fist Troopers. The elite of the Japanese military - and they are exclusively Japanese, and don't get along with the other members of the alliance - wear powered armor that provides the best protection available to any infantry. Their suits are sufficiently bulky that, for purposes of firing heavy weapons (like the ones they carry as standard armament) they count as vehicles, not as infantry. And their suits' powered frame allows them to rip war-bears in half with their gauntlets.
...okay I'm out of inspirations
Russian Elite choice: War-bears. These are bears with cortical and subcortical brain implants that allow operators to control them remotely. They're just as tough as the mutants, but they are also equipped with internal failsafes: when a war-bear dies, the failsafe device explodes with great force, tearing apart anyone unfortunate enough to be standing nearby, and splattering the landscape with bear parts.
Western Elite choice: Glory Hounds. These are a noteworthy company, skilled at fighting both on foot and mounted. They are renowned, or feared, for their cunning, marksmanship and ruthlessness. They may re-roll misses (but not reflected attacks) in close combat, and when shooting they may choose either to re-roll missed shots at long range, or to fire twice as many shots at short range. However, they must press the attack - they will move automatically to engage the nearest enemy unit.
Western Elite choice: MSgt. Alvin Murphy. Murphy may lead any armor, mounted or infantry unit. While not notably tougher or stronger than any other Sergeant, he is an astoundingly good marksman. Furthermore, his skill with ranged weaponry and his fearlessness allow him to mount any wrecked friendly vehicle and fire any non-ordnance weapon that was not explicitly destroyed.
Israeli Elite choice: Black Widow squad. These men and women are among the best sharpshooters in the world, and may fire on any target regardless of conventional targeting restrictions. Furthermore, no target may claim the protection of cover from them: if they can see you, they can kill you. They may also mount transport helicopters and use them as firing platforms for longer range, although they do so with a -3 modifier on their to-hit rolls. (Ever tried to shoot out of a moving helicopter?)
Israeli Elite choice: Cherry platoon. Almost exclusively male, these soldiers are masters of disguise and infiltration. In fact, they look just like enemy soldiers, and are deployed by the opposing player as his own, before their true identity is revealed. They may never fire on Israeli or allied forces... but any Israeli or allied force has a chance to attack them! (I need to introduce leadership value or command rating or something like that, against which squads would have to roll in order to pick a target other than the closest enemy or apparent enemy.) Cherry soldiers fight with the statline of Israeli veterans, but with the weapons and equipment of whichever army they are disguised as.
Iranian Elite choice: the Summoner. This is a man who has studied the arcane lore that forms the foundation of the secret Iranian energy project. Using the knowledge he has thus gained, he may call forth entities from other planes of existence to do his bidding.
Iranian Elite choice: Extraplanar Being (requires Summoner). These entities are drawn by the Summoner's will from their home planes to the material world. They're typically fairly annoyed by this, and will take out their anger on the first thing they see - which is almost always the Summoner. However, if he succeeds in his attempt to dominate them, they must obey him. Incidentally, most of them are very, very hard to kill, as they lack internal organs as we would understand them; most can claim a degree of invulnerability to all forms of attack except fire. (Fire demons, of course, are not affected, but have other weaknesses.)
Asian Elite choice: Lord Commander Hong. His theory of war suggests that the best way to win is by overwhelming the enemy with manpower, something few armies can afford to do in the age of machine guns and heavy bombers. As a result, armies with Hong as a commander may take an extra three platoons of Conscripts or two platoons of Regulars.
Asian Elite choice: Blade-Fist Troopers. The elite of the Japanese military - and they are exclusively Japanese, and don't get along with the other members of the alliance - wear powered armor that provides the best protection available to any infantry. Their suits are sufficiently bulky that, for purposes of firing heavy weapons (like the ones they carry as standard armament) they count as vehicles, not as infantry. And their suits' powered frame allows them to rip war-bears in half with their gauntlets.
...okay I'm out of inspirations
More on "War on Terror: The Game"
Posted 16 years agoI figured attacks would be resolved by rolling a d20 - an icosahedron, for you folks who like maths. Your chance to use one model to attack another - rather, the chance that such an attack will hit is resolved as 1 - (1/skill). So a trooper who has a ballistics skill of 4 will hit, on average, three quarters of the time. However, the lower end of the scale of ballistic skill is not "4, 3, 2, 1, 0", because that would mean a BS of 1 is an automatic miss and a BS of 0 is division by zero. Rather, any model with BS 1 hits by rolling a 16 or higher (without modifiers). A model with BS 0 may never fire a ranged weapon that rolls to hit. So thus the bottom of the scale is really more like "4, 3, 2, 4/3, 1".
Anyway, a model hidden behind trees or bushes or sand dunes or whatever would be able to take protection from cover and concealment (hereafter just referred to as cover), based on the density and complexity of the terrain. Thick bushes or other visually solid objects intervening might apply a -6 modifier to the to-hit roll; tank traps or building corners, -5; woods, -4; rail fencing, -3; etc. However, a natural 20 on the to-hit rolls is an automatic hit. Also, models equipped with certain gear may be able to ignore or reduce the effects of cover. For example, in Twilight conditions, when a Flare gun is fired over the battlefield, attacks made on models within 12" of the Flare receive a +3 modifier to their to-hit rolls. Thermal Imaging gear also allows an attacking model to minimize cover saves in low-light conditions; and certain weapons, such as Ordnance or Incendiary weapons, never allow cover saves in any case.
Rolls to hit in close combat work similarly, except that for each attack, two dice are rolled: one by the attacking player, one by the defender. The attacker rolls to hit based on skill; then the defender rolls, and if the defender's roll is greater than the attacker's roll, the attack fails. If the defender rolls twice the attacker's roll or higher, or rolls a natural 20, the attacker is struck by his own attack! Also, most armor provides even less protection against hand-to-hand attacks than it does against shooting attacks. Special case: powered armor still gets a fairly good armor save against hand-to-hand attacks. A model wearing plate armor can only be saved by a pretty high armor roll, and a model wearing flak armor or no armor may never take a saving roll against close combat attacks. Most models are not very effective at hand-to-hand range, so it is in your interest to avoid this at all costs.
Then for wounding, attacks with special properties notwithstanding, you'd roll Strength against Resilience. Foot soldiers will have a very low Resilience, of course, where monsters will have higher Resilience, and heavy armored vehicles' Resilience will be very high.
For infantry or creature models, compare the Strength of the attack and the Resilience of the target. The difference (Str - Res) is applied as a modifier to the to-wound roll. Hence, a Str 4 attack (a rifle, let's say) on a normal human being (Res 4) will receive no modifiers; a Str 2 attack (a Talon submachine gun) against the same Res 4 individual would have a -2 modifier applied to its to-wound roll.
Then, for the actual roll, the attacker rolls a die. Let's say a trooper with a Talon has fired at another trooper with Resilience 4. Because the Talon is Str 2, a -2 modifier is incurred. The attacker rolls a d20 and adds the modifiers - let us say that the attacker has rolled a 10. Hence, the modifier makes this roll into an 8. Then the defender (owning the target model) rolls a d20. If the defender's roll is higher than the attacker's roll, no wound is applied. Otherwise, a wound is applied. (Makes sense, right?) If a wound is rolled, the defender then rolls for an armor save. However, a natural 20 on a to-wound roll is always an automatic wound, and never allows armor saves.
Most models will have only one or two Wounds, and when these are exhausted, the soldier represented by the model should be thought of as incapacitated or killed. The model should be removed from the game (barring certain special rules).
Of course, armor provides protection against certain attacks, as determined by an armor-piercing rating. For example, if a rifle is fired at a trooper wearing ballistic plates, there's a roughly 1/2 chance for the bullet to bounce. The same is true of a heavy machine-gun round fired at someone in powered armor - and against rifle bullets, powered armor protects against roughly three-quarters of attacks.
In essence: most attacks will have an AP rating, and all body armor has an AV rating. Shrapnel and handgun rounds have an AP of 2, rifles have an AP of 3, and machine guns have an AP of 5. Flak armor has an AV of 4, ballistic plate armor has an AV of 6, and powered armor has an AV of 10. If the AP of an attack is equal to or greater than the AV of the model's body armor, the armor is ignored. Otherwise, the armor save for that model requires merely a saving roll that beats the AP value of the weapon. Close-combat attacks are considered AP 6 unless otherwise specified.
That said: remember, rolling a natural 20 on the to-hit roll is an automatic hit, regardless of all other circumstances, and no saves may ever be rolled for non-vehicle models against a natural 20 on the to-wound roll. (This goes for close combat as well.)
Vehicles are somewhat of a special case, as their hulls tend to provide some protection against attacks that cannot be provided by infantry armor, even the best powered armor. Recall that vehicles have a Resilience rating, just like troops, right? Well, the thing is, most weapons will have to get through the armor before they can roll Str. vs Res. And there are different Armor Values (AV) on different parts of the vehicles.
Let's look at a relatively simple example, an M-113 APC. This is a medium-sized battle-taxi, with a dorsal heavy weapon mount and a hatch for the passengers to fire out of. The thickness of its hull makes it invulnerable to machine-gun fire. However, weapons whose AP is 8 or greater - such as portable autocannons, and nearly all anti-tank weapons - have a chance to do damage. The attacker then rolls to do damage, by comparing the Strength value of the attacking weapon to the Resilience value of the M-113 - but the difference between AP and AV is added to the roll. That means an AP 8 attack against the front of the M-113 suffers a -7 modifier, making it considerably less likely to actually do damage. If, however, the APC's front armor were hit by a hypervelocity gun - AP 20 - the damage roll would receive a +5 modifier.
Damage to a vehicle is handled differently, as well. Instead of taking Wounds, if a damaging hit is inflicted, the attacker rolls a d6 to see what happens.
1: Nothing happens. The shot passes through the hull but fails to do any damage.
2: The crew is stunned by the attack. The vehicle may not move or fire any weapons during the next turn.
3-4: Critical internal systems take damage. On a 3, the owner chooses which one; on a 4, the attacker chooses.
5: Critical internal systems fail completely. The vehicle must be abandoned, and will remain more-or-less in place until the end of the game. If the crew can dismount, they do so, and remain on foot until the end of the game.
6: Critical internal systems fail catastrophically. At this point, you should flip a coin. If it comes up tails, the vehicle has become a firestorm. Anyone near it, as well as any crew members attempting to escape, take a Strength 4, AP 5 hit (fire ignores body armor), and this hazard remains until the end of the game. Furthermore, it counts as a Flare and defeats cover saves. If the coin comes up heads, the vehicle is annihilated in a massive explosion - nobody gets out alive, and anyone standing next to it is shredded instantly. Remove the vehicle from the board; if possible, replace it with a crater or other marker to indicate broken ground.
Due to the great bulk of armored vehicles, their cover saves are limited to anything that obscures at least half of the hull.
Let's see... what am I missing?
Oh yeah. Umm. Portable weapons come in three different categories: Assault, Rapid-Fire and Heavy. Assault weapons may always be fired; Rapid-Fire weapons fire fewer shots to full range, or the same number at half-range, when their bearers have moved in their turn's movement phase; and Heavy weapons may not be fired at all if their bearers have moved (barring special rules). If the models have run, no weapons may be fired.
On vehicles, though, Heavy weapons may always fire - if the vehicle has moved, treat the Heavy weapon as a Rapid-Fire weapon. In addition, vehicles can carry the largest class of weapons, called Ordnance. By default, Ordnance weapons cannot be fired in the same turn that the vehicle has moved, because they require careful aiming due to their relatively scarce ammunition. However, if the vehicle has an FCS (fire-control system), it may move and fire, including Ordnance weapons. The FCS also adds a +3 modifier to to-hit rolls using the Ordnance weapon or coaxial weapons, so it's probably worth the points.
Some Ordnance weapons can also be served by infantry crews, but these guns are immobile - they're simply too big to be manhandled. An FCS in this case simply improves the accuracy of the weapon. Treat these guns as vehicle models with Res 6, AV 4 for purposes of being shot at; a "Crew stunned" result means the gun may not be fired that turn because the crew have taken cover from the incoming fire. Any roll greater than 2 on the damage table means the gun is destroyed.
Such a gun requires that there be at least two crew members to fire it; if the crew is reduced to one model plus the gun itself, consider the gun destroyed and let the trooper fight on independently from it.
Anyway, a model hidden behind trees or bushes or sand dunes or whatever would be able to take protection from cover and concealment (hereafter just referred to as cover), based on the density and complexity of the terrain. Thick bushes or other visually solid objects intervening might apply a -6 modifier to the to-hit roll; tank traps or building corners, -5; woods, -4; rail fencing, -3; etc. However, a natural 20 on the to-hit rolls is an automatic hit. Also, models equipped with certain gear may be able to ignore or reduce the effects of cover. For example, in Twilight conditions, when a Flare gun is fired over the battlefield, attacks made on models within 12" of the Flare receive a +3 modifier to their to-hit rolls. Thermal Imaging gear also allows an attacking model to minimize cover saves in low-light conditions; and certain weapons, such as Ordnance or Incendiary weapons, never allow cover saves in any case.
Rolls to hit in close combat work similarly, except that for each attack, two dice are rolled: one by the attacking player, one by the defender. The attacker rolls to hit based on skill; then the defender rolls, and if the defender's roll is greater than the attacker's roll, the attack fails. If the defender rolls twice the attacker's roll or higher, or rolls a natural 20, the attacker is struck by his own attack! Also, most armor provides even less protection against hand-to-hand attacks than it does against shooting attacks. Special case: powered armor still gets a fairly good armor save against hand-to-hand attacks. A model wearing plate armor can only be saved by a pretty high armor roll, and a model wearing flak armor or no armor may never take a saving roll against close combat attacks. Most models are not very effective at hand-to-hand range, so it is in your interest to avoid this at all costs.
Then for wounding, attacks with special properties notwithstanding, you'd roll Strength against Resilience. Foot soldiers will have a very low Resilience, of course, where monsters will have higher Resilience, and heavy armored vehicles' Resilience will be very high.
For infantry or creature models, compare the Strength of the attack and the Resilience of the target. The difference (Str - Res) is applied as a modifier to the to-wound roll. Hence, a Str 4 attack (a rifle, let's say) on a normal human being (Res 4) will receive no modifiers; a Str 2 attack (a Talon submachine gun) against the same Res 4 individual would have a -2 modifier applied to its to-wound roll.
Then, for the actual roll, the attacker rolls a die. Let's say a trooper with a Talon has fired at another trooper with Resilience 4. Because the Talon is Str 2, a -2 modifier is incurred. The attacker rolls a d20 and adds the modifiers - let us say that the attacker has rolled a 10. Hence, the modifier makes this roll into an 8. Then the defender (owning the target model) rolls a d20. If the defender's roll is higher than the attacker's roll, no wound is applied. Otherwise, a wound is applied. (Makes sense, right?) If a wound is rolled, the defender then rolls for an armor save. However, a natural 20 on a to-wound roll is always an automatic wound, and never allows armor saves.
Most models will have only one or two Wounds, and when these are exhausted, the soldier represented by the model should be thought of as incapacitated or killed. The model should be removed from the game (barring certain special rules).
Of course, armor provides protection against certain attacks, as determined by an armor-piercing rating. For example, if a rifle is fired at a trooper wearing ballistic plates, there's a roughly 1/2 chance for the bullet to bounce. The same is true of a heavy machine-gun round fired at someone in powered armor - and against rifle bullets, powered armor protects against roughly three-quarters of attacks.
In essence: most attacks will have an AP rating, and all body armor has an AV rating. Shrapnel and handgun rounds have an AP of 2, rifles have an AP of 3, and machine guns have an AP of 5. Flak armor has an AV of 4, ballistic plate armor has an AV of 6, and powered armor has an AV of 10. If the AP of an attack is equal to or greater than the AV of the model's body armor, the armor is ignored. Otherwise, the armor save for that model requires merely a saving roll that beats the AP value of the weapon. Close-combat attacks are considered AP 6 unless otherwise specified.
That said: remember, rolling a natural 20 on the to-hit roll is an automatic hit, regardless of all other circumstances, and no saves may ever be rolled for non-vehicle models against a natural 20 on the to-wound roll. (This goes for close combat as well.)
Vehicles are somewhat of a special case, as their hulls tend to provide some protection against attacks that cannot be provided by infantry armor, even the best powered armor. Recall that vehicles have a Resilience rating, just like troops, right? Well, the thing is, most weapons will have to get through the armor before they can roll Str. vs Res. And there are different Armor Values (AV) on different parts of the vehicles.
Let's look at a relatively simple example, an M-113 APC. This is a medium-sized battle-taxi, with a dorsal heavy weapon mount and a hatch for the passengers to fire out of. The thickness of its hull makes it invulnerable to machine-gun fire. However, weapons whose AP is 8 or greater - such as portable autocannons, and nearly all anti-tank weapons - have a chance to do damage. The attacker then rolls to do damage, by comparing the Strength value of the attacking weapon to the Resilience value of the M-113 - but the difference between AP and AV is added to the roll. That means an AP 8 attack against the front of the M-113 suffers a -7 modifier, making it considerably less likely to actually do damage. If, however, the APC's front armor were hit by a hypervelocity gun - AP 20 - the damage roll would receive a +5 modifier.
Damage to a vehicle is handled differently, as well. Instead of taking Wounds, if a damaging hit is inflicted, the attacker rolls a d6 to see what happens.
1: Nothing happens. The shot passes through the hull but fails to do any damage.
2: The crew is stunned by the attack. The vehicle may not move or fire any weapons during the next turn.
3-4: Critical internal systems take damage. On a 3, the owner chooses which one; on a 4, the attacker chooses.
5: Critical internal systems fail completely. The vehicle must be abandoned, and will remain more-or-less in place until the end of the game. If the crew can dismount, they do so, and remain on foot until the end of the game.
6: Critical internal systems fail catastrophically. At this point, you should flip a coin. If it comes up tails, the vehicle has become a firestorm. Anyone near it, as well as any crew members attempting to escape, take a Strength 4, AP 5 hit (fire ignores body armor), and this hazard remains until the end of the game. Furthermore, it counts as a Flare and defeats cover saves. If the coin comes up heads, the vehicle is annihilated in a massive explosion - nobody gets out alive, and anyone standing next to it is shredded instantly. Remove the vehicle from the board; if possible, replace it with a crater or other marker to indicate broken ground.
Due to the great bulk of armored vehicles, their cover saves are limited to anything that obscures at least half of the hull.
Let's see... what am I missing?
Oh yeah. Umm. Portable weapons come in three different categories: Assault, Rapid-Fire and Heavy. Assault weapons may always be fired; Rapid-Fire weapons fire fewer shots to full range, or the same number at half-range, when their bearers have moved in their turn's movement phase; and Heavy weapons may not be fired at all if their bearers have moved (barring special rules). If the models have run, no weapons may be fired.
On vehicles, though, Heavy weapons may always fire - if the vehicle has moved, treat the Heavy weapon as a Rapid-Fire weapon. In addition, vehicles can carry the largest class of weapons, called Ordnance. By default, Ordnance weapons cannot be fired in the same turn that the vehicle has moved, because they require careful aiming due to their relatively scarce ammunition. However, if the vehicle has an FCS (fire-control system), it may move and fire, including Ordnance weapons. The FCS also adds a +3 modifier to to-hit rolls using the Ordnance weapon or coaxial weapons, so it's probably worth the points.
Some Ordnance weapons can also be served by infantry crews, but these guns are immobile - they're simply too big to be manhandled. An FCS in this case simply improves the accuracy of the weapon. Treat these guns as vehicle models with Res 6, AV 4 for purposes of being shot at; a "Crew stunned" result means the gun may not be fired that turn because the crew have taken cover from the incoming fire. Any roll greater than 2 on the damage table means the gun is destroyed.
Such a gun requires that there be at least two crew members to fire it; if the crew is reduced to one model plus the gun itself, consider the gun destroyed and let the trooper fight on independently from it.
An alternative tabletop wargame.
Posted 16 years agoI'm not gonna lie, I really do like Warhammer 40k. I would play more if not for the fact that I suck at painting, and that mental inertia has kept me from assembling most of the models in the first place. Oh, and I'm unemployed, so I don't feel like I can go and get more tools to help me build models.
Anyway, someone on /tg/ challenged readers to come up with a new tabletop wargame. He said as follows:
"...Your task at hand: create a game that will compete with Warhammer 40k and Warmachine. The company's strategy is to make the game cheaper to get into, via less expensive minis. YOU, however, have to create the game's setting, come up with concepts for each of the armies and how they'll play.
In addition, the company is very firm on one point: to avoid being called a clone of either of the two games that are out there, you are not allowed to create a setting that is primarily GRIMDARK or STEAMPUNK.
So what do you do, /tg/?"
And I homebrewed a concept. I thought: you know, our "global war on terror" is such a caricature of itself, why don't we make it into a game?
It's like this.
Several different factions are vying for... well, different things. The West is looking to extend its influence over the entire globe to "make it safe for democracy". So is the Asian Alliance, would-be captains of global industry, who enter play in the form of the combined force of the Indian, Chinese, Korean and Japanese military forces. Meanwhile, the Iranians are working on some project that will either provide the world with a limitless supply of nearly-free energy or destroy the world. The Kingdom of Arabia is a lawful evil theocracy dedicated to spreading its religion and system of government over the entire globe, by any means. The Russians are tired of everyone else bothering them and have decided to stick it to anyone who might be a threat, and stick it good. And the Israelis are caught between the Russians, the Arabians, and Iran; while they're friendly with the West and the Asian Alliance, they still fear for their survival.
Epic Battle in the 21st Century! etc., etc.
So, the play styles?
Arabia has superb infiltration tactics, fearless and highly aggressive if unskilled attackers ("Martyrs' brigades"), etc. Their line troops are only modestly effective, but that's why you have to back them up with the fanatics, reinforce their dedication with clerics, or lead them with a courageous Prince. Low-cost army, hard to play right but effective if you know what you're doing.
Iran uses a mixture of modern tech and magic - you know, rifle platoons with a couple of heavy weapons apiece, a couple of heavy tanks, oh and by the way, sorcerers and demons. Comparable to the West in terms of its line troops and armor, specialized in air defense and anti-tank.
Asian Alliance: lots of low-cost, low-effectiveness troops and heavy support. They fight by gathering their forces into a wall and simply rolling forward, hoping to defeat their enemies through attrition. However, their elites are super-fucking-elite. They can take power armor, which makes them effectively bulletproof - not to mention faster, stronger, more heavily armed, and more accurate.
The West: middle-of-the-line troops and front-line heavy support. However, their long-range fire support is second to none and they're good at maneuvering: they can often enter the battlefield from several different directions.
Russia: its line troops are similar to those of the Asian Alliance - generally conscripts - but their front-line heavy support is insane. We're talking tanks with gun barrels you could easily fit your shoulders into, fully automatic artillery cannons in calibers 120mm and up, and rocket artillery capable of rapid fire and loading a wide variety of warheads. In essence, ANYTHING BIGGER THAN RIFLE IS BLAST WEAPON, YES? Their specialty, predictably enough, is heavy ordnance.
Israel: focused on short-range, absolutely brutal hit-and-run attacks. Their line troops are expensive, and comparable to hardened veterans of other factions. However, their elites tend not to be game-breaking because they're only slightly more powerful than the elites of other factions, and they tend to specialize. Their close-support air power is comparable to that of the West.
---
So, tell me. Would you play this game?
Anyway, someone on /tg/ challenged readers to come up with a new tabletop wargame. He said as follows:
"...Your task at hand: create a game that will compete with Warhammer 40k and Warmachine. The company's strategy is to make the game cheaper to get into, via less expensive minis. YOU, however, have to create the game's setting, come up with concepts for each of the armies and how they'll play.
In addition, the company is very firm on one point: to avoid being called a clone of either of the two games that are out there, you are not allowed to create a setting that is primarily GRIMDARK or STEAMPUNK.
So what do you do, /tg/?"
And I homebrewed a concept. I thought: you know, our "global war on terror" is such a caricature of itself, why don't we make it into a game?
It's like this.
Several different factions are vying for... well, different things. The West is looking to extend its influence over the entire globe to "make it safe for democracy". So is the Asian Alliance, would-be captains of global industry, who enter play in the form of the combined force of the Indian, Chinese, Korean and Japanese military forces. Meanwhile, the Iranians are working on some project that will either provide the world with a limitless supply of nearly-free energy or destroy the world. The Kingdom of Arabia is a lawful evil theocracy dedicated to spreading its religion and system of government over the entire globe, by any means. The Russians are tired of everyone else bothering them and have decided to stick it to anyone who might be a threat, and stick it good. And the Israelis are caught between the Russians, the Arabians, and Iran; while they're friendly with the West and the Asian Alliance, they still fear for their survival.
Epic Battle in the 21st Century! etc., etc.
So, the play styles?
Arabia has superb infiltration tactics, fearless and highly aggressive if unskilled attackers ("Martyrs' brigades"), etc. Their line troops are only modestly effective, but that's why you have to back them up with the fanatics, reinforce their dedication with clerics, or lead them with a courageous Prince. Low-cost army, hard to play right but effective if you know what you're doing.
Iran uses a mixture of modern tech and magic - you know, rifle platoons with a couple of heavy weapons apiece, a couple of heavy tanks, oh and by the way, sorcerers and demons. Comparable to the West in terms of its line troops and armor, specialized in air defense and anti-tank.
Asian Alliance: lots of low-cost, low-effectiveness troops and heavy support. They fight by gathering their forces into a wall and simply rolling forward, hoping to defeat their enemies through attrition. However, their elites are super-fucking-elite. They can take power armor, which makes them effectively bulletproof - not to mention faster, stronger, more heavily armed, and more accurate.
The West: middle-of-the-line troops and front-line heavy support. However, their long-range fire support is second to none and they're good at maneuvering: they can often enter the battlefield from several different directions.
Russia: its line troops are similar to those of the Asian Alliance - generally conscripts - but their front-line heavy support is insane. We're talking tanks with gun barrels you could easily fit your shoulders into, fully automatic artillery cannons in calibers 120mm and up, and rocket artillery capable of rapid fire and loading a wide variety of warheads. In essence, ANYTHING BIGGER THAN RIFLE IS BLAST WEAPON, YES? Their specialty, predictably enough, is heavy ordnance.
Israel: focused on short-range, absolutely brutal hit-and-run attacks. Their line troops are expensive, and comparable to hardened veterans of other factions. However, their elites tend not to be game-breaking because they're only slightly more powerful than the elites of other factions, and they tend to specialize. Their close-support air power is comparable to that of the West.
---
So, tell me. Would you play this game?
75 journals skipped
