Hello to everyone. I just received my set of rules yesterday, and started going through them. Guess what? First question I had was about passing. The next thing I did was check this group, and there was a question on passing. Funny, isn't it?

While mulling this over, I saw one big problem. What if I passed, and passed, and passed, until my opponent had no more companies left? Then I could move all my units as I saw fit. Not really sporting, I think. Reading the post here - allowing only one pass - seems quite reasonable. As an alternative I suggest stealing from Disposable Heroes. In that game, you can't actually "pass" , but you can just activate a unit and do nothing with it. We can do the same here. Effectively, it's either use it or lose it (for that turn at least). This should minimize the incessant passers. Thoughts?

Steve N

--- In tankwreck_game@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Whitehouse" <dave@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tankwreck_game@yahoogroups.com, "vanders9" <vandering@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tankwreck_game@yahoogroups.com, "Chris & Lisa" <clloyd@> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Just got my Tankwreck rules today (thanks Martin), and am having a
> > > first read through, and have the following question, re 
> > initiative ....
> > > with the whole passing thing, it would seem possible, for both 
> > players
> > > to be waiting for the other to do something, so pass ... pass ... 
> > pass
> > > ... pass ... pass etc etc etc, seems possible/plausible, how is 
> > this
> > > resolved, as the turn repeats 'from 2 above until all companies 
> > have
> > > moved and fired.' ... most other systems I knwo of (including some
> > > boardgames), usually say a turn finishes if a pass ... pass, from 
> > both
> > > players takes place??? comments please? ;)
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Heh...yes this is a logical disconnect! I would suggest not 
> > allowing someone to pass after someone else has passed, and 
> > insisting upon not being able to pass twice in a row.
> > Or alternately forget the pass rule. It was a bit of a mistake 
> > including it.
> > 
> > Martin Bourne
> >
> Welcome.
> It just shows that you really do need scenario type gaming to make 
> the rules work. Usually in modern warfare its attack/defence battles 
> and that mostly means one side is "On the clock" trying to complete 
> his objectives in a certain time.
> We found as soon as we played this type of game with specific 
> time/objective requirements the whole game changed. If you have time 
> to pass your opponent is not fighting hard enough!
> Dave W
>