Ares Games
Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: Engine damege and Jammed guns and a few other Special damage questions.

  1. #1

    Default Engine damege and Jammed guns and a few other Special damage questions.

    Guys i need help with the following questions, because even the new rulebook is pretty vague:

    1. Multi engine aircraft and Engine Damage.
    I draw randomly from a set of two counters marked 1 and 2. I keep the physical counter drawn (secret). Then i get another hit. Again, i need to draw from two counters. Since one was drawn and kept, do i need an extra set of two for that? Then i get another hit (i suppose i have drawn 1 and 1, so i am not down yet) ...

    2. I have my guns jammed and i get a pilot wounded. How do i deal with the 3 turns / 4 turns rule in this case. Do i just instantly get one extra Jam token? That may be logical ...

    3. Do i get it right that when i receive a Fire damage while in the middle of Immelmann Turn, i can legally execute the final straight with no penalty?

    4. If i am on fire and i am a cunning type and willingly plan a Straight:
    a. am i a bad man, nobody wants to play with me any more, and i shall get expelled from the game room OR
    b. do i get just an 'A' damage (because the replacement is another Straight).

    5. When i am on fire and i do an illegal manoeuvrer - two steeps in a row - is the replacement a Straight?

    I may add some questions as i run into them
    Last edited by Honza; 05-08-2020 at 08:16.

  2. #2

    Default

    I'll have a go for you Jan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    1. Multi engine aircraft and Engine Damage.
    I draw randomly from a set of two counters marked 1 and 2. I keep the physical counter drawn (secret). Then i get another hit. Again, i need to draw from two counters. Since one was drawn and kept, do i need an extra set of two for that? Then i get another hit (i suppose i have drawn 1 and 1, so i am not down yet) ...
    You use a set of two counters marked 1 and 2 each time Jan - you get 10 with the Staaken & 8 with the HP O/400 which should be enough. (similar in FotG) Staaken downed on 5 eng damage, HP on 3.

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    2. I have my guns jammed and i get a pilot wounded. How do i deal with the 3 turns / 4 turns rule in this case. Do i just instantly get one extra Jam token? That may be logical ...
    This is how I play it, a wound has immediate effect on shooting so why not on clearing a gun jam ? Others may disagree but if I recall correctly the rules do not specify.

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    3. Do i get it right that when i receive a Fire damage while in the middle of Immelmann Turn, i can legally execute the final straight with no penalty?
    You're correct if the final straight is the last card or within the turn being played when the damage is received. If the straight is the first card of the next turn then you have a problem !
    You get an A damage for the straight after the Immelmann as it is illegal to do so when on fire; as it is the first card of the next turn you will also already have received an A card in exchange for a fire token as well.
    (Andrea's clear that his intent (and preference) was that if you did a straight (planned or mandatory) when on fire then your aircraft would be destroyed (as per an "illegal" move in original game) but Ares wished the straight/A card option which is what they went with in the rules (destruction now being an optional rule..)
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...Immelmann-Turn


    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    4. If i am on fire and i am a cunning type and willingly plan a Straight:
    a. am i a bad man, nobody wants to play with me any more, and i shall get expelled from the game room OR
    b. do i get just an 'A' damage (because the replacement is another Straight).
    Rules clearly state you cannot plan straights so to do so to gain an advantage would be cheating would it not ?
    But yes you would get repeated A damage each time you did it (or eliminate you if the optional rule is in use).
    If you have rudder damage both ways you have little choice though - Andrea says "...If you have the rudder jammed in both direction, plan stalls or dives or climbs as much as you can (they are not straights). And then illegal moves: plan straights, or left/right cards - no matter which you will plan, they will be replaced with straights and inflict an A card of damage (or eliminate you if the optional rule is in use)."
    Mandatory straights after the Immel would also apply.
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...jammer-rudders


    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    5. When i am on fire and i do an illegal manoeuvrer - two steeps in a row - is the replacement a Straight?
    That's what the book says - I have seen it played that you get an A card for the two steeps then an A card for the straight when on fire but that's more a punishment for not paying attention !
    Last edited by flash; 05-08-2020 at 09:56.

    "He is wise who watches"

  3. #3

    Default

    A was just talking to Andrea

    2. I have my guns jammed and i get a pilot wounded. How do i deal with the 3 turns / 4 turns rule in this case. Do i just instantly get one extra Jam token? That may be logical ...
    Keep it 3.

    Andrea: We play that since you already got the three counters, you just keep them. Actually, it’s in the rule even if not so 100% evident: “if the guns become jammed”, says the rulebook, not if the machineguns were already jammed from before.

    3. Do i get it right that when i receive a Fire damage while in the middle of Immelmann Turn, i can legally execute the final straight with no penalty?
    No penalty.

    4. If i am on fire and i am a cunning type and willingly plan a Straight:
    a. am i a bad man, nobody wants to play with me any more, and i shall get expelled from the game room OR
    b. do i get just an 'A' damage (because the replacement is another Straight).
    b. is correct. You can willingly plan straights when on fire, but you will be penalized by 'A's. Now that's something, i really like it. This implements the push-your-own-luck element to the game.

    me: All right, so when i am on fire, i can plan straights, but i will be penalized by 'A' damages right? I can do it on my own risk.
    Andrea: Yes!



    5. When i am on fire and i do an illegal manoeuvrer - two steeps in a row - is the replacement a Straight?
    Straight + 'A'.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-08-2020 at 08:57.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    Do i get it right that when i receive a Fire damage while in the middle of Immelmann Turn, i can legally execute the final straight with no penalty?

    No penalty.
    Makes sense to me. It should be treated the same whether the Immelmann card is the 1st, 2nd or 3rd card. I wasn't comfortable with a player getting the 'A' card simply because they had an Immelmann card as the 3rd card.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    A was just talking to Andrea
    b. is correct. You can willingly plan straights when on fire, but you will be penalized by 'A's. Now that's something, i really like it. This implements the push-your-own-luck element to the game.
    me: All right, so when i am on fire, i can plan straights, but i will be penalized by 'A' damages right? I can do it on my own risk.
    Andrea: Yes!
    Useful info Jan - though to me Andrea has contradicted the printed rules which state you cannot plan straights when on fire !
    I'd want clarification he was saying yes to planning straights and not just to being penalized by 'A' damages before that's adopted.
    It will also require an update of the printed rules if that's the way Ares take this.

    "He is wise who watches"

  6. #6

    Default

    Actually, his approach is coherent with sorting the paradoxes like double jammed rudder while on fire, and penalizing the illegal maneuvers while on fire - by Straight, which is illegal, and "A". I recommended using the term "Penalized" instead "Illegal" nex time they release rulkes, because using "Illegal" is confusing in this context. He thanked for that suggestion.

    me: If i am on fire, the straights are illegal. Is planning of straights completely illegal or just penalized by As (as the replacement is also a straight) .
    Andrea: Unless you are an ace with the skill to do sonething else after an Immelmann... you can choose:
    A) plan a straight, that’s illegal because of the fire. Replace it with a... straight and take an A damage (or be eliminated if rule at page 18 is in use). plan anything else, that’s illegal because of the Immelmann. Replace it with a
    straight and take an A damage (or be eliminated if rule at page 18 is in use).
    So you can choose but... effects are identical!!!
    Last edited by Honza; 05-08-2020 at 10:44.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    Actually, his approach is coherent with sorting the paradoxes like double jammed rudder while on fire, and penalizing the illegal maneuvers while on fire - by Straight, which is illegal, and "A". I recommended using the term "Penalized" instead "Illegal" nex time they release rulkes, because using "Illegal" is confusing in this context. He thanked for that suggestion.

    me: If i am on fire, the straights are illegal. Is planning of straights completely illegal or just penalized by As (as the replacement is also a straight) .
    Andrea: Unless you are an ace with the skill to do sonething else after an Immelmann... you can choose:
    A) plan a straight, that’s illegal because of the fire. Replace it with a... straight and take an A damage (or be eliminated if rule at page 18 is in use). plan anything else, that’s illegal because of the Immelmann. Replace it with a
    straight and take an A damage (or be eliminated if rule at page 18 is in use).
    So you can choose but... effects are identical!!!
    I find this confusing - you're asking about planning straights when on fire - Andrea has replied in the context of planning straights when on fire during the Immelmann. Slightly different scenarios as the straight after an Immelmann is mandatory/forced manoeuvre rather than a planned one when just on fire. It's been long established with him you get a penalty on the straight if it's in the next game turn, not in the same turn, and the penalty looks to be reinforced here, although it seems to contradict the first response you got from him. This is just muddying the waters.

    "He is wise who watches"

  8. #8

    Default

    It's been long established with him you get a penalty on the straight if it's in the next game turn,
    Dave that doesn't make sense to me. Why penalty on the next turn and no penalty on the same turn. The Immelmann has been planned, it doesn't matter if it spreads over two turns. It has been planned.

    We can send him a questionnaire.

    Or ... i think i can bother him once again. If you give me a straight question, i will ask him that.

  9. #9

    Default

    The rules state simply 'the airplane on fire cannot plan any straight manoeuvre' - we all know that.
    Years ago we argued that when the Immel was split over a turn the second straight was mandatory not planned, ie you had no choice but to do it, and that should not be penalised (as you are saying now). When clarification was sought from Andrea he stated mandatory, or, not it was penalised same as a planned manoeuvre. I guess because when you planned the move you had to plan to do the second straight in the next game turn.
    If you were just on fire you would not be penalised in the turn you caught fire but you would be penalised in the first phase of the next turn if you planned a straight - so why should the Immel situation be any different ?
    If you have rudder damage both ways then you may no choice but to plan at least one straight when on fire & take the A damage for that.

    It will take a while to formulate a question that covers all the circumstances - again - seems awkward to have to go over old ground where clarification had already been sought and given years ago. These answers from him have been in the FAQ for years.

    "He is wise who watches"

  10. #10

    Default

    Yeah, i feel awkward now. My intention wasn't to rebel against the FAQ. I just bumped into the paradox of illegal maneuvers being penalized by illegal maneuvers. I didn't find the answer and so i asked Andrea, and suddenly i realized the whole concept may stand on clay feet.

    The core problem is, Andrea came up with a simple concept - you make an illegal maneuver - boom, you are dead. That is how it was in the old rules. Simple and clean, no room for questions. Then Ares changed to to - you make an illegal maneuver - you will get penalized. And they wrote the new rulebook without thinking it through. Because this one is by far not that simple, you have to deal with special cases here.

    It is illegal to make two steep maneuvers in a row, you cannot do it - but there is penalty if you do it.
    It is illegal to plan straights when you are on fire. Is there a penalty? Is it a straight?
    Is it illegal to plan straights when you must plan a straight. What is the penalty? A straight?

    I will confront Andrea with the 'the airplane on fire cannot plan any straight manoeuvre'. I can't see any better question.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-09-2020 at 00:22.

  11. #11

    Default

    Me: The new rules say on page 12: "the airplane on fire cannot plan any straight manoeuvre".
    So let me rephrase my yesterday's question - Can i willingly plan a Straight maneuver when i am on fire?

    Andrea: You should not. But of course you can physically place a straight card among the planned ones. If you do, you are punished as by the illegal maneuvre rule.


    Well, now we have "should not".

  12. #12

    Default

    Me: Andrea do you sometimes willingly plan straights when you are on fire, when you play the game? I am asking to understand if it is forbidden or just a calculated risk.
    ... or even better - would it be cheating or a calculated risk? That is what we need to know

    Andrea: It’s forbidden. But since there is a rule to manage forbidden maneuvres, in the end you can do that anyway and pay the price for it. Actually, you have to plan a maneuvre and it will be illegal anyway.
    As a designer, I had care that consequences are the same, in this situation, if you plan a straight or not - in both cases you take an A and do a straight. So people can go on playing without quarreling about the fact that one should have planned a straight instead that something else because of the Immelmann, or sonething else instead than a straight because of the fire. Every maneuver is forbidden for one reason or the other, you have to plan one and you have to pay the penalty.
    As a player, I then plan any card - straight or not, light-hearthedly since consequences are all the same.
    The only relevant case is of an ace using an acrobatic pilot skill. In this case, a non-straight maneuvre is allowed. Can a player plan willingly a straight maneuver even if on fire and then pay the price for that? Since there is a rule with a penalty, I would say yes - there is a correction and a damage to be taken. The tuke says thhat this happens if an illegal maneuvre is revealed, not only if a player willingly planned it. If people do not like that, just adopt the optional rule that illegal maneuvres are paid with elimination and nobody will do that.


    That means you can willingly plan straights while on fire, you are just gonna be penalized. I personally like it because it cleans up some of the above described situations and it brings more tactics to the game.
    Or there is always the kaboom rule ...
    Last edited by Honza; 05-09-2020 at 01:20.

  13. #13

    Default

    Now he says it is forbidden to plan straights when on fire and that you can plan straights when on fire in the same paragraph
    The concept in place that you cannot plan straights unless/until you have no choice but to do so is the way to play this.
    It's about the effect of fire on your planning options not about the penalty for illegal moves. His contradicting previous clarifications just confuses things.

    "He is wise who watches"

  14. #14

    Default

    His "forbidden" means if you do it, you will be punished. I am afraid it is a bad choice of wording here. The concept is completely is fine. If you are on aircraft that is on fire, you can go straight on your own risk, but you may burn dow. It is not forbidden to go straight, it is just very dangerous. They should change the terms they are using.

  15. #15

    Default

    Actually it is not even such a big twist. The 'A's you are getting from the fire itself and the 'A's you get for risking to plan straights will most likely take you down anyway.

    I agree it's messy.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    His "forbidden" means if you do it, you will be punished. I am afraid it is a bad choice of wording here. The concept is completely is fine. If you are on aircraft that is on fire, you can go straight on your own risk, but you may burn dow. It is not forbidden to go straight, it is just very dangerous. They should change the terms they are using.
    So what does 'the airplane on fire cannot plan any straight manoeuvre' actually mean then ??

    We know it's not forbidden to play straights as you have to play straights sometimes due to the situation, ie straight after the immel, jammed rudders etc. This has been long established & that's what gets penalised.
    What's being said here is you can plan to play straights - That's totally at odds with the the rules as written and Andrea's previous clarifications.

    "He is wise who watches"

  17. #17

    Default

    You cannot plan a straight but can plan a straight? Not a lot of help to clear it up. Maybe it should just say if a straight is planned there is a penalty.

  18. #18

    Default

    So what does 'the airplane on fire cannot plan any straight manoeuvre' actually mean then ??
    It means what it says, it is clear, and it is in straight contradiction to what Andrea said (*). Andrea sees it differently though ("you shouldn't"). So what we have now, is the rulebook way and Andrea's way of doing it.

    I personally think, they left it in the rulebook (it is not a great rulebook anyway, is it?) from the previous edition without thinking it through. And so they created situations like punishing illegal by illegal + A.

    Here is the way of playing Immelmann Turn by the book while on Fire = no straights.

    Your last maneuver was a Stall. You plan Stall > Immelmann > Turn
    The second Stall in the row will become Straight + A, then Immelmann (perfectly legal), and then Turn. The Turn cannot be after Immelmann so you get Straight +A.
    Oops, you performed the Immelmann Turn. This is a way around it, but not cheating i would say.

    So why not make it easy and go Andrea's way.

    *EDIT: It is not, see below.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-10-2020 at 01:34.

  19. #19

    Default

    i suspect their might be a translation issue with the rules between italian/english. perhaps the connotations of the italian wording arent as absolute as the english translation. it always struck me as odd that by the rules an aircraft couldnt do a straight even though there was nothing physically stopping it from doing so. just because you shouldnt do something doesnt mean you cant do the thing, and pay the price.

  20. #20

    Default

    Also, if you guys been to Italy, you know how little "cannot / forbidden" means there. Hahaha

  21. #21

    Default

    Just take the penalty of an A damage card.

    It's like speed limits in the real world.
    You are not to go over the limit.
    But if you get caught there is a penalty ....

    To me, if the Immelman was planned before the fire the subsequent straight was pre-planned and should be exempt from the penalty.

    Since I pretty much only play solo I would only be arguing with myself anyway ...

  22. #22

    Default

    I actually think that the fire should see all straights the same way - mandatory or not, A. But this has not been discussed yet.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    ...I personally think, they left it in the rulebook (it is not a great rulebook anyway, is it?) from the previous edition without thinking it through. And so they created situations like punishing illegal by illegal + A.
    Except it wasn't in the previous WoW edition Jan - it was introduced in the WoG edition, the plan no straights rule didn't exist before then but you're right, they did not think it through, that's why it was queried and why Andrea made the clarifications he did.
    Now that's messed up and nothing is clear as he's contradicted the Ares rules as written.

    "He is wise who watches"

  24. #24

    Default

    Except it wasn't in the previous WoW edition Jan -
    My bad, i see it is a new thing.

    that's why it was queried and why Andrea made the clarifications he did
    Some situations didn't make sense even with the FAQ. One of them was the penalization of Immelmann split over two turns. Or the paradoxes mentiond a few times above here. Some of it wasn't in the FAQ at all. So i took a shortcut and asked Andrea himself. It just felt patched.

    Now that's messed up and nothing is clear as he's contradicted the Ares rules as written.
    Original response: He totally did. The rulebook is bad though.
    Edited: No he didn't, see below.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-10-2020 at 01:22.

  25. #25

    Default

    The situation is different in the WW2 version of the game. If you play a straight whilst on fire, even one that is already planned and on the table, you plane is out of the game.

  26. #26

    Default

    Rules, page 24 "Observers and Immelmann Turn"

    "If such an airplane fires at a target in the rear firing arc after its last maneuver card of a turn is played, it cannot plan the Immelmann turn maneuver card as the first maneuver card of the next turn".

    I guess it is clear what cannot means now. It means "If you do it, you will get penalized". So Andrea's explanation is not in contradiction to the rules. It actually goes with the rules.

  27. #27

    Default

    No, that is precisely NOT what it says!

    It says NO, DO NOT DO IT, not "OK but you will take damage"!!!

    It is exactly the opposite of what Andrea said to you.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  28. #28

    Default

    Except i wasn't explaining what "cannot" means in english. Why would i do it anyway. From the example i posted, it is clear to me how they use that word in the rules, whatever it really means Tim.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-10-2020 at 02:01.

  29. #29

    Default

    Whatever, capitals and multipled exclamation marks make me sick anyway. I am off.

  30. #30

    Default

    Fine

    Keep encouraging others to cheat if you wish - it's your game too!

    I will continue to play the rules as written; planning straights whilst on fire will not be allowed under any circumstances.
    Planning an Immelmann card after a rear gun shot will not be allowed under any circumstances.

    "By the book, Admiral" - Captain Spock, Star Trek II - The Wrath Of Khan
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  31. #31

    Default

    Tim, what if someone in one of your games does plan a straight when on fire, what do you do?

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    Tim, what if someone in one of your games does plan a straight when on fire, what do you do?
    First time, point it out and allow a correction (alternative, legal card).
    Second time around, 'A' damage!

    Most of "my" games involve experienced players, who should know better anyway!
    But I still like to give 'em a gentle reminder first.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  33. #33

    Default

    I try to do similar.

    I know I've had a player choose a straight while on fire knowing he would take an A damage but he did so so he could get a shot off himself. I think in the future I will try giving that type of player a random non-straight movement card and an A damage if a straight is chosen on purpose.

  34. #34

    Default

    THAT sort of player would not be invited to play again.............
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    THAT sort of player would not be invited to play again.............
    Andrea, for example.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    Andrea, for example.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    I try to do similar.

    I know I've had a player choose a straight while on fire knowing he would take an A damage but he did so so he could get a shot off himself. I think in the future I will try giving that type of player a random non-straight movement card and an A damage if a straight is chosen on purpose.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    THAT sort of player would not be invited to play again.............
    This is tactics. And if this was done in combat, and someone survived to get back to base, the pilot would get a medal. This isn't cheating, it is a tactical decision, knowing the risks, and taking them. I personally don't play with the Wings of Glory "No straights while on fire" rule, prefering the Wings of War rules.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  38. #38

    Default

    I see what you did there!

    But of course, as we all know, Andrea is not that sort of player!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    I try to do similar.

    I know I've had a player choose a straight while on fire knowing he would take an A damage but he did so so he could get a shot off himself. I think in the future I will try giving that type of player a random non-straight movement card and an A damage if a straight is chosen on purpose.
    I like this approach, although I usually am playing with less experienced players (myself included). There's a tension is the game around this rule (and maybe others) because "illegal" although the game itself cannot prevent it. Not really a flaw but an matter of consequence of 1) teaching new players vs 2) gaming with experienced players. A bit like angle-shooting in poker, or "gaming the game" in any other game. Knowingly exploiting a loophole isn't tolerated after the player has a certain amount of experience.

  40. #40

    Default

    We all do it the way that fits us the best. The main thing is we all have fun with the game.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    We all do it the way that fits us the best. The main thing is we all have fun with the game.
    Oh yes!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  42. #42

    Default

    Phew thank god someone mentioned fun... it was all getting a bit rules lawyerish there for a moment.
    I always find that just flying in a big circle whilst cursing under my breath solves the problem...

    Never Knowingly Undergunned !!

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    We all do it the way that fits us the best. The main thing is we all have fun with the game.

    indeed!

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    Fine

    Keep encouraging others to cheat if you wish - it's your game too!

    I will continue to play the rules as written; planning straights whilst on fire will not be allowed under any circumstances.
    Planning an Immelmann card after a rear gun shot will not be allowed under any circumstances.

    "By the book, Admiral" - Captain Spock, Star Trek II - The Wrath Of Khan


    the irony is spock was saying that to fool kahn by not going by the book.

  45. #45

    Default

    just re read this thread. My over riding thought would be "I'm on fire! How do I stop being on fire/taking more damage?" On a non altitude game, it would be "don't fly straight (as per rule a plane on fire cannot plan any straight manoeuvres) The "fly straight and play the damage card system" (you wouldn't think of trying to get a shot off) is like the meta-players I've come across in Dungeons and Dragons - choose the character for the numbers. No character development/thinking at all.

    For Wings, the cad or bounder should be left alone in a room with "Do the right thing, old man" until he/she understands

  46. #46

    Default

    Although not a rules expert, I see this more as a problem with being on fire and the damage caused by flying straight than the rules dictating which manoeuvers are illegal.

    To stop taking damage from the fire, the aircraft must not fly straight. If it does then it takes additional damage. This is immaterial as to whether it is a planned manoeuver (i.e. after taking fire damage) or an unplanned manoeuver (i.e. being set on fire in the middle of an Immelman), the damage is still taken.

    The rule should simply be: If you fly straight whilst on fire, take the damage card. That way no one should care if it is 'not allowed/forbidden/illegal' since it will come with the appropriate penalty.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hu Rhu View Post
    The rule should simply be: If you fly straight whilst on fire, take the damage card. That way no one should care if it is 'not allowed/forbidden/illegal' since it will come with the appropriate penalty.
    Yes. That way, it would be clean, less abstracted and it would bring "push-your-luck" element to the game.
    Last edited by Honza; 08-23-2020 at 02:23.



Similar Missions

  1. Guns Jammed Over... Somewhere
    By flash in forum WGF: After Action Reports
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-01-2016, 11:39
  2. Jammed Guns
    By richarddaystrom in forum WGF: Rules Help
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-26-2014, 07:20
  3. Jammed Guns Tokens
    By Captain Chum in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-02-2014, 21:31
  4. Jammed Guns: the reality of it all
    By Lt. S.Kafloc in forum WGF: House Rules
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-09-2013, 11:47
  5. jammed guns
    By Willi Von Klugermann in forum WGF: Rules Help
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-19-2010, 14:19

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •