z fire

[seabolt]

I agree that a player shouldn't be shunned for use of a legal option, but human nature attracts us to people who are more like minded.

For example: I prefer not to play against opponents who 'legally' field armies of snipers. Building this preference into my pre-game discussion has kept it from being an issue.

This may not be tennis but battles should still be fought with good sportsmanship. I think we should kill one another with decency. Perhaps that's because I am British:chin:

Certainly, it's nice to play with those who approach the game as you do. But there's a hundred little sub-issues in a game this complex, and we can't get vexed at each and every little one. Z-fire is there, and it's hard to literally define when it is and isn't appropriate, so there's always going to be gray areas of usage. Maybe I don't like how an opponent is pounding the board with it, but I suspect that some of my practices don't always sit well with my opponents. Therefore, I hesitate to throw rocks from my glass porch.

Everyone has their quirks. To me, it's more civilized to put up with them than deem this set of quirks "fair" and that set "foul." But then, I'm a Texan. ;)

I think you totally hit the nail on its proverbial head with the ammo loadout. I think the units probably have historically correct loadouts for the most part. But this is game where battles are a compressed and intense representation.

I'm glad you agree. I imagine that, in your case, you could ask your opponent for a 50/50 rule: Anytime a squad's slot 1 or slot 2 weapon drops below 50 units of ammo, you have to turn that weapon off. That would put the brakes on z-fire, I reckon.

-- 30 --