Well I add to add the disclaimer to the table sentence 'except by agreement on both sides and in a plausible scenario' . The original version was too much... fanatical...
I also do not play Bolt Action (the community seems polluted, even in Italy from what I have been told).
My comments on allowing opponents... well it is a lovely fictional vehicle you have created yourself, but if we are playing a pick up game... let's say Battlegroup or CoC and you put it on the table... well we can end in countelss debates. On the other way if you have crafted a awesome scenario (or we have done it together) and the vehicles as a role and a meaning in the scenario... it is different. But the fact we are using fictional stuff has to be agree beforehand (to avoid lot of discussion... done it with my cousin years ago for fun... turned out it was less fun that both of us expected... not sure if it was the fictionalized stuff spoiling the atmosphere, or the fact we were using fictionalized stuff to get unduly edge over each other...).
But I think one of the issue run deeper, I feel awkward at 'bastardizing' historical vehicles (but not at the actual historical bastardizations... Kommando Becker anyone?). I also have issues at the idea 'use a spare barrel' it has to be balanced, the trunions had to fit, the sights aligned, blah, blah, blah...
Instead one thing that always enthused me are the 'potential buys', vehicles or ships that could have been fielded by an operator (because they were bought but not delivered, contract not finalized, discussed and then moved on...). The Classical example is the plausible idea of Polish S-35 (what a nasty surprise for Fitz Panzer Is from another thread), continued Sino-German cooperation past 1938 (and no Soviet mass arms sale to the GMD).
Or Republic of China Ansaldo Heavy Cruisers... (what a Chinese 8" armed gun cruiser would have done in Shanghai in 1937?).
But certainly I think your talent is wasted in imaginative vehicles...
Welcome, Guest. Please 
April 16, 2024, 02:27:10 PM
