> The effect of magic on the battlefield is something that has been hotly
> debated. IMO, especially given the HW context, it makes Gloranthan warfare
> look superficially like warfare from ancient or medieval times but in
> reality it changes the tactical equation enormously.
Personally, I think it by and large acts to confirm all our worst prejudices, not to dispell them. ;-) To wit, the magic reinforces the 'mundane' reality, and the mundane reality reinforces the magic. (This is my personal philosophy on this topic in general, as it's come up more recently put in other terms. To wit, it's a chicken and egg question, basically.)
If the magic is incompatible with our preconceived (or tried and tested) 'analogues' (like Sandy's infamous Lunar Captain in camo-gear), then one of them needs to be rethought. (Which in this case isn't to eliminate Thunderbolt, etc, but just to note that the rituals and appearance of Leadership are more important than Minor Niggles about personal safety -- thanks for helping me get that one straightin my bonce, Martin.) I confess my bias is to inflict the rethinking on the former, at least if the risk in the other case gets to the point of moving from Plausible Historical Analogue to Coid Fantasy...
Where it _does_ make a big difference is where non-traditional-enemies clash, or when some bright spark comes up with some brilliant new mythic or magical organisational wheeze. Suddenly, the enemy is doing something Bizarre and Disturbing, and it might potentially be utterly devastating to your time-honoured tactics.
(The analogue of the turn when the US gets its first strat-nuke in that whacky ol' game _Red Star Rising_ spring to mind ('quick, unstack all the Soviet units, and spread them one-deep across the whole board!').
> This issue has still to be resolved, although Roderick is doubtless
> working on it and will come up with a cool and useful answer.
Hope you rise to this billing (challenge?), RR!
Slan,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail