Kill them all?

[plloyd1010]

There is a battle type "Kill them all!" I've always seen it as "cause casualties", whether in the ringing the bell or getting points, the application doesn't matter. I was wondering if the reference should be updated, since there are almost no annihilation scenarios. The again what would be a better name? Kill steps? Body counting?

[Grognard Gunny]

It DOES sound a bit blood thirsty.... all the better! 

GG

[treadasaurusrex]

Causing enemy casualties is a given in virtually all PG scenarios. I say drop this one as an unecessary category.

[Grognard Gunny]

We COULD say something more "woke" as in "enemy reduction in numbers" or something less obnoxious as that. On the other hand, no one ever said war was "nice".  

GG

[plloyd1010]

Causing enemy casualties is a given in virtually all PG scenarios. I say drop this one as an unecessary category.

I think the battle type is still necessary, as battle types are primary decided by victory conditions. 1 VP for step loss inflicted or eliminate X number of enemy steps probably appears in 80% of the victory conditions, thus is a consideration in battle types. "Kill them all" strikes me with a Quixotic melodramatic image.

[goosebrown]

How about...

"Kill them all, or they kill you"

or

"Venceramos o nos vencen!"
(That was still a poster on walls when I went to school in Madrid)

or 

"Ave Caesar morituri te salutant!"

or

"It's a beautiful day for an auto-da-fé!"

Just trying to class it up a bit.

[Blackcloud6]

"Body count."

[cjsiam]

"Stack cardboard"

[Shad]

Causing enemy casualties is a given in virtually all PG scenarios. I say drop this one as an unecessary category.

There are 92 scenarios that currently are only categorized as Kill Them All. If we drop this Battle Type type then they will no longer be indexed under Battle Types.

That may or may not be a problem.

They also may or may not be thoroughly classified.

  we're all mad here, after all

[Michael Murphy]

"Body count."

As far as I can tell, Fred wins!