[GZG] [Aliens] was Re: FMA at EEC etc

How many people have ordered alien infantry, other than KV and
acid-blood xenomorphs?

On Feb 27, 2007, at 11:27 AM, <laserlight@verizon.net>
> <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:

> How many people have ordered alien infantry, other than KV and acid-

Humm... No KV, No Xenomorphs, Several packs of Phalon (15mm and 25mm) and
Greys(15mm). So at least I am.

I have.  I've a pile of 6mm bugs - which I assume are S'V, though I'm
making my own bug vehicles using bits and pieces from other companies. And
since there are no rules for said bugs in DS, which is where I'll be

playing them, I'll make up my own hive-mind and bio-vehicle rules as
well, likely basing a lot of it off of the FB2 S'V fluff and rules.

I also have 6mm Kif, and if I could find decent lizard men and felinoids, I'd
have them as well.

John

John K. Lerchey Assistant Director for Incident Response Information Security
Office Carnegie Mellon University

> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 laserlight@verizon.net wrote:

> How many people have ordered alien infantry, other than KV and

On Tue, February 27, 2007 11:27 am, laserlight@verizon.net said:
> How many people have ordered alien infantry, other than KV and

I've bought a bunch of "bugs" for my SV. Selection is very limited though.

> On Feb 27, 2007, at 11:27 AM, <laserlight@verizon.net>

> > blood xenomorphs?

There's little or no motivation to buys figures for which there isn't a game
and rules to play them or rules for which there are no figures.

If there were well developed rules for alien races that meant they all played
differently to each other without being better or worse then people might get
motivated to buy them.

When there are loads of human figures and good rules for them and alien ranges
are limited and have little or no background details or rules its hard to get
inspired.

Most Sci-fi roleplaying games produce a source book for alien races
outlining their character and motivations. GW does something similar for its
40K races.

If you want people to buy them you need cool looking models that play well on
the table and are supported by background.

> On 2/27/07, john_tailby@xtra.co.nz <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

It's at this point that I should mention the Phalon playtest rules.
Again...

> ---- Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
Again...

That's only any use if people want to playtest phalons and they have a
viable figure / unit range.

People don't want to buy figures for playtest rules from a company that can't
support its own games.

Its very diappointing that GZG can't even make PDFs of the new full thrust
ships it has released.

Some new way of developing the games needs to be found rather than relying on
a small group of part timeers that struggle to fit in games development into
their lives.

GZG might as well release it's rules as PDFs in the style of open source
software, its the other websites that make up new systems and ship designs
that are supporting the game rather than GZG

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lUm, but, who wants
to play, um, snails? That's it, snails.

I would be completely happy to have bugs ala Starship Troopers animated
version, and K'rvak. Phalons, and SV are random small players in the GZG
universe. I have no idea what motivates them. Maybe if there was some good
backstory I might be interested. As it is I don't care about either race.

Roger

> On 2/27/07, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:

How many people have ordered alien infantry, other than KV and acid-
blood xenomorphs?

Rebel Minis 15mm Alien Grays (used as Hybrids) GZGs Grays (used as regular
Grays). Rattlehead Games 15mm Spugs 15mm Phalon Infantry 15mm Vargar 15mm
ZombieSmith Aphids

I'm looking to do something like this:
http://www.recon-in-force.com/Skank/TripleAbd/TripleAbd.html

> On 2/27/07, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:

They may be vaguely snailish in their appearance, but their skins change
colours like an octopus or squid.

> I have

I have a sizable backstory section in the Phalon beta test rules.
Besides the physiology portion (their three-lobed eye acts as a
polarizing filter), and the technology section, I included a Social Structure
section.

Here it is:

Phalon Social Structure

Phalon family life is more complicated than humans. They do not mate for life,
but they do form clan bonds. A clan consists of members of the breeding sexes
("breeders") that have mated amongst each other, and their offspring (both
breeder and mule). Often two members of a clan have no genetic connection
between each other. The closest analogy in human society is that that of two
human couples who have children, get divorced and then remarry. These two
extended families
(consisting of a father, a mother, a step-father, a step-mother, and
the resulting offspring) would constitute a small Phalon clan. Since Phalon
breeders mate more promiscuously than humans, these clans can become rather
large and genetically diverse. The clan as a whole takes care of the
hatchlings. Phalons have an attachment with other members of their clan, but
Phalon opportunistic tendencies mean that one or more breeders may splinter
from a clan and form a new clan, taking several mules along with them.

Mating within a clan is the most common form of bonding between males and
females, but the bonding of breeding couples from two different clans is
almost as common. This usually occurs when a male or female leaves one clan to
join with another. Relatively rare – but not unheard of – is a breeding
pair leaving their clan or clans to form a brand new clan. Usually they take
mules from one or both clans with them, both for protection and for breeding
purposes. This new clan may or may not have strong ties to the old clan. The
rarest of all clan connections is when the male is from one clan, the female
from another, and one or more mules are from a third. This usually occurs as
part of a political negotiation to cement relations between all three clans.

The breeding sexes tend to be more individually opportunistic than the mules,
though all genders show a level of opportunism that many humans find
appalling. The mules are the protectors of the clan. This is an offshoot of
their physiology. Mules do not contribute to the gene pool, but they are vital
for egg fertilization. Only one individual mule is needed to begin the
fertilization process, so mules are interchangeable at the clan level. They
tend to be bigger and more powerful, so they can throw themselves at an enemy
in order to protect the clan. As long as one mule survives along with a
breeding pair, the clan can survive and grow. Mules have a strong sense of
protection toward any breeder, while breeders see individual mules as
expendable. Since mules controlled which eggs could be fertilized and which
couldn't, they were able to use this ability to exert authority over
individual breeders within a clan. Mules saw an advantage in mules banding
together within a clan. Other breeders saw the advantage in courting the
favour of mules. This was the beginning of a Machiavellian society of
internecine competition within a structure of mutual cooperation.

Like human society, much of Phalon history is filled with conflict between
races and religions, as well as between neighbouring clans. Racial rifts in
Phalon society healed comparatively quickly compared to similar rifts in human
society. The Phalon embrace of opportunism overrode any prejudice based on
something as trivially cosmetic as carapace shape, or a perceived difference
in behaviour.

Similarly, religious strife was less widespread and not as long lasting in
Phalon society as it was (is) in Terran society. Phalon religions have a
strong tendency toward ancestor worship. The number 3 is considered lucky by
many Phalon faiths, as it features prominently in their eyes and in the number
of sexes. Phalon religions tend to be fairly flexible. New sects form, and
existing sects amalgamate, with little difficulty. However, if there is
anything that will cause the usually pragmatic Phalons to act against their
best interest or the interest of a clan, it is religion.

The head of a clan has dictatorial powers and is usually surrounded by a
support group of functionaries and bodyguards. Similar structures in human
history usually resulted in corrupt regimes, downtrodden masses and a bloody
overthrow. Not so in Phalon society. Phalons are traditionally nomadic, so
they tend not to be connected to any one location. Being nomadic there is less
likelihood that the "downtrodden masses" wouldn't just walk away from a cruel
leader. The Phalon homeworld had many predators that preyed on Phalons. There
was safety in numbers, so a cruel dictator would eventually find itself alone
and unprotected. Since Phalon societal connections are dynamic, there were
fewer artificial conditions legitimizing one ruler over another. The concepts
of "divine right" and "right of birth" are foreign to Phalons. Breeders needed
the willing participation of mules to continue the bloodline, and mules that
rose to positions of power were physically incapable to produce a bloodline.
The only reason Phalons would follow or keep a leader was if that leader
achieved positive results.

The mules were the first to see the advantage in "mega-clans", several
clans bonding together into a more powerful organization. Clan alliances are
traditionally easily formed and broken. The development
of the mega-clan formalized these alliances. While clans are still as
dynamic as ever, individuals are more likely to stay within a
particular mega-clan. "More likely" is still a relative term, and so
humans fell that Phalon society is best described as "chaotic".

A large mega-clan may have smaller mega-clans within it, just as human
nations may have provinces or states within a country, counties within
a state, and towns within a county, etc. Mega-clans containing other,
smaller, mega-clans are known as "high-level mega-clans". "Low-level
mega-clans" are those that consist of nothing but individual clans.
There's a vast area in the middle where it's hard to tell if a
mega-clan is high-level or low-level. Humans have tried to categorize
Phalon organizational structures, but have mostly failed. At the top of the
Phalon organizational chart is the Phalon Conglomerate. A complex clan
hierarchy exists within the Conglomerate, the
Conglomerate itself being a sort of super mega-clan.

Mega-clans were originally based on race, religion and geography, but
contemporary mega-clans go beyond these limitations. They are more
likely to be based on opportunity and advantage. Low-level mega-clans
tend to specialize in a particular field of endeavor, or several related
fields, forming a monopoly in some product, service, or area
of knowledge. This allows a low-level mega-clan to gain an advantage
over other low-level mega-clans. As they gain advantage, the mega-clan
gains members from other clans and mega-clans, increasing its size and
influence. Higher-level mega-clans are essentially cartels, though
often in many different areas of interest, and with those interests subject to
rapid change.

The breeders are considered "flighty" by mules. In human terms, breeders are
more "left brained" and mules are more "right brained" (though the Phalon
brain is not set up this way). Breeders tend to be more artistic, mules tend
to be more calculating. Breeders tend to think more about the here and now,
while mules are more forward thinking. Most of the military (and almost all of
the combat troops) are mules. Phalon leadership is split almost evenly between
mules and breeders, though some divisions within Phalon leadership may be more
heavily stocked with one type of gender or another.

Injustices between individuals, clans, mega-clans, different races and
different religions are remembered and even acted on, but it's considered a
virtue by Phalons to seize an advantage. Walking away from an advantage is
considered equivalent to the human concept of cowardice. Permeating everything
is the Phalon desire to rise when the opportunity presents itself. Just as
ancient Phalon males and females escaped predators by sacrificing mules, and
just as mules competed with each other for survival, Phalon society is rife
with individualism. The only thing approaching altruism in the Phalon psyche
is the mules' protective feelings towards the breeders. In spite of this, or
perhaps even because of this, Phalons are social creatures. They prefer to be
in the company of others to being alone.

The mules are the stabilizing influence in Phalon society. Phalons are not
"peaceful" by human standards, but Phalon history is less bloody than human
history. Wars between clans were common in the past, but mule protective
instincts and the general Phalon sense of
self-advancement and preservation meant that protracted wars were
rare. Once it was obvious that one side stood to lose, a negotiated settlement
quickly ended the conflict, especially if another
uninvolved clan or mega-clan could take advantage of the weakened
state of the combatants.

Some humans think of Phalons as cowardly. This is an inaccurate and dangerous
assessment. They are not cowardly. They are practical and realistic. They will
not be drawn into a war without a very reasonable chance of success. They will
not shy from war if their society, religion or race is in jeopardy.

> On Feb 27, 2007, at 2:27 PM, <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:

> How many people have ordered alien infantry, other than KV and acid-

GZG figs? None.
GW figs?  Plenty.   (Necron, Orks, Dark Eldar, and Tyranids).

Damo

G'day,

> How many people have ordered alien infantry, other than KV

I know I'm forgetting some (going through our figure cabinet every so often
always ends with "oh I forgot I had those!") my list of alien figs includes

Greys from various sources Daleks Tyrannids Felinoids Reptilians from various
sources 2mm used as swarming hordes Ursoids (kit bashed, yes I though Chewie
and the Ewoks were cute, sue me) Wolfen Shard Cybernetic spidtaurs from
somewhere (void maybe) Canosians, Zoallans, Xeloxians, Trundlians and Kerbites
from Battlestations Sa'Vasku and Starship trooperish bugs of various scales
Tyranids, kryomek and other aliens-based figs of various scales
(including Blacktree and Confrontation) Robots from various manufacturers
(including necrons, drones, Copplestone terminators)
Kra'Vak and Predator-based figs (including see through ones, Denizen,
Copplestone) A mix of Eldar and tau tanks, vtols and drones that I run in DS
Koraln Syntha (the weirder bits) Entomalian tanks Phalons
A bunch of one-off miscellaneously weird shaped or movie inspired aliens
(MIB has a lot to answer for) Various kit bashed wombats and octopus
Kit based 6mm humans that have been heavily kitbashed into bat-like 25mm
aliens

I've a bunch of different starship sets too (saucers, Narn, "accumulated
masses of tubes and beads" and Sa'Vasku and opisthobranch inspired Phalons
being amongst my favourites)

Cheers

On Tue, February 27, 2007 2:42 pm, Roger Books said:
> Um, but, who wants to play, um, snails? That's it, snails.

The SV may not have a huge backstory but from what there is they are kinda
like the bugs from SST, being all constructs around a central queen, who are
the only "real" SV.

Which no one but the playtest list can get to, right?

[quoted original message omitted]

G'day,

> That's only any use if people want to playtest phalons

The manufacturer or the player?

> People don't want to buy figures for playtest rules from

I'm not picking on you here just making an observation about different kinds
of gamers. This kind of statement always intrigues me. You've got the rules
and an imagination what more do you need? SSDs etc and rules expansions would
be nice but you've already got everything you need to support yourself.
Personally I'm not phased that the new ships don't have preset stats, you may
come up with a different take on the figure to someone else, reading through
Janes for WWI etc very few if any of the classes had ships with the identical
stats.

Mind you I've never really understood the perpetual beef of "oh they've put
out new rules so now I have to go play them" I hear of many old time GW gamers
either, especially when it is a whole group saying it. If they don't like the
new rules don't play them there is nothing stopping you playing the old rules.
Likewise if you can't wait for new rules to give the nice little extension
you're after here or there chase it up yourself, you obviously have some idea
of what extras you'd like added.

Better still do that and post it here (which St^3 Jon read) and you may well
spark an idea and do exactly what you call for below.

> Some new way of developing the games needs to be found rather than

I think everyone agrees with this, which is why pdfs are up of many of GZG's
rulesets.

One big step would be to put up ideas here. The WDA was quite popular here for
a while and various rules ideas for aliens or different forms of SG have been
put up. It'd be great if the guys involved put up their
takes on SG/FT etc that turned into the various games at ECC - the LOR
and Full Sail stuff sounds cool.

Cheers

G'day,

> Which no one but the playtest list can get to, right?

Actually they're out there for all to see
http://www.hyperbear.com/sg2/sg2-bds.html

Cheers

From: "Robert W. Eldridge"
> Which no one but the playtest list can get to, right?

Well, playtest listers and anyone who actually looks around Allan's website.

If you don't want to look around, it's
http://www.hyperbear.com/sg2/sg2-bds.html

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lNice.  Now I'm
curious, I'll check out the rules.

Roger

> On 2/27/07, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:

> On 2/27/07, Robert W. Eldridge <bob_eldridge@mindspring.com> wrote:

Beth and Chris responded with the link. (Thanks guys!)

The rules have been out in the open for anyone to playtest since 2003. The
most recent version came out in 2004. There's a link to them (or was a link to
them) on the GZG web site, but I think it might be a version back.

I wish there were more players in the northern Louisiana area. I could use
some local players to do some more playtesting of my own...

> On 2/27/07, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you!

I need to tighten up the writing. The last version (1.2) involved rule
changes. For the next release I'll edit the backstory. I probably won't add
anything, I'll just tighten up the writing.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThat's just a bit
too much of a hike from Tallahassee.

Roger

> On 2/27/07, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:

[quoted original message omitted]

G'day,

> I've shared ideas from my group several times. Seems to be

Here or when sent straight to Jon? I would have thought it was pretty open
here.

> Mt group developed its

Was this for DS or FT?

> Specific beefs about DS. Butt ugly counter draw system.

This highlights another issue when creating a game, you can't please all of
the people all of the time. I actually like the counter draw system, the
opposed dice rolls and the fact all the info is on the table with the unit;)

Cheers

[quoted original message omitted]

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI haven't had any
problems with the opposed die rolls in SG. As a matter of fact they seem
faster than the "I need 7 d6s" of the GW world.

Roll to hit, roll for a wound, roll for armour. Roll to hit, roll for damage,
roll for armour.

3 rolls

Roll for success, simple division, roll for armour.

2 rolls and a simple division.

I know which I like better. In theory (I'm not on the playtest list) DS is
going to
a more SG-II feel.

I really do not understand the secrecy of the playtest list.   My
understanding is GZG makes little off the rules anyway.

Roger

> On 2/28/07, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> Some of the best visual representation markers are the blast markers

I certainly agree with this. GW's 'under fire' markers really helped you
visually grasp where the shells were landing. Given sufficient budget, I'd
definitely recommend them as suppression markers (and maybe stress chits).

> I really do not understand the secrecy of the playtest list.  My

Ironically, I think the playtest list is a closed list just so that rumours
don't circulate that "the game is changing to X" and drive off people who
don't like X when X has yet to be tested and may not amount to anything.

The truth is, the list was formed when Jon T was close to publishing the first
Fleet Book and had lots of firm ideas ready to be tested. The test list was
full of very active players then. When real life and miniatures casting keeps
Jon T from posting about rules ideas or putting
pen to paper, the test list is just a circle of 2-3 dozen equals who are
fairly adept at pointing out the weaknesses of each other's ideas, but not so
good at coming to consensus and picking the 'least flawed' of the ideas
available. And many of the people on the test list don't play as much as they
used to.

> On 2/28/07, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

I don't disagree. On the other hand, there are a bunch of games out there that
do it this way. GZG has a reputation, on the ground games at least, of using
opposed dice rolls. That's the company's niche. It's pretty much a given that
any FMA system game will have opposed dice rolls. That's a constraint of the
FMA system and a feature of the FMA "brand". Unless there are very good
reasons for it, I don't see Jon abandoning that idea.

> keeping track of different damaged results against lots of different

There was a long thread a couple of years ago about how to replace the chits
with markers that look visually appealing (sort of like what
_Fire and Fury_ does). I designed an SG2 record sheet with leadership
and confidence on them. There were a bunch of ideas for all the other markers,
replacing them with three dimensional indicators that look attractive on the
terrain.

You can do a subject search for "chit", or maybe a search of "chit
replacement" on the archive.

> I know which I like better. In theory (I'm not on the playtest list)
DS is going to a more SG-II feel.

That's correct. I've never had a problem with opposed die rolls, except for
impact-vs-armor rolls which I agree take longer than necessary. I'd fix
that by making armor a fixed number (so a 3 or 4 instead of d6); then you
could roll all your IMP dice against armor at the same time.
Obviously that's going to change things somewhat--heavy powered armor
(armor 6) no longer has to worry about IMPd4 or d6 weapons, for
instance--but I could liv with that. YMMV. I think originally this idea
came from Allan Goodall.

> I really do not understand the secrecy of the playtest list. My

The secrecy of the playtest list is largely because it's very easy to propose
something which looks like it'll work. Everyone looks at it and says "yeah,
sounds good". Maybe a couple of people playtest it and it still looks good and
people start assuming that this will go into FT3. And then a couple months
later someone says "I tried that weapon mounted on Mass 10 scoutships and it
was hideous. My opponent never had a chance" and we all realize, yeah, that's
an unfixable loophole, we'll have to throw out that idea. If we kept it on the
test list, everyone knows that's life and we try again. If we had it out on
the main list, then in the month (or two or five) between the initial idea and
the "oops!", it's gotten disseminated and taken as Official(tm) and someone's
found the loophole and said to themselves "This game is an unbalanced dog!"
and we never hear from them again.

All this being said.... YES, I agree that FT3 needs to compile all the juicy
bits from FT and MT and so forth and fix some stuff and get published not
later than yesterday. We're working on that. We're also working on DS3 and
FMAS, and my ****UNofficial**** guess is that at least one of those will make
it to public beta this year. I did say ***UN***, I'm not the project manager
for any of those projects, that's just my own personal ***UNofficial*** guess.

As for the campaign system someone mentioned... a) a campaign game is very
idiosyncratic, what works for you may be too detailed for me and not nearly
detailed enough for my neighbor. Everyone says they want a campaign system but
I've rarely seen anyone adopt someone else's system; b) it takes a long, long
time to playtest a campaign game c) just imagine the reaction if Jon Tuffley
had said "Hark, a brilliant idea for a campaign game! Let's put FT3 on hold
whilst we have the FT3 working group tinker with this campaign!"

> I'm not sure who wrote:

This comes from an incident that happened prior to the release of the first
Fleet Book.

Jon had some ideas for FT. They were ideas off the top of his head,
basically blue-skying, brainstorming. He posted them to the list to
get an idea of what the FT fans thought. They were just "possibilities" and
nothing Jon had really developed or fully explored.

Someone on the list told his friends. Good thing, as Jon wanted people
playtesting the ideas.

The friends didn't like the ideas. They started posting on the Internet how
much they hated the new ideas. Since it got lost in
translation that these were just things that Jon was _thinking_ about,
they started posting about how Jon was ruining the game. They said that if the
game was going that way, they were done with FT. They continued to bad mouth
the game, creating a negative buzz.

As it turned out, the items they had issue with were either not implemented or
implemented in a modified form that worked. Their worries never materialized.

Regardless, Jon learned his lesson. The test list was created, and
everything is more-or-less kept secret until it's reached a fairly
late stage of development. It's not what Jon would prefer, but it's a business
necessity.

> On 28-Feb-07, at 5:45 AM, Roger Books wrote:

I would suggest the contrary - I think that Jon makes MOST of his
money from the rules. I know that I would not have spent much, if any, money
at GZG if it weren't for their rules. The corollary is that good rule sets
sell miniatures. The rules themselves don't have to make ANY money, so long as
they sell enough miniatures that the company does well.

I suspect that one of the reasons that rules development has slowed down is
because Jon himself is too busy to play many games. Games are necessarily
developed by people actively playing games. If I'm wrong, Jon can correct me,
but I doubt that he plays his own games very often anymore. I think it is in
Jon's best interest to find someone he trusts to take over his rules
development.

While I do support the open development model proposed by others, I have to
say that such an enterprise requires a clear leader who has final say in
dispute resolution. The reason open source projects fail or die is because of
disinterest, factional disputes, or lack of vision. The right leader needs to
be capable of handling all of these issues.

G'day,

> Nope it was here. the FT play testers sounded like they were only

I'm sure they didn't mean to be rude if that's how you perceived it (it also
pays to remember that for some English isn't their first language... Though
for Oerjan I just put it down to being so close to
Santa-land that he has to pay the toll for Santa being jolly so much ;P
<He'll make me pay for that one in some suitably evil way>).

> It would be good to get a cohesive copy of the current playtest

Unfortunately for all the reasons you've heard already today that's beyond
their ability to provide.

> Full Thrust was the game we wrote our version of the rules for. Now

I take it from your statements below that it uses multiple dice rather than
sliding dice?

> Counter draw and opposed dice rolls are slow play mechanisms compared

Are these rolls opposed or versus a fixed value? I really do understand that
the chits aren't to everyone's taste, I personally like the elegant way they
solve the problem of lots of different results in an "easy" way. I will say
however I am a fan of opposed dice roles and sliding dice types, it is
something else that strikes me as a nice way of getting multiple solutions
fairly simply and keeps everyone involved.

> Some of the best visual representation markers are the blast markers

As Derek will attest I'm a messy person so the unit markers don't phase me.
Having said that we use a mix of little chits and more scenic markers. Again I
guess its personal choice. Each to his own it'd be a boring old world if we
were all identical;)

Have fun

> Tony Christney wrote:

> I really do not understand the secrecy of the playtest list. My

Not really. While the GZG rules do act as advertisements for the GZG
miniatures, the various new GZG miniatures ranges sell rather well even though
there are no rules that support them.

> I suspect that one of the reasons that rules development has

If only you were right... but no. GZG rules development is slow because Jon
himself is so busy sculpting, casting and selling miniatures that he
doesn't have enough time to spare for gaming :-(

Regards,

> ---- Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se> wrote:

For the mineatures that people buy with no rules are they bought to not play
FT with or are people just making up their own SSDs?

I'd agree, the rules and the game are the marketing department for a games
company. People can buy the rules fairly cheaply and then decide which models
they want to buy.

But no company survives that doesn't update it's advertising.

> >I suspect that one of the reasons that rules development has
Doesn't this answer contradict itself and then agree with the previous point?

If the rules are difficult to produce produce them like software. make the
rules into a single PDF document and then make up PDF documents for each
fleet.

If the rules need to change you can easily update a PDF with a new release or
patch in the style of software.

One of the things that challanges GW is that getting updated reprints of their
rules and books takes ages and there are almost always FAQ relating to each
book. Using a business strategy where the business is about making and selling
the figures would allow you to go for a low cost easy to implement and update
model.

Heck a regular release schedule with updates every 6 months would be great.

> On 3/1/07, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se> wrote:

> Not really. While the GZG rules do act as advertisements for the GZG

At the risk of being pedantic, the FT and FB _rules_ support the new
ship models in the sense that you can always create custom designs for what
you think the new ships should have. Sure, the designs won't be official. And,
sure, you can't add AMTs to UN ships as written. That doesn't stop you
plopping Beam 6s and Vapour Shrouds on an SSD and using a UN ship.

It would be interesting, though, to find out who is buying FT ships for games
other than FT...

> Doesn't this answer contradict itself and then agree with the previous

Yep.

> If the rules are difficult to produce produce them like software. make

There are SSDs for some new ships on the GZG site. SSDs for the new fleets
(UN, ORC, IF, NI) have been hosted at
http://www.star-ranger.com/FullThrust.htm (scroll down to 10/27/04)--I
seem to recall seeing the link at gzg.com, but I don't see it now (in the 8
seconds of looking around I've devoted to it).

FWIW, my guess is that the IF and ORC fleets are pretty much set.

The official Japanese fleet designs have NOT been publicly posted but that's
intentional until we get a key rules issue resolved.

> Allan Goodall wrote:

> Not really. While the GZG rules do act as advertisements for the GZG

The *ship* models, yes (though some of the comments seen on this list recently
would suggest that not all players agree!)... but what published
GZG rules would you say support the various manga-style figures, not to
mention the GC range?

> It would be interesting, though, to find out who is buying FT ships

Starmada players, Power Projection players, B5 Wars players, players of
various other space combat games...

Later,

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lDoesn't everybody
design their own ships anyway? The only reason I need to see official ships is
so I can get the fleet flavor.

Roger

> On 3/1/07, john_tailby@xtra.co.nz <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> On 3/1/07, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se> wrote:

I see your point. I was just pointing out that there are FT players who buy
the ships because they look cool, and a lack of SSDs doesn't hurt them because
they can create their own ship designs using FT.

I think this goes back to a question we had years ago asking "who uses FB
ships".

Your point is made, though. There are ships of a certain distinct nature whose
distinct nature isn't found in the rulebook.

> >It would be interesting, though, to find out who is buying FT ships

I meant that it would be interesting to have a breakdown in the number of
players purchasing the ships for games other than FT. I could guess which
games they were using them with... *S*

No. Two of the gamers I play with use FT ships *because* the SSDs exist, and
they can just play. One uses NSL and the other fields UNSC,
using SSDs from Star-Rangers site.  I design my own SSDs because none of
my ships are gzg. I have two fleets from Brigade and one from Cold Navy. I
have no choice. I've actually only fielded one of my fleets thus far, my
Brigade AmRep ships, and I definitely didn't munchkin them. They die in
droves.:)

John

> Doesn't everybody design their own ships anyway? The only reason I

> On Feb 28, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Tony Christney wrote:

> The corollary is that good rule sets sell miniatures.

The only issue with this corollary is that *bad* rule sets also sell
miniatures!:)

Damo

> From: John Lerchey

Next time, please use ORC, IF or NI SSDs. I want AARs from those designs,
regardless of what minis you use for them.

> On Thursday 01 March 2007 21:41, Allan Goodall wrote:

Not FT, but most of my recent Stargrunt purchases have been to use the figures
for roleplaying (so, no wargaming rules needed at all), which is the principal
reason for preferring 25mm.

Actually, another RPG campaign I'm working on uses the GZG ship designs as the
basis for the various powers, so I'll probably be buying some ships of each
GZG fleet so players can see what things look like.

However, I started by buying the rules, and the rules convinced me it was
worth buying the models. If it wasn't for my initial interest in the rules, I
probably wouldn't have bought any models.

> On 3/1/07, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:

Out of curiousity, which RPG are you playing?

> On 1-Mar-07, at 11:22 AM, Oerjan Ariander wrote:

I thought that was what I just said. In my experience, most rules development
happens within a week or two of playing a game. That is when the ideas are
most fresh in your head. After that time, other things start to invade your
head space.

I think the solution is to hand rules development over to a trusted soul and
at the same time making the development process more open.

> Regards,

LOL! In defence of my theory though, it isn't really the rules that sell the
miniatures in that case, it is all the
marketing/indoctrination that sells both the bad rules AND
the miniatures ;-)

Tony C.

> On 1-Mar-07, at 2:19 PM, Damo wrote:

> On Feb 28, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Tony Christney wrote:

> On Mar 1, 2007, at 6:32 PM, Tony Christney wrote:

> LOL! In defence of my theory though, it isn't really the

Are you somehow implying there is a rational approach to minis that someone
evades the whole "oh my! I need to buy 2000 of those little buggers!!"

If that's the case then I'm not buying what yo' sellin'!;)

Damo

Assuming that I can talk the guys into it, I will.

I might do a few small games with Yerin to teach her to play (we played our
first FT game together last night and she did very well, which could just say
something about my playing skill!). If we play a few more games, I'm sure that
we can test out some of your SSDs.

J

> From: John Lerchey No. Two of the gamers I play with use FT ships

> Laserlight wrote:

We really should get links to all of them on the GZG website.

> FWIW, my guess is that the IF and ORC fleets are pretty much set.

> The official Japanese fleet designs have NOT been publicly posted

Actually the link to their Beta Test stats was posted to this mailing list on
October 11th 2005 with the comment that the Hyperspace Distortion Cannon (HDC)
needs work.

Here are links to all the Beta fleets:
Imperial Japanese Star Fleet - http://ijsf.firedrake.org/
Islamic Federation Star Navy -
http://mysite.verizon.net/laserlight/ft/if.htm
New Israeli Defense Fleet - http://nift.firedrake.org/Alpha/NIAlpha.html
Oceanic Union Defense Force -
http://mysite.verizon.net/laserlight/ou/oudf.htm
Out-Rim Coalition Fleet - http://www.star-ranger.com/ORCpreview.htm
United Nations Space Command -
http://www.star-ranger.com/UNSCpreview.htm

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

> Tony Christney wrote:

> I suspect that one of the reasons that rules development has

Gah. Sorry 'bout that - I misread it as "Jon himself is to busy
*playing* many games". Doh!

> I think the solution is to hand rules development over to a trusted

One major problem with this is to find that trusted soul. If Jon is to have
the final say on the rules, then he will need to free up enough time to try
them out for himself to see if he likes them.

The bottom line though is that Jon currently sells just about everything he
can cast - and has done so for the last nine years, without having
published any new rules at all in that entire time. The rules obviously aren't
nearly as big a part of GZG's advertising department as many overseas gamers
(you, me, John Tailby and others) would like to think
:-(

Later,

> On Thursday 01 March 2007 22:52, Allan Goodall wrote:

Traveller (GURPS/Classic) background, Yags[1] rules. The FT-like
background I'm working on is Mortals[2].

[1] http://www.glendale.org.uk/yags/
[2] http://www.glendale.org.uk/mortals/

G'day,

> most of the fast play games are dice rles agaisnt a simple to

And again a personal preference here (and as I stressed before each to his
own), but I find those games much less than fun to play its why I gave up
playing most of them (including FOW).

As to game speed its not whether the rolls are opposed its how many steps you
include in the resolution of the action. I've played an swag of games with
opposed dice rolls that go along plenty fast. I've played equally many games
with fixed value dice rolls that are painfully slow to resolve because they
include so many steps. For instance there's "Call to Arms". I've played it
with my son Lachy and had fun, but it niggles me that you have to do so many
rolls to see what happens every time you fire.

I'm not suggesting FT go over to opposed dice rolls, I like the way FT plays,
but I'm not personally in favour of dumping opposed dice rolls
from the ground-based games.

Cheers

If you're looking for "fast play, handfulls of D6s" I would recommend that you
take a look at Command Horizon from Baccuus. It does that.

DS3 won't. We are developing optional rules to make firing faster, but we (at
OA, myself, and my gaming group) like (or in some cases at least don't hate)
the opposed die rolls. As has been stated previously, it keeps both the
attacker and defender involved.

It may well be that if you really want a system for ground combat that mimics
FT, the GZG ground combat rules just won't meet your needs.

<shrug>

John

John K. Lerchey Assistant Director for Incident Response Information Security
Office Carnegie Mellon University

> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, john tailby wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>

My group bought the rules so we could use our Silent Death miniatures to play
space fleet (not Space*Fleet) battles in a Warhammer 40K campaign (OK, so
maybe they would be Space*Fleet battles). But as we played and enjoyed FT,
someone bought some ESU ships that were physically bigger than the available
Silent Death miniatures of the day, and then I bought some NAC, and then
someone picked up ESU...

Today, I think we have over a dozen fleets of GZG miniatures in our
collections.

> It may well be that if you really want a system for ground combat that

Use StarGrunt. Each trooper rolls 3d6 at close range, 2d6 at medium, 1d6
at long. Hit on a 4-6, DRM -2 yellow, -1 green, +1 vet, +2 elite, -1
soft cover, -2 hard cover.

For penetration, roll 1d6 for each hit. +1 for each die type of impact,
-1 for each die type of armor--so d10IMP vs D6 Armor = +4 -2, so you
penetate on a die roll of 2-6.

> Use StarGrunt. Each trooper rolls 3d6 at close range, 2d6 at medium,

PS--I haven't tried it at all, just threw it out there. Obviously you
can tinker with it eg say "6's are two hits" like FT beams, for instance. I
presume you want great handfuls of d6...If I were actually advocating this,
I'd use d10's so you get at least a little more range available.

> On 3/1/07, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

I asked earlier, but didn't see a response. Do you have any specifics as to
what happened? Can you repost your comments, so that the test listers can do a
better job of replying?

Ok. But it's NOT stargrunt. It's Stargrunt with a completely homemade
resolution system.

John K. Lerchey Assistant Director for Incident Response Information Security
Office Carnegie Mellon University

> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 laserlight@verizon.net wrote:

> It may well be that if you really want a system for ground combat

> Ok. But it's NOT stargrunt. It's Stargrunt with a completely homemade

Yep. You'd still use the rest of the SG rules for movement, morale, and
all that. I'm just nailing on Buckets-of-Unopposed-Dice. As long as teh
folks who want that all buy a few of Jon's 15mm Special Packs, I doubt
Jon will mind which dice they roll :-)

I'm sure he won't. And if it sells more of his minis, how could I be opposed?
I'm just saying that as written, the various gzg ground rule sets are not FT
in the dirt. And likely won't be.:)

J

> Ok. But it's NOT stargrunt. It's Stargrunt with a completely

> I'm sure he won't. And if it sells more of his minis, how could I be

In fact, I'd be more inclined to move the other way: FMA Fleet with opposed
die rolls.

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

> John Tailby wrote:

> I didn't take it as rude as much as not interested. it sounded like a

There is no single "current version". There are the combined
FT2/MT/FB1/FB2
rules, plus several more-or-less-separate rule modifications some of
which are mutually exclusive.

> Where is a copy of the version of the play test rules so people can do

There is no full copy of the playtest rules, as in "a coherent rules
set".
There is a fairly large number of separate files, each containing one or

more rules modifications to the published rules. Some of those files have
GZG approval for public alpha- or beta-release, and they (or at least
links to them) have been posted here; others haven't been approved which means

that we aren't allowed to discuss them publicly.

> NB this means the "full rules" not just the fighter rules that have

As far as I can remember our discussions back then encountered one such
rule that was not included in the beta-test fighter/ordnance rules,
namely the change to SV spicules. That was a double omission on my part:

1) I had forgotten that it was a change from the FB2 version at all -
during the FB2 playtesting spicules *were* initially allowed to use multiple
power points, but that ability was removed just before FB2 went to print.

2) Since (contrary to what I remembered) it was a change from FB2, and the
Sa'Vasku playtest rules of which this change was a part haven't been fully
approved for beta-release, any mentions of the Sa'Vasku should have been

deleted from the beta-test fighter/ordnance rules before it was released
to the public.

> What are the changes to the rules being tested about ships shooting at

There are multiple such systems at the moment. The one which has been
approved for beta-release has been posted here, in two versions: the
full version which explains everything three times over and therefore looks
far more complex than it actually is (I'm fairly certain that a link to it was
posted during that discussion, but I can't recall if you actually read
it),
and Laserlight's short-hand version (which I know you have read since
you spotted a couple of important omissions in it).

> What changes have been made to weapons e.g. the stinger overload rule?

See above about the status of the Sa'Vasku playtest rules.

> I also saw something that suggested that scatter packs were only D3

That was the beta-test fighter/ordnance/PDS rules already mentioned
above.

> What new technologies such as stealth have been developed and what are

Those which have been approved for beta-testing are published on the
various fleet beta-test web sites (UNSC, IF, ORC etc.).

> What are the exact rules for anti matter missiles?

The current rules for AMTs are published on the UNSC beta-test web page,
to which Star Ranger recently posted the link.

> The wording proposed sounded like they "attack every ship within 3MU"

The exact wording of the UNSC AMT rule is:

"After the ship movement phase, the AMT moves up to 6mu (3mu in vector) from
the marker towards nearest target before detonating.

On detonation, all ships within 1mu of marker take 3D6 damage, within 2mu 2D6,
within 3mu 1D6."

The rule very deliberately does NOT say that AMTs "attack" anything.

You paraphrased this rule to read "AMTs attack every ship within 3mu", and
then built a set of objections against your own interpretation of your own
paraphrase of the rule - but since the AMT rule didn't actually say what

you claimed it said, those objections weren't very relevant to the actual AMT
rule.

My apologies if I failed to explain this in a polite enough way, both the
last time and this time - I'm just not very good at telling people that
a
word they think they read doesn't exist in the text they are reading :-(

> and they don't make attack runs like normal missiles so more like a

That is *exactly* what the wording in the AMT rule means, yes.

> What is the exact turn sequence?

If you don't use the beta-test fighter/missile/etc. rules, the turn
sequence in FB2 is used.

If you do use the beta-test fighter/missile/etc. rules, the turn
sequence in those rules is used.

AFAIK no other variations of the turn sequence have been approved for
public beta-release.

> there were some questions about the wording in the rules that didn't

Since there is currently no such "clean set of play test rules" to look at,
much less one which is approved for beta-release, we can't  provide you
with one at this time. Sorry.

Regards,

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Goodall"
<agoodall@hyperbear.com>
> On 3/1/07, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

I know that everyone has been very, very patient during the long hiatus in
development (largely due to Real Life(tm) issues...), but I'd just like to let
you all know that at last things are genuinely moving towards a cohesive
public beta release for FT3.... Allan's (and others') recent posts have done a
good job of succinctly explaining why the machinations of the test list may
sometimes seem
over-secretive from the outside; while the test list will continue to
thrash out the sort of stuff that's just too sketchy for public consumption
yet, we will hopefully very soon have a small "development team" in place who
will be working on giving you all something that you can actually use and
report back on.

Thanks for the interest and support,

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI would _pay_  for
beta versions of FMA and the K'rvak beta rules from BDS in.PDF format. I don't
get to play often enough to be on the playtest list, but once a month or so I
visit a friend in Atlanta who really wants to play K'rvak. Enough so that he
has a couple of platoons.

Roger

> On 3/3/07, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> I would _pay_ for beta versions of FMA and the K'rvak beta

It's not pretty, but you might try this:
http://www.stargrunt.ca/toe/sg2_toe_kravak/CompiledKravak.txt

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWe used those,
there were a few complaints but mostly we liked them.

We had a nasty scenario. The K's had to hold a town while the ESU, the NI, and
my platoon of mercs tried to pry them out.

We did realize that a sniper is even more valuable against K's. When they go
Rokah they abandon cover.

Roger

> On 3/3/07, Laserlight <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:

One idea would be that an SSD or a set of rules gets sanctioned from GZG until
such time that GZG releases an official variant. That way, those of us that
doesnt enjoy puzzling together an SSD or hashing out house rules can still use
the models in the game until someone sees fit to set official rules.

One other idea would be to have a group (playtest-list?) to update
rules, then they could issue a release candidate that people can try and
comment on.

When the playtesters feels satisfied about their work, the rules set are
published on GZG's site.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 3/3/07, Roger
> Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:

When you guys play next, would you consider taking notes while you run through
the game and post your findings in an AAR to the list here? It would be
helpful to the playtesters who are involved with that bit of the GZG rules.

And if you had, I apologize, I missed the posting.

Mk

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI will but the
principle organizer and K'rvak player is about to be blessed with twins. It
may be awhile.

Roger

> On 3/5/07, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
When
> > they

> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Allan Goodall wrote:

> I wish there were more players in the northern Louisiana area. I could

Make your own players. It's what I have had to do. Otherwise, the only people
who play FT in Denver would be me and Scott Field.

I don't get to play in the games but at least FT games are being played.

> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:41:15PM -0700, Mike Stanczyk wrote:

> Make your own players. It's what I have had to do.

This would be less weird if I hadn't just been contemplating Sa'Vasku ground
units and what they are likely to do with wounded and dead enemies.

R

If I get to Denver, I'll play. I have penciled in Tacticon (Labor Day).
 Be
there or be Square!

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com

[quoted original message omitted]

> On 3/6/07, Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net> wrote:

It's not that simple, when there's no real game store for some 100 miles.

On the other hand, I introduced Logan (age 8) to Silent Death a week ago. He
quite enjoyed it...