_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lSom
e friends are trying to get me hooked on WarHamster 40K. I've heard that the
road to that game leads to financial ruin. Anybody recomend the game?
F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr.Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always,
scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented
with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at
TexasBestGrok!
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_23347_1215032009_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_23347_1215032009_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lDo
you have deep pockets and do you like to play against dogmatic opponents who
do not allow for freedom of choice or individual creativity?
This may seem harsh but it does describe my experience with most of the GW
hobby. Your individual experiences may very. I used to love the games until I
"grew up". I have not played a Warhammer game in about fives years and have
only bought any of their stuff to use in other games.
I will avoid the usual arguements against GW and simply say that I could
not keep up with their constant rule/force changes which made my
previously official forces unofficial or completely invalidated whole units.
The above being said, there is a huge fan base for GW games and plenty of
players. If you want a game that you can collect and play and always have a
fellow player around, GW is a good call. You will never be lonely among their
fold. They have a great retail presence, so you can always find their stuff
and if you are interested in leagues and tournaments there is always one going
on somewhere near you.
Make the choice yourself and play what you want to play.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Fred Kiesche <recursive_loop@yahoo.com>
Some friends are trying to get me hooked on WarHamster 40K. I've heard that
the road to that game leads to financial ruin. Anybody recomend the game?
Ask them to explain the changes with the new version. If your eyes glaze over
within the first five minutes, as do mine, probably not.
The_Beast
Fred Kiesche wrote on 07/02/2008 03:25:31 PM:
> Some friends are trying to get me hooked on WarHamster 40K. I've
My experience:
It's MUCH easier to find someone to play with.
The game is gigantically expensive. Rules are written and re-written
frequently. The figures are expensive, especially vehicles.
The sculpt and cast quality of the figures are excellent. The visual
style is a matter of taste-- GW's figures are definitely not what
you'd call hard science fiction. They're more of a medieval fantasy with
science fiction trappings. If you want a 6mm force to match your
25mm force, you're probably out of luck-- Epic 40k is very limited in
the miniatures that are out.
Say what you will about GW players (and I've had mostly good experiences
there), but the average paint quality is excellent. I learned a LOT on the GW
website, magazines and codices about how to paint minis.
GW games and gamers are unforgiving of using other companies' model
ranges. They've got a very top-down approach to managing their
players, who are often very young.
They're aggressive about their channel management, too. Your best bet is to
find a reputable retailer who sells GW stuff at a 20% discount or so.
Otherwise you'll pay retail. Availability is excellent: they have their own
stores, have a good footprint in retail, and an excellent online store.
I haven't played 5th ed yet but, tactically, there's little to recommend the
game. Some units charge into melee. Others line up and shoot. The rules are
cumbersome and silly. Winning is heavily driven
by army composition-- and you end up buying new units to optimize your
force comp because the rules are always changing (obviously more $$$). The
game is designed to feel "heroic" rather than "realistic". Writing and editing
quality are on par with the industry.
Their space game, Battlefleet: Gothic, is IMO excellent. It's the softest of
science fiction, but it's a fun game if you only play out
of the main rulebook. It's fast-paced, fun and tactically rich. And I
think there are aspects of this game (specifically crew quality) that FT could
benefit from. A nice side benefit of BFG is that since it's
only half-heartedly supported by GW, the fleet and rules I bought in
2000 are still fine today.
Rob
> On 7/2/08, Fred Kiesche <recursive_loop@yahoo.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMy
experiences with GW games is quite the opposite. Wargaming can be expensive if
you want to pump lots of money at it. Try buying a Wargames Foundry DBM army.
GW products have excellent production values with loads of colour pictures.
The issue of how regular to release new versions of rules and amry lists seems
to be a challanege for all games companies. Some players demand more releases
others dislike the changes. I find the low level of support for rules from GZG
a turn off and my gaming group (and I suspect a lot of others) wrote our own
version of the rules. There is nothing stopping you making up whatever you
want amongst your gaming group and using whatever homebrew rules and
background you want. Just don't expect this to be transportable to another
gaming group for a pick up game. 40k doesn't have a generic "design your own"
mechanism, but then neither does Flames of War or most historical games. As
has been mentioned there are a large number of players and well supported
events for what is probably the largest scifi game. You can walk into a
completly new gaming group and get a pick up game going with an agreed set of
rules and army lists almost instantly. I doubt you could do that with the open
source community approach adopted by most GZG gaming groups.
----- Original Message ----
From: "emu2020@comcast.net" emu2020@comcast.net
Do you have deep pockets and do you like to play against dogmatic opponents
who do not allow for freedom of choice or individual creativity? Â This may
seem harsh but it does describe my experience with most of the GW hobby. Your
individual experiences may very. I used to love the games until I "grew up". I
have not played a Warhammer game in about fives years and have only bought any
of their stuff to use in other games. Â I will avoid the usual arguements
against GW and simply say that I could
not keep up with their constant rule/force changes which made my
previously official forces unofficial or completely invalidated whole units. Â
The above being said, there is a huge fan base for GW games and plenty of
players. If you want a game that you can collect and play and always have a
fellow player around, GW is a good call. You will never be lonely among their
fold. They have a great retail presence, so you can always find their stuff
and if you are interested in leagues and tournaments there is always one going
on somewhere near you. Â Make the choice yourself and play what you want to
play. Â
-Eli
Â
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Fred Kiesche <recursive_loop@yahoo.com>
Some friends are trying to get me hooked on WarHamster 40K. I've heard that
the road to that game leads to financial ruin. Anybody recomend the game?
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_723_1215038269_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_723_1215038269_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTo
address a couple of points made here.
1) DBM, does not dictate scale or manufacturer.
2) Regular releases do not have to invalidate previous releases.
3) Comparing the flexibility of sci-fi fantasy setting/systems to that
of historical is a non-point.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
My experiences with GW games is quite the opposite.
Wargaming can be expensive if you want to pump lots of money at it. Try buying
a Wargames Foundry DBM army.
GW products have excellent production values with loads of colour pictures.
The issue of how regular to release new versions of rules and amry lists seems
to be a challanege for all games companies. Some players demand more releases
others dislike the changes. I find the low level of support for rules from GZG
a turn off and my gaming group (and I suspect a lot of others) wrote our own
version of the rules.
There is nothing stopping you making up whatever you want amongst your gaming
group and using whatever homebrew rules and background you want. Just don't
expect this to be transportable to another gaming group for a pick up game.
40k doesn't have a generic "design your own" mechanism, but then neither does
Flames of War or most historical games.
As has been mentioned there are a large number of players and well supported
events for what is probably the largest scifi game.
You can walk into a completly new gaming group and get a pick up game going
with an agreed set of rules and army lists almost instantly.
I doubt you could do that with the open source community approach adopted by
most GZG gaming groups.
----- Original Message ----
From: "emu2020@comcast.net" emu2020@comcast.net
Do you have deep pockets and do you like to play against dogmatic opponents
who do not allow for freedom of choice or individual creativity?
This may seem harsh but it does describe my experience with most of the GW
hobby. Your individual experiences may very. I used to love the games until I
"grew up". I have not played a Warhammer game in about fives years and have
only bought any of their stuff to use in other games.
I will avoid the usual arguements against GW and simply say that I could
not keep up with their constant rule/force changes which made my
previously official forces unofficial or completely invalidated whole units.
The above being said, there is a huge fan base for GW games and plenty of
players. If you want a game that you can collect and play and always have a
fellow player around, GW is a good call. You will never be lonely among their
fold. They have a great retail presence, so you can always find their stuff
and if you are interested in leagues and tournaments there is always one going
on somewhere near you.
Make the choice yourself and play what you want to play.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Fred Kiesche <recursive_loop@yahoo.com>
Some friends are trying to get me hooked on WarHamster 40K. I've heard that
the road to that game leads to financial ruin. Anybody recomend the game?
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_2705_1215038376_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIs
there a CHEAPER version of WarHammer 40K? I remember there was a Napolionic
Era game where the pieces are not painted minitures but long cardboard
counters representing unit battlelines. Could there be a series of cardboard
counters that could used in place of the expensive minitures?
JBrewer@webtv.net
"Always strive to be a good person. If you can't do that, at least strive to
be someone other than an asshole."
[quoted original message omitted]
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_24093_1215043355_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_24093_1215043355_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTha
t is the problem with GW games in general. There are really no widely accepted
alternatives. I would say, ask you friends if they mind you using proxy
figures. If they say yes, then you are golden. If they take exception to that,
then not much you can do.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "John Brewer" <jbrewer@webtv.net>
Is there a CHEAPER version of WarHammer 40K? I remember there was a Napolionic
Era game where the pieces are not painted minitures but long cardboard
counters representing unit battlelines. Could there be a series of cardboard
counters that could used in place of the expensive minitures?
JBrewer@webtv.net
"Always strive to be a good person. If you can't do that, at least strive to
be someone other than an asshole."
From: emu2020@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 4:53 PM
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!
Do you have deep pockets and do you like to play against dogmatic opponents
who do not allow for freedom of choice or individual creativity?
This may seem harsh but it does describe my experience with most of the GW
hobby. Your individual experiences may very. I used to love the games until I
"grew up". I have not played a Warhammer game in about fives years and have
only bought any of their stuff to use in other games.
I will avoid the usual arguements against GW and simply say that I could
not keep up with their constant rule/force changes which made my
previously official forces unofficial or completely invalidated whole units.
The above being said, there is a huge fan base for GW games and plenty of
players. If you want a game that you can collect and play and always have a
fellow player around, GW is a good call. You will never be lonely among their
fold. They have a great retail presence, so you can always find their stuff
and if you are interested in leagues and tournaments there is always one going
on somewhere near you.
Make the choice yourself and play what you want to play.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Fred Kiesche <recursive_loop@yahoo.com>
Some friends are trying to get me hooked on WarHamster 40K. I've heard that
the road to that game leads to financial ruin. Anybody recomend the game?
There's no officially sanctioned version like that. Even unofficially, you
pretty much have to use the miniatures. In BFG, there were even
penalties you'd take in-game for using ships that had not yet passed
their "fleet trials" (ie been painted).
My understanding is that for 5th edition, there's a new obstacle: true LOS.
They have this laser pointer doohickey that you're supposed to use to see if
one model blocks another.
Note that my understanding of 5th ed is VERY sketchy at this point.
Robert Mayberry
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:17 PM, John Brewer <jbrewer@webtv.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe
re are challanges in playing any game designed for a specific rages of
figures and then using alternates. If you were playing a Full Thrust game set
in the FT universe and you didn't use the correct ship models some people
might get annoyed. Yes this blob is a class A ship and this nearly identical
blob is a completely different class B ship and this blob is a class A ship.
So much cooler to play games where the minatures depict the correct ships.
Lots of people use alternate minatures when playing GW games especialy within
their gaming groups. GW (not unreasonably) insist on people using their models
at an event they are running or sponsoring. No different to any other
corporation. In 40K they play very WYSIWIG so you have to have models that
look like the capabilities they are supposed to represent. It's important to
be able to determine which model has which weapon and which is the leader etc
If you can consistently depict the weapons accross your armies then people
have less problems with counts as figures. Again within your gaming group you
can do whatever you can agree on, just don't expect to be able to transport
your army of non GW figs to a GW store for a game. For what you are getting I
don't think GW figures are too badlt priced. They are on a par with the other
high quality corporate metal model manufacturers and make more use of plastics
than most.
1) DBM, does not dictate scale or manufacturer. Â 2) Regular releases do not
have to invalidate previous releases. Â
3) Comparing the flexibility of sci-fi fantasy setting/systems to that
of historical is a non-point.
DBM does dictate scale, they don't dictate manufacturer because they don't
sell models. All games where the manufacturer makes models talks soley about
the use of their games. Regular releases of updated rules sets or army list
books does invalidate the previous version. It does not stop people agreeing
to play the old rules of the game though. Pretty standard in all games not
just GW ones. A scifi game tighlty bound to it's integral game universe is
comparable to a historical game. A generic set of rules (effectively GURPS
wargaming) designed to be used in a free form way will do an OK job of
representing a bunch of game universes. By asking this list and even including
the derivative name "warhamster 40k" in the original post I thinnk the poster
is not expecting to get many positive comments. If you want some balanced
feedback you would be much better to also post on some GW forums.
That is the problem with GW games in general. There are really no widely
accepted alternatives. I would say, ask you friends if they mind you using
proxy figures. If they say yes, then you are golden. If they take exception to
that, then not much you can do. Â
-Eli
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_7656_1215049927_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Other than find friends who don't make their "friendship" conditional on
owning the right pieces of plastic. Don't get me started...:(
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
----- Original Message ----
From: Robert Mayberry <robert.mayberry@gmail.com>
There's no officially sanctioned version like that. Even unofficially, you
pretty much have to use the miniatures. In BFG, there were even
penalties you'd take in-game for using ships that had not yet passed
their "fleet trials" (ie been painted).
My understanding is that for 5th edition, there's a new obstacle: true LOS.
They have this laser pointer doohickey that you're supposed to use to see if
one model blocks another.
Note that my understanding of 5th ed is VERY sketchy at this point.
Robert Mayberry
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:17 PM, John Brewer <jbrewer@webtv.net> wrote:
There's no version of carboard cutouts for any 3d figure wargame that I know
of. If you want to use carboard counters it's a large scale boardgame. If you
and your firends want to use the 40k rulebook and make up your own army lists
and points values and use 15mm figures to portray your own scifi universe no
one is going to stop you. GW lawyers won't teleport in and zap you with cease
and desist cannons. It is much harder to do this from 40k because there isn't
a generic design tool and common point value accross all the systems but you
could easily make one if you wanted to put int the work. I never encountered
the thing about being painted, in BFG but then I never play in a GW store and
store managers often introduced a whole bunch of additional rules. I don't
think its a bad idea at all, it's way better to play with nicely painted
models. Many wargames use models eye view to determine LOS, there is some
consternation among seasoned 40k players that people will model their figures
crouching to gain some kind of in game advantage. Not sure if this will work
or not. The laser pointer is GW's idea to quickly resolve arguments about
whether you can see them or not. I expect most people will buy one from their
pet store rather than the GW one if they do so at all.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAt
> 11:17 PM +0000 2/7/08, John Brewer wrote:
Good day No. and Yes to the questions How about the Epic: Armageddon rules on
the specialist site? There are proxy counters to print out and use
Just base up your 20/25/28/"heroic" scale troops on bases and use the
rules system scaled up to suit But there are plenty of generic systems
available out there...
MarkS
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:01 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:17 PM, John Brewer <jbrewer@webtv.net> wrote:
Ah, concerning your first statement, there is.
> From Full Thrust (2nd ed rules), page 44:
"Although the game will work perfectly well using counters or other markers to
represent starships..."
And page 45: "On page 47 you will find a set of counters that represent the
ships used in the Introductory Scenario, [...] The ship counters in particular
can look very effective if the white ship outlines are then coloured in,
perhaps with one of the fluorescent highlighter pens. [...]"
Just a data point. :-)
Mk
Robert Mayberry
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:17 PM, John Brewer <jbrewer@webtv.net> wrote:
> I never encountered the thing about being painted, in BFG but then I
Main rulebook, page 149, under campaign rules.
One nice thing about GW's laser is that it's designed to sit over a figure.
Though I'm surprised they didn't just give it a mirror at a 45 degree angle.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
From Full Thrust (2nd ed rules), page 44: "Although the game will work
perfectly well using counters or other markers to represent starships..."
And page 45: "On page 47 you will find a set of counters that represent the
ships used in the Introductory Scenario, [...] The ship counters in particular
can look very effective if the white ship outlines are then coloured in,
perhaps with one of the fluorescent highlighter pens. [...]"
Just a data point. :-)
Umm That particular rulebook was published a long time ago before the current
range of models was available. GW did the same thing with it's intro version
in WD of battlefleet gothic until it introduced the model line. If GZG did a
GW and released a FT3 boxed set with the rules and a couple of fleet packs
There would be no need to mention carboard counters. The fact that you have to
go back 10 years to find a counter example kind of supports my argument.
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1883_1215057944_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1883_1215057944_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lSo,
because GZG choozes to not needlessly reprint data and keeps their books
available through PDF after they have stopped printing they somehow do not
support their game? Perhaps they do not need to poor out as much support for
their game, because their games do not suffer the railroaded tunnel vision of
some other companies.
I fail to see how your point is made, simply because GZG chooses to
support their game through long-ranging expansions which seem to do fine
by those people who play them. The fact that GZG has enough of a falling to
support conventions, however small, on its own, says something about the
fraternity of its loyal fans.
But, this thread is diverging from its original purpose which was to
give the gent opions about 40K/GW. I stand by my intiial statements. I
was a loyal fan of GW's games for a long time. Heck, I would still play them
if they hadn't yanked me around as a player and a consumer so many times. I do
feel that any review of the game does need to have the good with the bad and
that is what I tried to provide, WITHOUT resorting to
tearing down other companies/systems/designers.
That is all,
Eli
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lYou
r argument has gotten highly emotional. "Needlessly reprint" is an opinion you
hold. Many GW games don't hold this opinion. You are not the only persion I
have seen that has complained about how hard it is to keep up with games
produced by corporate game companies. GW are not the only game that release
regular suppliments that sometimes change the existing units and or stimulate
people to buy new units. Rackham and Privatee Press both maintain design
studios and both pump out rules updates and suppliments on a regular basis.
Some of these change the rules and the effectiveness of units I find the fact
that the GZG rules have not been updated in the best part of 10 years and are
not always consistent accross the multiple books I find off putting. My gaming
group found the same so we wrote our own version of the FT rules,
"long-ranging expansions"
 Another emotive phrase, I'd call no updates for 10 years stagnant myself.
But some classic games like chess have not had an update for
1000+ years and still sell.
It looks like defining the appropriate release cycle is a hard thing for the
games companies. Too quickly and people feel their purchase is invaildated,
too slowly and people get bored waiting for the expansions. I am sorry that
you no longer like GW games. The original poster seemed to want a perspective
and you gave him one from a person that no longer likes the game, I tried to
give him a response from someone that enjoys the game and compared the GW (and
other corporate game houses) approach to the GZG cottage industry approach. I
know I would be a lot more inspired to play FT if there were a collected
edition fo the second ed rules and fleet books, minis were released with SSDs
and there wase more development of the campaign background and storyline with
new campaigns and missions featuring the new ship models.
I never tried to tear down the GZG approach. I compared it to what the other
companies do.
> From Full Thrust (2nd ed rules), page 44:
I don't want to get too drawn into this thread, but felt that I had
to just point this out; from our newly-published (April 2008) FULL
THRUST LIGHT:
.............
WHAT YOU'LL NEED: It is possible to play Full Thrust with card counters
representing the starships, but for the full miniatures gaming experience
you'll ideally want models. Our extensive FULL THRUST miniatures line can
provide you with everything you need, but you can also use models from any
other manufacturers.
.............
I think that, given the fact that (like GW) we survive on miniatures
sales, that is about as fair as we can afford to be! ;-)
Oh, and as to a boxed set with rules and fleets - our FT INTRO PACK
gives you exactly that - well, not a fancy box, but for £25 you get
two 8-ship fleets and a free copy of the FT LIGHT rules complete with
ready-prepared SSD sheets to pick-up-and-play.....
I'm quite ambivalent about the whole GW situation. On one hand they have the
same problems as us on a very much larger scale, in that they are primarily a
miniatures company and must keep selling new minis to survive, but on the
other hand a lot of folks don't like the WAY they go about doing that, with
successive rules changes invalidating whole armies (in some cases) and FORCING
their players to buy the new stuff if they wish to keep gaming in their
"official" environment. It often seems more of a "stick" than a "carrot"
approach, and that annoys some people a lot, hence the vehement reactions
you'll often see. We (GZG) keep releasing new minis too, but we don't tell
people that
they can't use their old ones in our games any more - we just make
the new ones as nice as we can and hope that it tempts people into buying them
even if they already have some of our old stuff.
I suppose you could use an analogy of car manufacturers - if you have
a ten-year-old car, the industry will try everything they can to
tempt you into buying a new 2008 model - but they won't (or at least
can't) tell you that you MUST buy the shiny 2008 model because you won't be
allowed to drive your 1998 clunker on the roads anymore.
I've already said more on this thread than I intended to, so I'll
stop now..... ;-)
> On Thu, July 3, 2008 03:44, Indy wrote:
wrote:
> > Is there a CHEAPER version of WarHammer 40K? I remember there was
The Honor Harrington starship combat game also comes with cardboard counters
(well, boxes actually, with a picture of the
side/top/front etc of the ship on each side of the box).
When we first played Warhammer Fantasy (3rd Edition), we used our own
cardboard counters for our armies, since we couldn't afford to buy the models.
We just scrawled 'Elf' or 'Orc' on each counter so we knew what it was...
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l200
8/7/3 Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>:
... many wise words...
I think GZG would grow from making the rulesset more open source, maybe in a
wiki kind of way. With a core rules set and player added special rules and
scenarios.
/M
> There's no version of carboard cutouts for any 3d figure wargame that
Damn, I'm getting so dependent on spell check I missed the whole 'carboard'
missing D til just now. Oh, and yes, I know, 'til' isn't a word. To spell
check...
Anyway, FASA's Renegade Legion series had boxes for ships, fighters, and grav
tanks; Cardboard Heroes are still available, I think, from Steve Jackson Games
for Trav use.
The_Beast
> >> There's no version of carboard cutouts for any
> Anyway, FASA's Renegade Legion series [...]
Also, from the top of my head:
FASA's Battletech boxes also had cardboard cutouts for the Mechs (although I
think some of the editions had plastic minis... not sure which one, though).
Also Dream Pod 9's "Heavy Gear", "Lightning Strike" and "Gear Krieg" had
cardboard cutouts for play. And although I would not count them as full games,
the Demos for Gear Krieg, Heavy Gear and Jovian Chronicles also
had cutouts (and a mini-battlefield) for a one-on-one encounter.
My 2 cents,
> On Thu, July 3, 2008 14:29, Doug Evans wrote:
Even more unrelated, I made the following when running some D&D 3rd a few
years back when I realised obtaining several dozen giant figures just wasn't
practical. However, the HTML files print at the right size, are really easy to
make and could be easily tailored to wargaming (any genre) if desired.
http://www.glendale.org.uk/d20/
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
Along with Steve Jackson's cardboard figures, Politically Incorrect Games
sells a range of "Disposable Heroes". Along with a wide range of fantasy
figures, they also have steampunk, cyberpunk, World War II (Germans and
Americans), pulp, western, space science fiction, horror, and anime. You
download them as PDFs and print as many as you need on your own paper.
The Disposable Heroes line is unique in that they now offer
three-sided figures instead of the Steve Jackson two-sided figures.
Steve Jackson's are actually three sided, but they form a tent shape, with the
figure lying on on the short side. The Disposable Heroes figures are also
three sided, but they lie on the open edge. The figure has two front sides (a
left and a right) and one back side. They seem a little more stable than the
older style.
Unique to Disposable Heroes is their "Customizable" versus "Statix" option.
The Statix figures are just a wide range of figures. The Customizable option
is more expensive, but you get to pick and choose what appears on the file, so
you don't waste ink printing figures you don't use. This is particularly good
for building an army of the same set of figures.
I have a fantasy set. I'm not crazy about the science fiction set (Jon has
little to worry about, competition wise). Some of the other sets look pretty
interesting, though.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMr.
Tailby spoke rashly and said:
GW (not unreasonably) insist on people using their models at an event they are
running or sponsoring. No different to any other corporation.
--------------
Sorry, but it is. Many corporations in fact produce games either designed to
be used with whatever miniatures you want or at least open to the idea that
you will supplement their official miniatures with others.
For instance, GZG sponsors the GZG-ECC convention each year. There, we
do see a lot of GZG figures, but we also see pirate ships, star wars
miniatures, figures from other lines, renegade legion tanks, WW2 microarmour,
etc. There is a strong GZG presence, but there are other
figures mixed in - in their own games using GZG rules (or modified
versions of same) and in games with both GZG and other formations present.
This is QUITE a different stance from GW and there are a number of other games
companies who do the same thing. Sponsorship needs to encourage business for
it to be viable, but it only becomes a straightjacket in the hands of the 800
pound gorilla (ie GW).
My experiences of GW:
Pleasant folks in the stores. Nicely painted figures and they are willing to
share some technique on figure painting and on terrain building. An excellent
book on terrain building was produced by these folks. Very high quality and
high price for their miniatures.
But... laughable rules. I've seen versions of the rules where bludgeoning was
better than shooting and where gunfire barely extended beyond a turns movement
of space marines on foot. A distinct flavour for the silly
(argh).
Their most important shortcoming is the one that people have only touched
upon:
Their business model. The GW business model *expects* a high rate of player
turnover (as they find better games, grow up, or get driven off). Thus their
churn in army lists and figure sculpts and rules is (given that assumption)
not terribly problematic.
Rules exist as a vehicle to sell miniatures. Changing rules and changing army
lists justifies selling more miniatures. They don't change them to make the
rules better (they'll say that, but who are we kidding?). They change the
rules to sell more white metal and resin. That's their bread and butter.
THAT isn't so much of an oddity - GZG is a miniatures company that
happens to publish some rules to allow you to use their miniatures. Jon
doesn't make $$$ selling rules AFAIK or at least darn few. The profits, such
as they are, are in the resin and white metal products.
But you'll notice Jon doesn't churn out army lists to sell new miniatures (he
does ADD new ships and throw up some sort of stats for them) but he doesn't
invalidate prior designs. Even FB1, which shifted the rules, left an easy path
to support existing miniatures. THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF GW. (That's emphasis
not hostility)
I had a friend was a big Squat player, then they obliterated them. Nice. No
salvage there. Any real good reason to do that? Nope. Except to sell some
other different miniatures. Because, in my best gravelly Scotsman voice
"That's the GW Way!".
I buy GW products (terrain, books on modelling or painting, the occasional
not-so-identifiable or gothic model (TAU APCs and Tanks) and so on. I
buy modelling tools from GW. I play Space Hulk and have played some other
games of theirs (Gorka Morka, Bombers over the Sulfa River, Necromunda and
Blood Bowl). But WH40K's only advantage in my eyes (and not to me) is ubiquity
of product and players. It isn't quality of rules or style of products. It
isn't the gamerish focus on points.
I think people on the list have outlined their experiences pro and con.
Hopefully some of that is useful to the original poster in making up his mind.
My advice boils down to this: If it gets you gaming more and your friends are
a bit flexible on how much you have to spend, give it a try. A
not-so-inspired game played is still better than a million conjecturally
better games. But if you can take those same friends and introduce them to SG2
or DS2 or FT and get them playing, you may find that WH40K just looks a bit
laughable in comparison.
> Tom B wrote:
> to the idea that you will supplement their official miniatures with
I know GZG is different, but, do the Flames of War people allow you to bring
unofficial miniatures to play in their official tournaments? Or the Wizkids
tournaments? Does Mongoose Publishing let you bring homebrew Shadow Omegas?
All of us can name a bunch of smaller companies that produce minis or
mini-like things that are 'open source' -- but I don't think any of the
larger, more popular game companies willingly embrace such an ideal.
So, I don't think the original assertion is invalid. Has anybody actually
tried this and succeed with any of the bigger companies?
(Say Wizkids, Wizards of the Coast, SJ Games, Battlefront, Rackham --
the things that the FLGS downstairs stocks. I think I already know what GW
would
say. (8-))
JGH
"In-game penilties for using ships that have not been painted?" - Let me
guess, -2 for unpainted & -1 for "slop-&-go"? ;-)
JBrewer@webtv.net
"Always strive to be a good person. If you can't do that, at least strive to
be someone other than an asshole."
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Jul 3, 2008, at 11:08 PM, John Brewer wrote:
> "In-game penilties for using ships that have not been painted?" -
Does it really matter?
BTW, AK47 has in-game penalties for unpainted armies.
D.
Flames of War does indeed allow you to use other companies' figures. There
have been several armies made from Old Glory figs that have turned up in
tournaments. Wizkids is a silly analogy, because they have a very specific
product and there are not any other people production Clix figures with
official stats on them. I don't think Mongoose bothers with tournaments but
can't claim any expertise there.
-Eli
I know GZG is different, but, do the Flames of War people allow you to bring
unofficial miniatures to play in their official tournaments? Or the Wizkids
tournaments? Does Mongoose Publishing let you bring homebrew Shadow Omegas?
All of us can name a bunch of smaller companies that produce minis or
mini-like things that are 'open source' -- but I don't think any of the
larger, more popular game companies willingly embrace such an ideal.
So, I don't think the original assertion is invalid. Has anybody actually
tried this and succeed with any of the bigger companies?
(Say Wizkids, Wizards of the Coast, SJ Games, Battlefront, Rackham --
the things that the FLGS downstairs stocks. I think I already know what GW
would
say. (8-))
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
apologize if my responses have seemed, emotional. I do not like GW games, but
I think that I laid out the pros and cons rather fairly in my original post.
GW games are great for those who like them. But, I would be lying to somebody
if I didnât point out some of their failings. However, you have filled your
arguments with erroneous âdataâ trying to pigeon hole other companies to
defend your arguments.
Privateer Press has done nothing to write troops or units out of the game.
They have clarified rules that have needed it and yes, this has indeed
changed, however subtly, the way that figures have played, at times, but ever
figure they have ever included in their game and rules is still perfectly
viable in any sort of game or tournament.
Nobody is disputing a companyâs rite or need to expand their product line,
but this does not have to be done to the exclusion of the previous investments
in time and money. It is quite possible for a company to continue to expand by
either adding new components to existing forces
and new rules to existing rules sets. It is even possible to re-write
rules sets completely, while preserving the investments that players have
made. If you evolve the universe of your game, then you are giving players the
option to expand their collections without forcing them to do so. I know rules
sets are going to evolve and even figures lines will evolve. What I take
exception to, with GW, is their constant and blatant discontinuation of
forces.
The original post asked for opinions, so I do not think that giving them is
wrong.
-Eli
Well, My expereince with GW went from Good to WTF.. I used to have a nice
Imperial Guard force and I baced it with a # of Vindicator Assassins. All I
have left are my Assassins. Somewhere... It all haad to do with them changing
the rules... Plus around here, we had a lot of "if it not GW legal" Then it
not playable.
But then again, the games that they transfered to Specialist games.. I have
had go expereinces.. I was playing Necrmunda off and on for a # of years and
my Gang was good.. and wasn't all Necru units.. BGF has some nice starships
taht can make a for a nice fleet.. BLOOD BOWL, what more is there to say.
40K isn't perfect, but... if U play with the right group t can be fun
In Memory of Russ Manduca 7/22/67-1/8/08
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have
hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else
thereafter. Â Â Â Â ~ Ernest Hemmingway
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIf
I used erroneous data to support my arguments then so did you. It's rather
pointless giving a review of a game that you don't play and don't like. I
don't think your review of 40k was balanced at all. Â You talk about constant
change and army invalidation. GW struggles to maintain a 5 year renewal cycle
on its rules and army list books. I don't think 5 years is an unreasonable
time to update rules and army books. Â In 15 years of playing 40k to my
knowledge GW have only dropped support for one race, because they could figure
out a way to make inspirational figures and rules for it any more. As has been
noted they are a figure making company and need good figure sales to support
their business. Some new versions of the rules and army lists invalidate or
change the most efficient builds of some armies. But this is often a
reflection of the designers trying to correct their mistakes. Surely they
should have an opportunity to do this. Â From what my friends have said (who
play the game more than me and so are qualified to comment), Privateer Press
have painted themselves into a corner with some of their initial version of
war casters. Initial versions of war caster Sorcha were found to be
unbelievably good how then to the game designers fix this. Â In regard
companies running events. I don't think it unreasonable that a company
running an event insists that its product be used. I don't think that Oracle
would like software products based on.net being demonstrated at one of their
trade shows. If a company wants to organise an event and then allow other
manufacturers products to be used then good on them. In New Zealand, Flames of
War don't allow other companies models at their tournaments and certainly
don't encourage or support you using other companies models events in other
countries and those run by independent stockists might well have other rules.
 I found some of comments very funny. The same people who said they were very
interested in games based on Aliens, with shooting marines vs. close combat
aliens, said they didn't like how 40k had units that did nothing but run into
combat. Sorry but what else does an Alien do? You could use 40K to produce a
very massive aliens type game, I don't think 40k would be detailed enough for
a replay of the Aliens movie, but if you wanted 100Â Colonial marines vs. 100
Aliens and to finish the game
in 2-3 hours then you could use 40k.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
âIf I used erroneous data to support my arguments then so did you. It's
rather pointless giving a review of a game that you don't play and don't like.
I don't think your review of 40k was balanced at all.â
I donât play it. I have played it though. For years. Since 1st
edition. I would likely play it again if not for the heavy-handed
rulings of the company and many of the players that follow them. And I fail to
see how my dislike or like of a game has anything to do with whether or not I
should review a game.
â You talk about constant change and army invalidation. GW struggles to
maintain a 5 year renewal cycle on its rules and army list books. I don't
think 5 years is an unreasonable time to update rules and army books.â
Update yes, but there is no reason they canât make sure that all previously
published forces are included in updates.
âIn 15 years of playing 40k to my knowledge GW have only dropped support for
one race, because they could figure out a way to make inspirational figures
and rules for it any more. As has been noted they are a figure making company
and need good figure sales to support their business. Some new versions of the
rules and army lists invalidate or change the most efficient builds of some
armies. But this is often a reflection of the designers trying to correct
their mistakes. Surely they should have an opportunity to do this.â
I have no said anything about races. As an Imperial Guard player I saw my army
lose dreadnoughts, war robots, jump troopers, beast men and various equipment
options. Mind you these are entire units that I have gone out, purchased,
collected, painted and added to my armies only to have a future version of the
game write them right out of the rules. On a similar, but not quite as
annoying note, I also had forces organizations change substantially enough
that my units suddenly became too big or too small. The general trend of the
rules also tended to make
my troops cheaper and cheaper, point-wise, forcing me to have to
purchase more figures to once again have a competitive army.
âFrom what my friends have said (who play the game more than me and so are
qualified to comment), Privateer Press have painted themselves into a corner
with some of their initial version of war casters. Initial versions of war
caster Sorcha were found to be unbelievably good how then to the game
designers fix this.â
Privateer Press didnât fix her. Sheâs not unbeatable. Sheâs not the only
powerful caster in the game and I see her go down routinely. Also, PP has a
very plain and unapologetic stance that they are making a game where
everything is basically over the top and broken. Is this for everyone? Not
likely. And I would give caution to people wanting to play PPs game that any
preconceptions of what you normally think of balance are likely to go out the
window. Everything in PP strives to be outrageous. Itâs on the first few
pages of the book.
âIn regard companies running events. I don't think it unreasonable that a
company running an event insists that its product be used. I don't think that
Oracle would like software products based on.net being demonstrated at one of
their trade shows. If a company wants to organise an event and then allow
other manufacturers products to be used then good on them. In New Zealand,
Flames of War don't allow other companies models at their tournaments and
certainly don't encourage or support you using other companies models events
in other countries and those run by independent stockists might well have
other rules.â
> From Battlefrontâs Tournament Frequently Asked Questions -
âDo all the players need to have Battlefront Miniatures?
Obviously, the easy answer from a sales prospective is yes, of course but
honestly the
real answer is no. It would be very difficult to monitor this rule and we hope
that at
the end of the day if the players out there are enjoying Flames of War they
will help
support our hobby by using Battlefront Miniatures.â
There is a huge difference between âweâd prefer you notâ and
âABSOLUTELY NOTâ.
âI found some of comments very funny. The same people who said they were
very interested in games based on Aliens, with shooting marines vs. close
combat aliens, said they didn't like how 40k had units that did nothing but
run into combat. Sorry but what else does an Alien do? You could use 40K to
produce a very massive aliens type game, I don't think 40k would be detailed
enough for a replay of the Aliens movie, but if you wanted 100 Colonial
marines vs. 100 Aliens and to finish the game in
2-3 hours then you could use 40k..â
I also find this comment made by others a bit silly. 40K has a heavy theme and
in the setting that is how they fight. The Imperial Guard is a more
conventional army as are the Tau. Most of the armies are equipped to close the
gap for one thematic reason or another.
You may also recall that I very much stated my post was opinion. I also
followed up by telling him to make his own choice and really play what he
wanted to play. I played 40K happily and excitedly for years. As I grew up and
began to understand the value of my dollar and see how GWâs practices
differed from other games out there, I moved away from their games. This was a
value judgment based on what is important to me in a game. Iâm not going to
tell anyone what to play, but I will provide my opinion and views of a game
when asked.
Iâm not saying anything more after this, because this has gone way far
afield from the original post. I stated my peace and evidently you took
exception and felt that a manâs opinion wasnât something to take exception
to. There was no need to move into an argument. There was no need to try and
elevate your point by throwing out unfounded comments. I would hope that the
initial poster at least garnered enough information from this thread to make
an informed decision.
Once again, I would like to say to the poster, what I said originally. There
are some things to be aware of before entering into 40K. There are some great
things about getting involved in GW games. If you can handle
the cost and their track record of gross re-writes and some dogmatic
thinking, you will find a game that is widely played, well-supported and
readily available.
Thank you all for putting up with this thread,
-Eli
P.S. Can we get back to GZG now?
Asking on a GZG list for an opinion of 40k vs. GZG isn't likely to produce
terribly balanced responses. It would be, like, going to a 40k list and asking
for an opinion on GZG.
-P.
Paul on 07/04/2008 06:25:15 AM:
> Asking on a GZG list for an opinion of 40k vs. GZG isn't likely to
I suspect most 40k players would reply 'who?'
A better example might be a SFB or AV/SI area; I've seen some pretty
weird things said there.
Truth is, I'm part owner of a business that mostly depends on GW product. I
have been in gaming, one way of another, for decades, and have the same
negative feelings about GW that have been expressed here. On the other hand,
most players I know and respect see these, and they DO see them, as examples
of vibrant and adapting systems.
They also see it as money well spent, and I bless them for it. A few, once in
awhile say, 'FT? Great game; we've got to give it a try again.' And eventually
do.
I do confess a sick thrill at hearing about a bad sculpt, 'that's just
disgusting...', and then seeing the critic buy three to complete his army.
Of course, they paint, mostly well, and I don't. Consider it sour grapes.
Is this flame-bait thread about over?
The_Beast
No, because you would get the response "What is GZG?" <grin> Most of us
here have been around the block a couple of times
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Jerry Han <jhan@warpfish.com> wrote:
> Tom B wrote:
I don't know about Wizkids or Mongoose, but Battlefront (makers of FoW) would
PREFER it if you used their minis. That said, they have not insofar as I know
banned players who have mixed product forces. I think most players of FoW try
to stick mostly with FoW figs because of the preference, but there are a few
out there who have *no* FoW figs and have participated in tournies and local
game shop events (I personally know two of them).
Now, on their website forum, they have stated that if you post photos of
your minis, at least 3/4 or more of the figs in a given photo must be
Battlefront figs. It is their website, after all, and since they are paying
for it, they can call the shots on that.
> All of us can name a bunch of smaller companies that produce minis or
> So, I don't think the original assertion is invalid. Has anybody
I've a couple of friends who play FoW who do not have any Battlefront minis
(or are s-l-o-w-l-y converting their current stock to BF minis; one of
them
has been using a bunch of 1/72 scale minis for his Sov tankovya army for
the past few years because that's what he's owned for nearly two decades, he
is just starting to get some BF minis to expand his army options)
Mk
> John Tailby wrote:
> > Is there a CHEAPER version of WarHammer 40K? I remember there was a
> know of.
Just for laughs, take a look at the original WarHammer Fantasy box which
came complete with cardboard cut-out figures for the intro scenario...
:-)
But of course you will disregard that example since GW stopped doing that many
editions ago <shrug>
Regards,
> John Tailby wrote:
> If you were playing a Full Thrust game set in the FT universe and you
Some people might. Jon Tuffley won't. Heck, a large part of the playtesting of
both FB1 and FB2 was done with "incorrect" ship models...
Regards,
This has gone way off the original question of "should I try 40k" but one last
thing I forgot to mention was that my experience with their customer service
has always been excellent.
Robert Mayberry
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Oerjan Ariander
> <orjan.ariander1@comhem.se> wrote:
On this, I'll have to disagree with you; for some folk, 'should', here,
becomes a question of morality. They actually perceive an evil empire.
Also, GW wants to have a deep and ongoing relationship with you. That's worth
a warning, too. Though, as I've said some folk LOVE that.
Now, if you ask 'is 40k a fun and enjoyable system', you're narrowing the
question, but some of the issues mentioned still are worth considering.
However, if you mention Customer Service, you're already familiar with the
company and 'how things work', which makes much of the discussion moot. You'll
have to admit a bit of lack of clarity in your original post; nothing I
haven't been guilty of a dozen or more times, but fair's
fair...
And, while Jon takes great pains to make certain that ordering is a pleasure,
and mistakes are a rare and easily corrected occurance, you are quite correct
about GW customer service.
As an example, a company that sells, at a premium, 'bitz', is VERY generous
when hearing of missing parts. You would expect shipping a sprue would be as
easy as a single piece, but extras are often thown in, some highly
sought by fanboys. ;->=
Speaking of fanboys, for many, WYSISWYG is very important. I can't get the
measure of a force (I hate calling a few squads 'an army') with a simple
glance, but many of our players, both store owners and customers, can. Proxies
throw them off their game. *shrug*
My own suggestions? You should try 40k. I think you should try Star Fleet
Battles, Saganami Island, and Magic The Gathering. All are painful to play to
me, but they have a strong, loyal fan base, are the cat's meow to those
worthies, and you may well enjoy, too.
Just, use somebody else's rules and figs until you're sure.
I think you should try Rocketmen, but I think I'm a minority of one.
The_Beast
Robert Mayberry wrote on 07/05/2008 06:16:38 AM:
> This has gone way off the original question of "should I try 40k" but
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l>Th
ere's no version of carboard cutouts for any 3d figure wargame that I
> know of.
Just for laughs, take a look at the original WarHammer Fantasy box which
came complete with cardboard cut-out figures for the intro scenario...
:-)
But of course you will disregard that example since GW stopped doing that many
editions ago <shrug>
My what a hornet's nest... I think this is a great example.. When there were
no figures that were available to support the scenario, IIRC this was the one
that looks like the 7 Samurai homage with hero's played by the players and a
host of Slann attacking. At that time I don't think GW made the appropriate
figures to support the scenario so why not include carboard substiutes. I
don't doubt that all games companies play test with proxy models. GW had some
of Andy Chambers conversions and scratchbuilds for the orkish BFG ships in one
of the White Dwarfs. Aspects of this discussion have taken on the find of
disagreements that you get from debates about theology or politics. I don't
expect anyone's opinions will be changed as a result of this discussion. I
can't actually think of any internet discussion where anyone has changed a
strongly held opinion. I think it's very funny that people take the role of
anit GW zealot so seriously. Privateer Press seems filled with people that
defected out of GW games and now spend a huge amount of energy justifying
their decision. If you want to play 40K you only need to worry about using the
correct models if you want to play in a GW shop or one of their events. If you
only want to play with your mates then you can use whatever you want. You can
also make up whatever house rules and alternate lists that you
want. You can even take some non-gw figures to a GW event they are
called "conversions or scratch builds." As long as you don't rub the alternate
models in the organisers face you will be OK. Most GW players I know will look
interested at other companies models. I think WYSIWIG is an important part of
gaming. I want to know what the models are and be able to recognise the force
disposition at a glance. I imagine playing any game where you can't tell who
is the sergeant and what kinds of support weapons the squad has are important.
Especially if you don't know your opponent very well, it could be easy to get
confused about the nature of the models you are shooting at and the models
with the special gear might be the ones that miraculously survive. I played in
GW events where they were not rigerous about WYSIWIG and the confusion aboutÂ
which model had what and the potential for cheating brought an unpleasant
feel to the event, that hasn't ben present with the insistance on WYSIWIG.Â
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 11:09 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> >>There's no version of carboard cutouts for any 3d figure wargame
:-)
> >But of course you will disregard that example since GW stopped doing
I believe Oerjan mentioned that because of your dismissing response to my
example from FT2.
And if you think this has been a hornet's nest, you haven't been around the
'net much. This has been a pretty sane and civil discussion, even though it
has seriously gotten off of the initial posted inquiry. :-/
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
am sorry you felt dismissed, it wasn't the intent. The discussion is more
civilised than some groups, but it doesn't mean the opinions are less strongly
expressed than elsewhere. Just slighly less degrees of toys out of the cot
language. There were examples of cardboard counters to be used instead ofÂ
figures when they are nto available. The FT rules have not been
re-released in years so if they were being re released now and available
in boxed sets with fleets, would they include the sets of cardboard models to
be sued instead? GZG would likely do so because they seem to be that kind of
organisation, GW and many other corporate games companies would be less
likely to.
Given that the original poster referred to the game as Warhamster I was left
wondering whether the original post was at all serious, or just looking for
gratifications of preheld opinions.
> John Tailby wrote:
> >Just for laughs, take a look at the original WarHammer Fantasy box
> IIRC this was the one that looks like the 7 Samurai homage with hero's
AFAIK GW had photos of and ads for both Slann and Dwarf warrior miniatures in
White Dwarf at the time, so I'd be somewhat surprised if they didn't also make
said miniatures
:-)
And then of course there's WH40K Rouge Trader, with its articles on how to
build grav tanks out of schampoo bottles and how to come up with reasonable
WH40K stats for them...
> I don't doubt that all games companies play test with proxy models. GW
There's a minor difference here though: when BFG was being playtested, GW
hadn't yet produced any BFG ship models so AC didn't have much choice but to
use proxies. When FB2 was being playtested OTOH, the GZG alien ships had
already been available for several years :-/
(Of course, Andy being Andy I'd fully expect him to use whatever miniatures
he likes anyway as long as it doesn't get published anywhere - it's not
like GW is going to censure *him* for using the "wrong models" in his games
:-/ )
> I think WYSIWIG is an important part of gaming. I want to know what the
> models are and be able to recognise the force disposition at a glance.
Then you are lucky to have good eyesight. Even with 28+mm figures I have
to pick them up and hold them a few inches from my eye to see their exact
equipment, so in games where the unit's exact equipment is important I rely on
unit data sheets anyway. The WYSIWYG aspect is thus almost completely
irrelevant for me.
Regards,
> On Jul 6, 2008, at 1:29 AM, John Tailby wrote:
What stops someone from making their own cardboard (or plastic /
wood / etc.) counters?
I saw one rather nice wargame done with painted red and blue wooden counters
(1.5" x 1.5") representing various platoons. It looked like one of those
military maps and looked pretty nice with the limited amount of terrain they
had on the table.
D.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lDep
ends what type of game you want. If you want to be able to take out an MBT
with a sword then WH40K. If you want a certain degree of realism
then something more wargame, less toygame.
Personally, I like the WH40K background and may (just may) buy a source book
but I would never buy the rules because I just don't like that
style of play - far to many heroes, dice and randomness.
> Fred Kiesche wrote:
> that the road to that game leads to financial ruin. Anybody recomend
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_12603_1215378873_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
----- Original Message ----
From: Adrian1 al.ll@tiscali.co.uk
Depends what type of game you want. If you want to be able to take out an MBT
with a sword then WH40K. If you want a certain degree of realism then
something more wargame, less toygame.
Personally, I like the WH40K background and may (just may) buy a source book
but I would never buy the rules because I just don't like that
style of play - far to many heroes, dice and randomness.
Well you will be pleased to know that you can't do this anymore, and it has
been unlikely that power armoured infantry could destroy and armoured vehicle
without a specialist assault weapon for at least 10 years. The new vehicle
assault rules make it very difficult for even power armoured infantry to
destroy the armoured vehicles without anti armour grenades or other specialist
assault weapons. It's impossible for infantry not in power armour to do. It is
possible for infantry to assault a vehicle and stun the cres to prevent it
from firing, dameage weapons and mobility units and maybe kill it with enough
circumulative damage results. All in all sounds quite reasonable to me. Sounds
like you haven't played the game for a long time, at least 2 editions have
come and gone since the game was like that.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'v
e no idea what edition your on now but the only edition I ever got
was the first edition hardback - 10 years sounds about right. The book
I bought after that was the compedium(???) which had a lot of black and white
pictures and a series of connected scenarios. A good part of the rules were
introduce in their magazine (when it still advertised other people).
I seem to remember (I could be wrong - it is a long time ago) that WH40K
was originally called "Rogue Trader" and was supposed to be an RPG, not a
"wargame".
You mentioned one of the main reasons I dislike the rules - you can take
out tanks with grenades. Real soldiers don't take out tanks with
grenades unless they want a medal - posthumously.
Two other things I dislike - space marine landraiders (???) and weapons
ranges.
Land raiders - who designed this thing, a crack addict chimp whos sole
source of military knowledge was WW1??? Main guns do NOT go on the side with a
limited AOF, they go in turrets ON TOP (or bottom if it's a flying tank)
Armour is not supposed to be FLAT, its supposed to be SLOPED
Theres no way its large enough to carry what it say it carries -
marines are big people, in their armour they're huge so stick 10 plus crew in
a vehicle and youd need something the size of a USMC Amtrac (I
think thats what it called - huge amphibious brick to beach land troops)
which I beleive is larger than a Abrams without the weapons.
Weapons ranges - pistols have half the range of rifles which have
slightly shorter range than heavy weapons. Artillery is really bad since it
has a maximum range that doesn't extend along the battle field. The lightest
artillery in a real
army is probably a man portable mortar which can fire 10 times farther than a
rifle. I really lost interest in the rules when the difference between the
weapons became so small. I bet if you asked a soldier what his ideal weapon
would be something with the weight and recoil of an M16
but all the other characteristics of a minigun or a 50 calibre. WH40K appears
to have got this the wrong way round with weapons that act like
50 cals in all but actual effectiveness. This might be related to the
landraider problem though - fashion over function.
There are other minor annoyances with the rules but these are the three that
put me off the rules completely.
> John Tailby wrote:
> grenades or other specialist assault weapons. It's impossible for
06/07/2008 05:26
> [quoted text omitted]
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_12993_1215386063_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_12993_1215386063_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l40k
has changed substantially from an RPG/skirmish battle that requires a GM
to manage the scenario and supervise things into a wargame where 2 people can
have a pick up game at a club and have a good chance of playing the same rules
and using the compatible ranges of figures. The game has gone through 3
eidtions since Rogue Trader back in the 80s and is jsut about to go into
edition 5. I agree that the vehicle designs for some of the models are very
odd and were inspired more by WW1 designs than modern MBTs. I mentioned the
bit about assaulting tanks because you stated that you didn't like that aspect
of the rules. It's actually pretty hard for infantry (say imperial guard) not
in power armour to make an assault on a tank. The tank can simply keep moving
and shred the infantry squad with its secondary weapons. The Land Laider kit
from the Rogue Trader days was a very odd model.. GW released an updated kit
about the turn of the century with many more high tech influences. The land
raider isn't an MBT it's an assault transport designed to deliver a cargo of
marines to do the real fighting. The weapons mounts are all man portable
weapons to support the role of suppressing the defenders. That's why it has
lightweight guns. If you don't like the land raider then you won't like the
look of many of the other vehicles then. I don't like the look of the Imperial
Guard vehicles. They look completely impracticable. I suspect that many of the
vehicle kits were produced at a smaller scale than the figures to reduce their
footprint n the table. The new Land Raider kit is much larger than the
original model and actually looks like it could carry the appropriate number
of models. I don't think 40k is the only game with constricted weapon ranges
to enable it to fit on the table. Most wargames that I have seen that use 28mm
scale figures use contstricted ground scale to enable the games to fit on the
table. Otherwise just about every weapon system would have range = LOS if you
used the ground scale = the model scale. I don't expect what I say will make
you change your mind about the game, just to point out that it has evolved
considerably since you last played it, so some of your concerns are not longer
valid.
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_13838_1215389177_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
----- Original Message ----
From: "emu2020@comcast.net" <emu2020@comcast.net>
Though your comments do show a bit of a pull date (as would mine if I really
went into it), the basic jist rings true through most of the editions. Trying
to apply real world military doctrine to 40K is like
trying to apply real-world phsyics to comic books or the old Flash
Gordon serials. 40K operates on a heavily thematic setting. Weapons are
designed in cumbersome clunky ways that reflect the ritualistic outlook they
have on technology. Â In 40K machines are spiritual as well astechnical (at
least for the higher orders of humanity). You even have tech prists and
machine gods. This is something you must concede if you are even going to get
involved in the 40K. It is never going to make sense. It's not supposed to.
It's just good fun. Â The original version was called "Warhammer 40,000: Rogue
Trader" and was
designed as a strange sort of wargame with role-playing elments in that
your troops were customizable and thus a bit of character was added. Â
-Eli
This I agree with. Most space opera type scifi has plenty of real science
holes and the technolgy aspects often don't hold much water. I have seen
discussion threads where people shred the physics behind Hammers Slammers and
other universes. I think most authors start from a point about what would be a
cool story to tell, and high tech hover tanks is a cool story, as are some of
the tales from the 40k universe. 40K is definately a heavily themed setting
sort of a dark gothic almost scifi haunted house feel as opposed to the clean
technology of say 2001. It's definately not an optimistic vision of the
future, If you think a cross between Blade Runner and the London Blitz that's
a start point for the atmosphere. The GW models are done in a heroic style,
weapons and hands are done in an exagerrated proportion compared to the much
more accurate LOTR figures GW released. You either like this style, accept it
or hate it.. Tech priests isn't an idea unique to 40k IIRC Mechwarrior did
something similar. Heck it's not that different in the real world. The IT
gurus speak their own language only comprehendable by others of their ilk. A
computer breaks down you ring the tech support priest who guides you through
the simple stuff, press the activation rune, check the connectors pray etc. If
that doesn't work an adept comes round and does something mystic and mumbles
"hard drive NTFS partition collapsed" inserts their tool, mumbles a quick
prayer of all technicians, "Please work or the customer is going to yell at
me". IT culture has long been outside of te normal world, they have held onto
their own dress code, except it was pony tales, beards and sandels rather than
robes. No more people than ever are pluggingtheselves into the machine god
with phones and music players. The IT technicial could just as easily tell you
computer is possessed of an evil spirit and it would be just as beliveable to
the average corporate user. So techpriests isn't as far fetched as it may
seem. Heck they even give up on normal social interaction and prefer to
mingle only with their own kind. All the above is intended as humour and not
as an insult to any hard working IT gurus out there.
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_11460_1215392466_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_11460_1215392466_2--
> On 7/7/08, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> I think most authors start from a point about what would be a cool
In the case of Hammer's Slammers, it was less that hover tanks is a cool
story, and more that writing stories about Vietnam wouldn't sell in the 1970s,
but if you add some "SF" elements, it would sell. Never underestimate the
influence of marketability.
As someone who played 40K when I was getting started with miniatures, I like
reading some of the 40K fiction, which oddly enough doesn't really resemble
the results you'd get from playing games of 40K. There are some cool stories
in the 40K universe, but the rules are so badly broken it's sad.
The essential problem is that none of the GW crew has either military
experience nor any real education on the subject, so they don't understand
what's silly and what's not. Their target audience is
basically two-fold: Kids who get their mothers to pay for the minis,
and members of their cult who will accept whatever nonsense they choose to
print. So they aren't worried about making sense either. Reference the
"marketability" comment above. They aren't going to change unless and until
their target audience does something else with their money.
I will aruge that applying Real World tactics does sometimes work in
40K, given the right match-ups. I've seem reverse-slope defenses
shred orks, and Space Marines in hard cover shoot enough of a
40-figure squad to get them to run because the other player was
marching them across an open field. I've demonstrated to someone why having
tanks unescorted by infantry in close terrain is a Bad Idea in
a nearly real-world manner. Granted, it was Space Marine scouts with
anti-armor hand grenades, but given my current job includes a pair of
slides explaining how an RKG (I think--I'd have to check the slides
again) works, that's not enough to trip my suspension of disbelief.
On the other hand, I've also seen a Space Marine take a direct hit from a tank
main gun and survive, and a squad have to concentrate their fire on a single
model, ignoring the entire horde behind it becaus that model was technically
the "nearest squad" and a bunch of other dumb shit.
I dislike GW's marketing methods and whatnot, but this discussion seems to
have generated far more passion than a frickin' game is worth, IMHO.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTha
t's a bunch of broad generalisations about GW gamers John, but it's an opinion
so I won't rip into it with demands for facts. When did you last play the
game? Some of the comments you make about the rules sound like older versions.
Count me and my wargaming club mates, the tournament scene I play in all as
hood wearing cultists then. None of us are kids. BTW watch out we are
everywhere. People like playing 40k because the models are cool to collect and
paint and you get to use them in a fun game. I don't think you can take a
scifi wargame and apply too much real world tactics. The capabilities of some
units are completely unimaginable with conventional tactics. Games of 40k that
I saw and played in that were between 2 Imperial guard armies (closest to
modern humans) fighting you get a game much closer to real wargaming and some
modern tactics work when transferred to the template of the rules. You will be
pleased to know that space marines hit by an anti tank gun have not gotten an
armour save at all when hit by an HE round from a tank gun. A lucky model
might get to stagger out of the blast zone but everyone else gets liquified.
If in hard dover you get some kind of save to represent hiding behind walls or
digging in or whatever. Infantry are vulnerable to tanks in the open. Tanks
can kill hordes of infantry at range. Infantry are better against tanks in
close terrain and hard for tanks to get at if the infantry can hide out of
LOS. Infantry can deal with tanks at close range with specialist anti tank
weapons (melta guns make for a great bazooka or PIAT launcher) or in some
cases can take them out with anti tank grenades or other anti armour close
assault weapons. It's a risky business tough. If you don't kill the tank it
will likely take a dim view of being assaulted by pesky infantry and move back
and machine the assaulting infantry. I agree the game designers and authors
don't have the real wolrd experience of say Dale Brown some of the authors get
confused between a platoon and a squad and a fire team. They need a few weeks
with the paras to get their nomenclature down pat. I agree this thread has
brought up a surprising amount of feeling. I thought the anti GW feeling was
only in the crusty old historical gamers who thought that 40k and fantasy was
taking people away from proper wargaming like Napoleonic.
----- Original Message ----
From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Monday, 7 July, 2008 6:35:38 PM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!
> On 7/7/08, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> I think most authors start from a point about what would be a cool
In the case of Hammer's Slammers, it was less that hover tanks is a cool
story, and more that writing stories about Vietnam wouldn't sell in the 1970s,
but if you add some "SF" elements, it would sell. Never underestimate the
influence of marketability.
As someone who played 40K when I was getting started with miniatures, I like
reading some of the 40K fiction, which oddly enough doesn't really resemble
the results you'd get from playing games of 40K. There are some cool stories
in the 40K universe, but the rules are so badly broken it's sad.
The essential problem is that none of the GW crew has either military
experience nor any real education on the subject, so they don't understand
what's silly and what's not. Their target audience is
basically two-fold:Â Kids who get their mothers to pay for the minis,
and members of their cult who will accept whatever nonsense they choose to
print. So they aren't worried about making sense either. Reference the
"marketability" comment above. They aren't going to change unless and until
their target audience does something else with their money.
I will aruge that applying Real World tactics does sometimes work in
40K, given the right match-ups. I've seem reverse-slope defenses
shred orks, and Space Marines in hard cover shoot enough of a
40-figure squad to get them to run because the other player was
marching them across an open field. I've demonstrated to someone why having
tanks unescorted by infantry in close terrain is a Bad Idea in
a nearly real-world manner. Granted, it was Space Marine scouts with
anti-armor hand grenades, but given my current job includes a pair of
slides explaining how an RKG (I think--I'd have to check the slides
again) works, that's not enough to trip my suspension of disbelief.
On the other hand, I've also seen a Space Marine take a direct hit from a tank
main gun and survive, and a squad have to concentrate their fire on a single
model, ignoring the entire horde behind it becaus that model was technically
the "nearest squad" and a bunch of other dumb shit.
I dislike GW's marketing methods and whatnot, but this discussion seems to
have generated far more passion than a frickin' game is worth, IMHO.
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 09:35:14AM +1000, John Tailby wrote:
> The game has gone through 3 eidtions since Rogue Trader back in the 80s
And its ever-popular misprint, "Rouge Trader". In the grim future, there
is only makeup.
R
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> That's a bunch of broad generalisations about GW gamers John, but it's
Shortly after I dropped Battletech for excessively silly rules, and shortly
before I started playing Stargrunt in a serious manner. At least one edition
ago.
> Count me and my wargaming club mates, the tournament scene I play in
The words "tournament scene" immediately conjure up a gaming
environment that I react poorly too--but then again, that's my
particular way of looking at gaming. Unlike some people, I have no problem
saying, "if you like that sort of thing, knock yourself out."
> I don't think you can take a scifi wargame and apply too much real
Principles apply--whether a tank flies or not is surprisingly
irrelevant to how one uses it. Flanks are flanks, massing fires is massing
fires, and keeping a reserve ALWAYS matters regardless of
whether you've got WWII paratroopers or orks riding pigs--unless
you're playing with some sort of extreme time limit. The
tactic-breakers tended to be the more fantastic elements--teleporting
eldar commandos with instakill weapons that ignore cover, giant demons, etc.
Seriously, is a Vindicare assasin (that's the one with the spiffy rifle,
right?) that much different from a sniper team on the rooftops of Baghdad? At
least when it comes to effects, that is. Space Marines are tougher than normal
infantry, but WWII and modern tactics generally worked with them. Then again,
my force was built around tactical squads with heavy weapon and armor support,
rather than flying chainsaw troopers. And even those are easily equated to the
traditional cavalry role, just with technological replacements for the horse.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lA
tournament is typically 50 or so gamers getting together for a weekend of
gaming and having fun. There's some element of competition and bragging about
achievements. There's an opportunity to meet some new gamers and try some of
your tactics, maybe learn some things about the game and the hobby. The
competitive aspect isn't any different from a poker night. If that's not your
thing then you are not alone, but it's an aspect of the hobby people enjoy.
Principles apply--whether a tank flies or not is surprisingly
irrelevant to how one uses it. Flanks are flanks, massing fires is massing
fires, and keeping a reserve ALWAYS matters regardless of
whether you've got WWII paratroopers or orks riding pigs--unless
you're playing with some sort of extreme time limit. The
tactic-breakers tended to be the more fantastic elements--teleporting
eldar commandos with instakill weapons that ignore cover, giant demons, etc.Â
Seriously, is a Vindicare assasin (that's the one with the spiffy rifle,
right?)Â that much different from a sniper team on the rooftops of Baghdad? At
least when it comes to effects, that is. Space Marines are tougher than normal
infantry, but WWII and modern tactics generally worked with them. Then again,
my force was built around tactical squads with heavy weapon and armor support,
rather than flying chainsaw troopers. And even those are easily equated to
the traditional cavalry role, just with technological replacements for the
horse.
You are right, I have seen many historic and modern tactics applied in 40k.
Refused flank, attacking in escellon, concentration of fire, use of APCs to
protect the dismounts from anti personell fire. Combined arms with infantry,
vehicles and supprting gunships works really well. Sniper teams make excellent
cover fire units and can pin down enemy units. The teleporting commandos of
doom are now gone. The speed of attacks has gone down now and really fast
attacks have to be conducted by very lightly armoured vehicle mounted units.
They are a tough army to field if they get it wrong they get caught in the
open and shot to bits. An aerial assault in Huey's Nam style won't work if you
end up going into a hot landing zone. It is possible to field armies that are
hordes of fanatic infantry hopped up on drugs with ill maintained equipmentÂ
"Orks". It is also possible to field jump troops with short range assault
weaponry but they can be countered by supprting you frontline units with
counter assault units. Some realworld tactics have been simplified to try and
make it a fun game. Some of my gaming group tried dirtside and enjoyed the
generic nature of the rules but found after a few games that the games seemed
to have artillery as the god of the battlefield producing some very WWI games
where you needed heavily concealed infantry to sport for ther artillery that
then hammered anything that was seen. What mechanisims attracted and retain
your enjoyment in Stargrunt?
> John Atkinson wrote:
Some believe in their cause and some are just bored enough to get involved in
a pointless argument. I would love to find a civilied topic
that compares various wargames systems but you an bet that hardliners would
turn it into a "my system (something written in the last year) is better than
your system (ditto)" argument.
I still consider the first scifi wargames rules I ever bought (Laserburn
by TTG) about 20 years ago good rules since they were easy to alter. Then
again I bought nearly eveything TTG produced.
Battletech/Mechwarrior has always been a odd idea to me since even
though it's enjoyable, I can't equate it with a "wargame". Whenever
possible, I used my custom built PPG-armed fast hovercraft to make like
miserable for the walking targets. Strangely enough, I always found the
power armour in Battletech more to my taste than that in WH40K.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJoh
> n Tailby wrote:
> lightly armoured vehicle mounted units. They are a tough army to field
> if they get it wrong they get caught in the open and shot to bits. An
> a hot landing zone.
I liked the teleporting troops. I thught they were good in "Living Steel"
(probably the most complicated rules ever) and "Traveller". My main problem
was the inaccuracy of WH40K teleporters. Instead of randomising the point of
arrival, it would have been much better to seriously decrease their response
time thus giving the enemy time to react and not making the teleporters "Du Ex
Machina".
In DSII, artillery can be powerful, but in my opinion it's not nearly
responsive enough. You need to be fighting the whole 'deep battle' with
counterbattery assets if you don't want artillery to dominate. The right house
rules that alow aviation assets to attack artillery would also help. Besides,
as written, artillery is really expensive and the ammo is as well.
Stargrunt: What attracted my attention was a couple factors.
First, the supression mechanic. That simulates what you are really trying to
do on the battlefield quite well. You keep their heads down while you maneuver
close enough to either apply decisive firepower or assault the objective. It's
pretty much the basis of all small unit tactics since the invention of
repeating firearms.
Second, realistic depictions of automatic weapons in support of small arms. I
dislike the representation of "heavy weapons" in 40K. I also found that the
40K versions were far less reliable than they are in real life.
Third, realistic assumptions about close combat that don't overvalue melee
weapons.
Fourth, no demons or heros/psykers. The version of 40K I played
seemed to be largely about heroic duels with the troops as essentially window
dressing. I deliberately chose not to emphasise that in my troop selection,
but that was sometimes a handicap against armies that were built around heroic
characters.
> On 7/7/08, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Hehe... 45 tons, gauss cannon, hovercraft, maxed out front armor. Some people
stopped playing Battletech with me.
Is Laserburn still available?
John
> On 7/7/08, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
is
> better than your system (ditto)" argument.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAll
things aside, if I want to air my Marines, I can go down to the local gaming
club right now and get my behind handed to mer OR begin the search
for fellow GZG-fans online for a get-together...
The difference is that big, really.
Plus during the years i played 40k I mostly painted my minis.
Necromunda is another story, that and Bloodbowl were games ithat i Played.
;)
> John Atkinson wrote:
I tended to do "campaign" games (they weren't done on a normal map but
on a DMB type map - connected squares indicating battlefield types).
You set yur armies up at the beginning of the campagin on each of the
"battlefields". At the end of each battle a die was rolled to see the supply
situation. I quickly decided that having ammo dependant weapons was bad.
Besides, I played with the early Edition Battletech. The only
gauss gun weighed more than the rest of the vehicle and had 8 shots.
I don't even know if TTG is still around. I have a full set of Laserburn as
well as the fantasy alternative "Reaper".
As much as I personally dislike GWs games, I won't pretend to say people are
WRONG for playing them. I play some pretty silly games, myself. For me it's
about playing miniatures games. Sometimes I like realism, sometimes I like
wacky fun games.
Aside from my dislike of the practices of GW as a company and the general
company store mentality they uphold, my reasons for leaving the games also
rest with my experience with the players themselves. They always struck me
as very fanboy-ish. This is not unique to GW, but it seems to occur with
a higher frequency. There is no reason for a player of any game to glower at
you or make snide remarks behind people's back for considering other systems
or products, behavior that I have seen abundantly in local stores.
Add to this my distaste with how tournament mentality spilled over into the
local shop and group games. The local players seem to be unable to get out of
the tournament mode, even when playing friendly games, and I did not feel the
desire to play with that level of competition. On one occasion, and I'll
freely admit this is likely an isolated occurrence, I was told that, "I must
not care about the game," because I told a player that I did not play to win
with my Imperial Guard. What I had told the player was that I did not play to
win but that I played to see how well I could do and to have fun. This struck
me as plain wrong.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
> The essential problem is that none of the GW crew has either military
That's a ridiculous statement to make, unless you've personally talked to each
and every employee at GW.
But more importantly, you're presuming they are trying to make GW into a
realistic military simulation, which they quite specifically are not.
-P.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
I'll second this. As has been stated many times in this thread, GW is not out
to produce the world's best wargame or the world's most realistic wargame.
They are out to produce the best 40K game. They will talk their game up, as I
expect any company would, but they do not pretend to dwell in the realm of
realistic games.
-Eli
> That's a ridiculous statement to make, unless you've personally talked
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l"Gi
ven that the original poster referred to the game as Warhamster I was left
wondering whether the original post was at all serious, or just looking for
gratifications of preheld opinions." Â Original poster here. I was asking for
serious responses. I used the phrase "WarHamster" as that is the phrase a lot
of friends who are fans us. Â And thanks for the responses, it has all been
very educational...and I apologize if the discussion spun out of control due
to my asking.
F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr.Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always,
scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented
with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at
TexasBestGrok!
> --- On Sun, 7/6/08, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
From: John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 1:29 AM
I am sorry you felt dismissed, it wasn't the intent. Â The discussion is more
civilised than some groups, but it doesn't mean the opinions are less strongly
expressed than elsewhere. Just slighly less degrees of toys out of the cot
language.  There were examples of cardboard counters to be used instead ofÂ
figures when they are nto available. The FT rules have not been
re-released in years so if they were being re released now and available
in boxed sets with fleets, would they include the sets of cardboard models to
be sued instead? GZG would likely do so because they seem to be that kind of
organisation, GW and many other corporate games companies would be less
likely to.
Given that the original poster referred to the game as Warhamster I was left
wondering whether the original post was at all serious, or just looking for
gratifications of preheld
opinions._______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAdr
ian said:
Some believe in their cause and some are just bored enough to get involved in
a pointless argument. I would love to find a civilied topic that compares
various wargames systems but you an bet that hardliners would turn it into a
"my system (something written in the last year) is better than your system
(ditto)" argument.
==> Probably. I find GW is a bit like Microsoft. They provoke a reaction, be
it pro or anti, in most folk. I find I like parts of what they've done and
dislike others. Unfortunately for them, the parts I dislike are some of the
core parts (miniatures style, for instance) and thus it turns me off buying
it. Plus like John Atkinson, I'm not a big fan of 'tournaments'. But much like
John, I figure if someone likes it, go for it. Just don't be down on me for
not thinking the same way.
I still consider the first scifi wargames rules I ever bought (Laserburn by
TTG) about 20 years ago good rules since they were easy to alter.Then again I
bought nearly eveything TTG produced.
==> For me, that might have been Striker.
Battletech/Mechwarrior has always been a odd idea to me since even
though it's enjoyable, I can't equate it with a "wargame". Whenever possible,
I
used my custom built PPG-armed fast hovercraft to make like miserable
for the walking targets.
==> I quite enjoyed the tracklayer with the AC-10. One good headshot
could
really ruin a mecha-driver's day.
Good luck with your gaming. I think a hidden truth here is that if your
friends are fun to play with in one game, they'll be fun to play with in
another.
:)
> On 7/7/08, Fred Kiesche <recursive_loop@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tom B wrote:
It took them years before they added rules that made the head a remote
sensor with the pilot sitting in the torso - heind the heaviest armour.
I never understood why they stuck the pilot in the worst protected bit of the
mech. It's not like he needs the window given that most of his sensors are
radar and opticals.
> At 5:12 PM +0100 7/7/08, Adrian1 wrote:
> I never understood why they stuck the pilot in the worst protected bit
I always figured it was because they had crap for sensors and the torso was
where the reactor was. Remember, technology was so 'lost' that targeting
computers were a lost science.
How many books were there? I think I have 4-5; been a long time since I
looked at them.
Completests: I may have extras of some of the 'source' books. As always,
breath holding pending my finding said items is contra-indicated...
The_Beast
Adrian1 wrote on 07/07/2008 07:19:28 AM:
***snippage***
> I don't even know if TTG is still around. I have a full set of
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lYes
indeed. Really you shouldn't let anybody decide what you play. We all have our
opinions. Gamers seem to be some of the most opinionated folks I know. When it
comes down to it, if you want to and you can, then why not?
And don't be sorry. You didn't heat the discussion up.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Robert Mayberry" <robert.mayberry@gmail.com>
> Good luck with your gaming. I think a hidden truth here is that if
l
I think that the issue is that they wanted to create a medieval setting with
giant walking robots. The rest then became "how can we build a setting where
this isn't ridiculous".
On one hand, it's the soft-science fiction approach. On the other
hand, *every* setting is to some extent soft. Some systems are (science)
FICTION, and some are SCIENCE (fiction) and many are in between.
The short answer is that it boils down to Burnside's Zeroth Law (with thanks
to Nyrath). Even FMA does this. It passes much more of a smell test than
BattleTech or 40k, but we should remember that, like any speculation about the
future, it's almost certainly wildly wrong.
The real question is, is it fun? IMO, it's both fun and illuminating.
Someone asked earlier what they thought the value of SG/DS are. To my
mind, there are two big things: 1) you can customize it for lots of settings;
2) it's got great gameplay: fast but rich; and 3) it
accounts for the psychological and command/control stuff that many
games miss or don't get quite right.
BTW I mentioned a few months ago that I'm running some numbers on the
economics of cargo hauling. I'm still doing it-- I've run through the
financial statements of several big corps in that space-- but my RL
research work is on the front burner. So I'll have something when I have
something.:)
> On 7/7/08, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Ryan Gill wrote:
> I always figured it was because they had crap for sensors and the
I always figured one of the designers was just deeply in love with the AC10
and rolled a buncha headshots with it. I gamed with a fellow in college who
saved a whole campaign for us with 3 headshots in 2 battles.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Last I read, the PSB for not targetting systems wasn't losttech but such an
overabundance of interference and ECM on the battlefield. But then again,
Battletech changed its background a lot.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> At 5:12 PM +0100 7/7/08, Adrian1 wrote:
> >sensors are radar and opticals.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:46 AM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> the games seemed to have artillery as the god of the battlefield ...
Artillery isn't call King of Battle for nothing my man.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l"He
re at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams,
mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think
that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our
fire control system."
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn
From: Damond Walker
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:01 PM
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:46 AM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
the games seemed to have artillery as the god of the battlefield...
Artillery isn't call King of Battle for nothing my man.
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1108_1215463360_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1108_1215463360_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lLas
t I checked, artillery still made every stop and take notice. Flash forward to
the future of smart artillery and really there is no reason that everything on
the battlefield will have something to fear from artillery.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Michael" <mwsaber6@msn.com>
"Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser
beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say
we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button
for our fire control system."
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn
From: Damond Walker
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:01 PM
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!
> Last I checked, artillery still made every stop and take notice.
Exactly; leaving us with three options to make it work in the game setting:
1) make artillery unrealistically ineffective with no justification except
saying "it's for game balance";
2) reduce artillery effectiveness against high-tech forces by
reasonably plausible PSB such as extremely good point-defence energy
weapons (the Hammer's Slammers approach), which is fine unless you're
the low-tech player on the receiving end...
3) reduce artillery dominance by drastically restricting the AVAILABILITY of
fire missions, and accept the fact that when it IS available, it will be very,
very deadly indeed.
I certainly favour (3), with a bit of (2) mixed in where applicable.... YMMV!
Jon (GZG)
> -------------- Original message --------------
<mailto:gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.ed
u
> Subject: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> From: "Michael" <mwsaber6@msn.com>
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
prefer a nice balance of 2 & 3. Given a choice I'll take 2 over 3.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
> >Last I checked, artillery still made every stop and take notice.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
G'day,
> The teleporting commandos of doom are now gone....
And this is where my main objection to GW comes in I think. My very first
thought response to this is "but for how long?". In the 16 years Derek and I
have been together now I can't say how many editions of GW products I have
seen come and go. That is true of many products admittedly, and it seems a
perverse aspect of human nature that many people can't say "oh that's nice but
I'll stick with the one I like actually....". With GW in my experience the
push to new has been exemplified. Whether that is because they are trying to
entertain a younger audience I'm not sure. Now as a marketing tactic I can
understand where they are coming from, but as a consumer this is a brief
summary of what grates with GW (I'm not flaming just stating the irritants for
me, which may not hold for many others):
1) Non GW figures are persona non grata.... That idea has been so firmly
shoved into the masses heads it even holds in the majority of club or
"friendly" games. Not only that even last editions figures aren't good enough.
On so many levels that just feels wrong to me. Whether its from
my ecofriendly/pragmatic side of "if it still works why toss it away"
right through to the sole income earner in a family of 5 I find it an affront
to be "told oh no you need the new $20 leader figure to be able to do that and
no you can't make do with the old one" (or the $3 GZG figure). The only upside
to this is that when the edition changes you can pick up old stuff much much
cheaper... Which means that Derek has a lot of elves and I have many battle
sisters in my Nuns with guns army, but even then the "old prices" really only
brought them on par with other decent manufacturers (Perry twins aside).
2) As a female and a mother I actually really dislike the images presented in
the background world for W40K. They are not nice basically.
3) The special rules drive me nuts (as does the "army of the month" mentality
that has gripped GW for so long)
4) It is usually very easy to dismantle the rules in to impossible to beat
combos which are then boring
5) They don't support squats and any one who has been on this list for any
time knows what I think of men with beards;)
6) The majority of the figures don't do much for me (mmm I wonder what large
guns and oversized bulging muscles are replacement for;P)
7) The majority of the "serious" GW gamers I have played with aren't
pleasant.... They are either (i) excessively opinionated teenagers who are
shocked (and often aggressive or insulting without provocation) about the fact
gaming extends beyond GW; or middle aged men who have had to be so defensive
about sticking with GW they can't be any other way now. This in combination
with the whole "you MUST have the EXACT correct figure" thing makes gaming
with them unpleasant as they can only discuss one topic and are rules obsessed
(scoring points over mistakes rather than teaching newbies being a
particularly grating feature). That is not to say that is universally the
case, I have played some quite enjoyable games some close friends and family
but beyond that circle ouch (mind you that can be said of many other genres
too).
8) They claim to like imagination (in the magazines), but if you show any the
rules don't have (or didn't any rate, maybe this is not true of the later
editions) the flexibility to represent it. You played their lists and
characters and that's it.
9) Outside of Warhammer and W40K you can't be guaranteed a game will continue
to be supported for more than the batting of an eye. Which should be fine if
people could get past the faddishness often associated with GW (again some
can, but many can't). I can't count the number of times Derek, Lachy and I
have basically been vilified at clubs over the last decade for turning up and
(gasp) daring to play a GW game like Necromunda that wasn't actually supported
anymore.
10) The shop front bully boy tactics of the GW company itself used to be
disgraceful (holding up shipping to people supplying competing chain's lines
etc and effectively financially bullying people into towing the GW line and
nothing else). That may well have changed in the past decade, but it can take
a long time to live down such ma reputation down.
So what attracted me to GZG? It brings in brains (e.g. the whole morale things
mean you have to actually think about what you're doing) and imagination and
flexibility and generally a nicer bunch of people and its fun and cheaper and
overall simply a much nicer thing to be doing. Thus endth the sermon;)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWel
l put Beth and agreed on every point. This fits the local model as well.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
> G'day,
> Derek and I have been together now I can't say how many editions of GW
> products I have seen come and go. That is true of many products
> enough. On so many levels that just feels wrong to me. Whether its
> but even then the "old prices" really only brought them on par with
> any time knows what I think of men with beards ;)
> large guns and oversized bulging muscles are replacement for ;P)
> are shocked (and often aggressive or insulting without provocation)
> lines etc and effectively financially bullying people into towing the
> but it can take a long time to live down such ma reputation down.
> Thus endth the sermon ;)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:09 PM, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
> G'day,
No, Beth, tell us what you REALLY think. :-D
I've only ever played a couple of 40K games, against my brother (who plays all
the time because that's what the people at his shop play), and they were
enjoyable for what they were, but I didn't want to go out and buy the rules.
I did get a bunch of figs (cheap; old edition ;-) ) space marines
through my brother so I could play SG2 with them at some point (there used to
be a
40K-to-SG2/DS2 conversion out on the web at one point in time).
Mk
Beth said:
<snippage>
> 2) As a female and a mother I actually really dislike the images
As a bloke and a father I agree with you. There is something inherantly nasty
about the imagery in the artwork in the books, magazines and
poster/box art. I'm not sure if it's something particularly British (or
particular to a segment of British culture) but I kind of noticed it's
development in comics like 2000AD in the late '80s - weird but
interesting became weird and twisted and then twisted and psychotic and hyper
violent. It's almost a cliche to walk into a GW shop, nowdays, to find a group
of
black-tee-shirt wearing young guys hanging around listening to Death
Metal.
Now this could mean we're getting old and reacting to the youngsters who
have, of course, just invented a way to freak out the fogies but there seems
to be an element of self-loathing in the fluff pieces that the rules are
embedded in that disturbs me a little.
But that is just my reaction to what I see when I browse in a shop. I know the
games are fun and that those who play them really enjoy them and I know
listening to Death Metal and wearing black tee-shirts doesn't make one
psychotic (I prefer classic metal, myself).
Anyway, that's my 2c on it. Play what you want, enjoy what you do, don't
believe everything you read.
> G'day,
> [snip]
One of the things that did a lot to sour GW's reputation in the UK was their
practice in the '90s of finding a town with a good, healthy independent games
shop and initially supporting them up to the hilt, giving them loads of
incentives to become a major GW stockist (often
to the detriment of other lines they had been carrying) - then as
soon as GW's marketing boys saw that said independent's sales of their product
were up to a certain level, they would move into the same town with one of
their own stores and effectively withdraw (or at least massively downgrade)
their support for the independent store. Of course, in most cases this meant
the independent went under, which left the GW store with a monopoly on the
gaming scene in that town, especially among the kiddies. It's almost
impossible not to imagine the maniacal laughter ringing through the halls of
their marketing department as another hapless games shop proprietor loses his
livelihood before their unstoppable master plan....
I suspect that different business laws in the US made this tactic a bit harder
for them to implement over there, which may explain why
the attitude of many US gamers is less vehemently anti-GW than is
often the case over here - but this happened a lot in the UK, and
those who were in the hobby at the time have long memories.
All personal opinion of course, and YMMV as usual..... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> [snip]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lYou
r experiences with GW games have been completely different to mine. Yes there
are some players that act unpleasantly but I found that in other historical
periods I played before GW games began. I got into the GW games at the time
because they seemed like fun games to play. I think GW tried some of the same
tactics with the independent game stores. There were certainly tales about "I
have to order 6 of every blister". I did hear stories about the "you must use
the latest models if you play in the store". I am fortunate to have a good and
effective club so that I never needed to play in the store. Lots of people I
know play with OOP models and get Kudos for finding these old models. I used
some OOP models in the last army I built and there wasn't even a mutter. I can
also understand the stores perspective. The purpose of having in game stores
is to promote more sales. However you dress it up that's what it is for. I
people play with OOP models how does the store handle it when the kid goes
"that model is cool how can I buy one?" I am not a marketting person, but I
can see that if you wanted to enter a potential market the low risk approach
is to use resellers. If the market is large enough you would look to enter
direct. Most of the local independent games store owners were adding little
value and just sticking product on shelves. The other point you mentioned is
about how often should a game get refreshed and updated. Some games have had
the same rules for thousands of years. Most wargames I know have had an
updated version every 4 years or so. Some release patches and interim editions
between major releases. The games that have not had releases have stagnated
and I know several periods that collapsed because there wasn't a well
supported ruleset. I like the idea that the designers get to fix some of their
mistakes in future releases. Certainly the GW designers have been surprised by
how some people have utilised the rules in ways that didn't produce the games
they had envisaged.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIf
artillery can accurately and quickly demolish mobile armies then you could
easily end up with SCIFI ww1. Tanks would become extinct and it would all be
about large zones of no mans land patrolled by observer drones Traditionally
artillery has lower mobility than tanks, takes longer to set up and requires
observation of the target to be effective. I am thinking of WW2 mostly here If
artillery has the same mobility and kill power as main tank rounds and can do
so indirectly then it will truely have come a long way towards being the
dominant life form. Another way to ensure that artillery is ballanced at low
tech levels is to have games that are not simply prepared battle. A lot of
cold war soviet doctrine focussed on the idea of an encounter battle where 2
divisions advanced to contact. Pretty much every general I read about from
Haig onwards wanted to break past the defences and get into a war of manouvre.
I reckon wars of manourvre make for an interesting game, assault games are
interesting as well but should not be the only game type.
True to a certain extent. And if we were discussing a WWII game, it would be
relevant.
But modern artillery needs only moments to prepare to fire. The long setup
times to conduct indirect fire in WWII were required to accurately survey the
gun positions, something done by GPS positioning nowdays. And precision fires
means something different than it did in WWII, especially with smart
projectiles and submunitions. A "movement to contact" or a "meeting
engagement" will involve artillery, not merely a set piece battle. And believe
me, the mobile defenses envisioned by NATO doctrines of the 1970s and 1980s
certainly included a heavy dose of artillery as a major method of killing
Soviets.
Flip side, nothing is perfect. There are techniques to mitigate the
effectiveness of artillery. In the future there will be more, especially as it
is now technologically possible to reliably shoot down projectiles on a
ballistic trajectory. Radar also can now give you the location of a hostile
weapon system before the round
lands--and if the point of origin isn't in a city full of civilians
your ROE doesn't allow you to blow up, the counterbattery makes the
entire battery a one-shot weapon.
No one is quite sure what the deep battle would look like with two
technologically advanced armies. If such questions could be answered with any
precision, there would be no need to fight wars. Both sides in a war believe
their techniques will be effective, or they wouldn't
bother. Speculation--especially with folks that aren't familiar with
the nuances of technique--rapidly devolves into "what if" scenarios
that are inherently unanswerable.
We already know that modern long-range fires (both aviation and
artillery) will destroy a less sophisticated army that comes out in the open
to engage it, and in combination with maneuver forces can be devastatingly
effective even in urban areas. But the last time two technologically
equivalent armies fought was in 1945, unless you want to extend a great deal
more credit to the Arab armies of 1973 than I
would. YMMV. Even in 1944-5 'technologically equivalent' was only
rough, as US artillery and air support techniques were far more advanced than
the German ones, and the German army's technological sophistication was
greatly uneven. An SS Panzer division was a totally different beast from an
Army infantry division as far as equipment was concerned.
> On 7/8/08, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> >10) The shop front bully boy tactics of the GW company itself used to
I don't pretend to know US business laws, nor do I know what current business
tactics, if any, GW is using here on indie stores. I *do* know that at least
in my area employees of GW stores are not allowed to play any other games. One
guy I know likes to play FoW. He let it slip one day to a
co-worker who told their manager. Who in turn threatened to fire the
FoW-playing employee. He still plays, but on the sly, and cannot talk
about the games, his minis, his painting, etc. At the GW stores around here,
it's all GW or nothing.
That said, I know of several indie stores that carry GW products in addition
to regular gaming stuff. They *seem* to be doing okay...
Mk
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
(Actually Beth wrote this first part)
> And this is where my main objection to GW comes in I think. My very
This isn't just a marketing tactic. Its marketing value is that people tend to
respond to waves of promotion (where you promote something for a month or two,
then go quiet for a month or two, then promote again). So if you have 3 or 4
new armies coming out each year (and by new of course I mean the n'th revamp
of the Elves, for example), then you'll see the maximum psychological impact
for your advertising dollar.
It also has a product management dimension. Every army has its own things that
people don't like. Maybe a particular figure is
over-powered. Another is under-powered. Still another (or the army as
a whole) uses an awkward mechanic. Perhaps a miniature isn't as good looking
as you'd like. Or maybe consumer tastes have changed. Periodic product
refreshes let you address all that. The idea is to continually improve your
product. Doing it periodically by army rather than trying to revamp your
entire line at once mitigates risk.
Of course you're also trying to drive revenue. Getting people to keep their
armies up to date (or enticing them to build a new army) is important because
if you have a huge player base that isn't buying new figures or rules then
you're going to choke. I suspect that that's behind GW's focus on kids:
there's always a fresh supply who want to collect and paint their own armies.
So of course the rules, artwork and tone are focused on their customer base.
Finally, there's an operational reason, which I don't think enough gamers
recognize. If you're going to keep a staff of writers, painters and sculptors,
you need something for them to do. If you're underutilizing them, then you're
better off either laying off staff or employing them on a contract basis
(which has its own problems for product quality and continuity). For many game
companies (and GW is by NO means alone here, just look at White Wolf or WotC
in the RPG
space), the solution is to keep a constant stream of re-writes and
supplements going out the door. It may be less profitable, but it sure beats
firing your friends. And there are business strategy theory
reasons for keeping the staff in-house, too, which I won't go into.
> 10) The shop front bully boy tactics of the GW company itself used to
I've heard stories about their heavy-handed channel management. When I
said they had great customer service, I was referring only to their mail order
staff.
> One of the things that did a lot to sour GW's reputation in the UK
My understanding (and while I am a marketing guy, channel management is not my
specialty) is that this is just normal vertical integration. If there was a
legal problem with this at all, they still wouldn't run
afoul of anti-trust laws for quite a while, as the industry is still
pretty fragmented. Also, the courts in the US tend to be
time-consuming, expensive and capricious.
There's a very good store my area which pretty much ran afoul of exactly this.
They sold GW, a vast array of historical figures, even retailed the GZG line.
And, of course, the standard line of board games, models and RPG's. Then GW
built a retail store nearby. A couple years later, the independent had to move
to a smaller, less accessible location to stay afloat. Then they went out of
business. So I absolutely know what you're talking about.
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 08:58:36AM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> One of the things that did a lot to sour GW's reputation in the UK
(etc.)
I think quite a few role-players went off them in the late 1980s as they
made a sudden and aggressive transition from being a general
role-playing and wargames shop to being a Games-Workshop-product-only
shop, often leaving those of us who actually wanted role-playing stuff
with no options at all. (And by the early 1990s they weren't even
claiming to be anything to do with wargaming - they were supporting "The
Games Workshop Hobby", and as with D&D you'd never have known from their
products that there was any other way of doing things.) Similarly, White Dwarf
shifted from being a general RPG (and occasional wargaming) magazine into a
"chaos spikey bits of the month for GW product"
catalogue-supplement. (Anyone else remember the Secret Message in issue
77?) There was definitely a perception that the existing fanbase, who'd helped
GW grow from a tiny operation to one of the biggest British gaming companies,
was being deliberately abandoned in favour of kiddies
with too much pocket-money to spend.
The impression I get is that this mostly happened before their big push into
the USA, so perhaps the American gaming community doesn't have the sense of
contempt that I think quite a few British gamers still feel for
GW - to the extent that you're unlikely to see GW games being played at
a general wargaming convention unless it's being done by GW staff.
R
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:26 AM, davebill <davebill@clear.net.nz> wrote:
I'd rather play SG or DS or FT than 40K or Epic or BFG, but, I LOVE the
background to 40K (since Rogue Trader). Without really ever saying it out
loud, it's Science Fantasy horror. The 40K universe is horrific, and honestly
that's what I like about it. Both 40k and Warhammer Fantasy posit settings
right out of the best stories of H.P. Lovecraft, only instead of Mythos, it's
Chaos (and Necrons and Orks and even Eldar). I'm in my mid 30s, but I do love
Death Metal, so go
figure :-)
My wife loves the 40K setting too, but she's not a fan of Death Metal and
could honestly care less about what rules we play, she just likes to see her
Nids eat things.
John, they have done similar things here in the US. I am/was friends
with several store owners in the are, when we still had stores in the area. A
couple smaller shops, who did a fair percentage of their business in GW but
who were too small to justify ordering massive amounts received nasty letters
telling them that unless they were willing to increase their support of GW
products they would receive little or no support from local GW
distribution. The letter even included several comments/statements
suggesting that perhaps the shop might want to consider focusing its stock on
GW products more so that it would qualify for whatever support stores were
getting at the time.
This was a slap in the face for these stores who had loyally stocked GW
products but who also wanted to support the hobby as a whole - RPGs,
other minis, hobby supplies, even toys and board games. Many of the stores
locally had a hard time moving GW stuff after its initial release, falling
victim to the flavor of the month syndrome on several occasions. Now, this is
true of any game, to be honest, but when the outlay on GW is so much higher
than other games, this sticks the shops with a disproportionate amount of
money sunk into GW products that won't move.
"I suspect that different business laws in the US made this tactic a bit
harder for them to implement over there, which may explain why
the attitude of many US gamers is less vehemently anti-GW than is
often the case over here - but this happened a lot in the UK, and
those who were in the hobby at the time have long memories.
All personal opinion of course, and YMMV as usual..... ;-)
Jon (GZG)"
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThi
s is repeated many times. I have worked retail before, and GWs expectations on
their employees are some of the most draconian I've seen. GW's retail shops
remind me, in many ways, of Disney's. They even given all
their employees thematic titles - adept, inquisitor, commander or
whatever.
I'll respect a business' need/rite to propel sales. My experiences with
GW employees both as a customer and as a friend of a few folks who went to
work there has been that they live in constant "fear" from their management.
-Eli
From: gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Indy
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 5:10 AM
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> 10) The shop front bully boy tactics of the GW company itself used to
[...]
I suspect that different business laws in the US made this tactic a bit harder
for them to implement over there, which may explain why
the attitude of many US gamers is less vehemently anti-GW than is
often the case over here - but this happened a lot in the UK, and
those who were in the hobby at the time have long memories.
I don't pretend to know US business laws, nor do I know what current business
tactics, if any, GW is using here on indie stores. I *do* know that at least
in my area employees of GW stores are not allowed to play any other games. One
guy I know likes to play FoW. He let it slip one day to a
co-worker who told their manager. Who in turn threatened to fire the
FoW-playing employee. He still plays, but on the sly, and cannot talk
about the games, his minis, his painting, etc. At the GW stores around here,
it's all GW or nothing.
That said, I know of several indie stores that carry GW products in addition
to regular gaming stuff. They *seem* to be doing okay...
Mk
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> The impression I get is that this mostly happened before their big
The North American game store developed differently from the British store, or
so I've been told. British stores were geared more to miniatures earlier on.
I know that growing up my home town (Oshawa, Ontario, Canada) didn't have a
proper game store. I bought my SPI games, and Strategy and Tactics, from a
hobby store in the mall called Leisure World. I bought Avalon Hill wargames
from a catalogue store (Shoprite, which was owned by the Hudson's Bay Company;
that'll be a "blast from the past" for Canadian readers...).
There was a big jump in game stores in North America due to two separate
events. Roleplaying started to gain momentum in a big way at the end of the
70s, early 80s. That propelled the opening of a lot of game stores. About the
same time, comics went to direct distributorship for their premium titles
(like Dreadstar, and Epic Illustrated from Marvel). That resulted in
independent comic stores, who started to bring in games as they hit a similar
market.
North American game stores were tied (shackled is a better word) to the North
American distributor system. It was rare for a game store to deal directly
with a game company. The game distributors were largely comic distributors (or
were bought out by comic distributors). To get product in North America you
had to go through these big
gatekeepers/filters. (Distributors have been the bane of the North
American game hobby, particularly RPGs and particularly in the last 10 years;
their inefficiency in the wake of smaller publishing runs and the "indie" game
scene are the sources of the change in RPG business models over the last five
years.)
I worked in a comic store in the mid-to-late 80s and as "the computer
guy" into the 90s. Our games, even GW games, came through one of three major
distributors. GW couldn't have killed our store by stopping us from getting
product, because we didn't get their product directly from them. They couldn't
hurt us without it applying to every game store in North America. So, they
couldn't do the same predatory marketing that they did in Britain. Eventually
they did open up their own distribution system and sold directly to stores,
but by that point North American game stores were aware of what GW was doing
in Britain, and were very careful on how quickly they jumped into bed with
them.
I'm not positive, but I think the moment GW opened up a distribution network
they fell under a different set of commerce laws, but don't quote me on that.
It does seem that the manner in which North American game stores evolved
shielded them to a certain degree from Games Workshop's predatory business
practices.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> (Anyone else remember the Secret Message in issue
Was that the "Sod Off Bryan Ansell" message?
Since GW came up on this list, and with particular reference to what Roger
wrote, I thought I'd post a link to an interesting article. It's written by
Stephen Baxter. It describes his time at GW as one of their novel writers.
The article goes through the history of GW in general and the fiction division
in particular. It offers an interesting window into the GW mindset (or, at the
very least, the mindset of Bryan Ansell).
Here's the link; I quite enjoyed the article:
http://www.vectormagazine.co.uk/article.asp?articleID=42
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
> Here's the link; I quite enjoyed the article:
Oh, and my favourite part was how Terry Pratchett almost became a GW fiction
writer...
I think overall British attitudes, culturally speaking, are different from
American attitudes. I may be wrong but it seems that it's not such an odd duck
hobby in England, is it? Over here, playing RPGs or minis games is the stuff
that gets you beat up on the playground..:)
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
This should have read "British attitudes toward gaming"
Sorry,
Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
> I think overall British attitudes, culturally speaking, are different
Oh, it's certainly considered odd enough here too! At least, traditional
tabletop RPGing and wargaming. One thing that GW has done that CAN, I suppose,
be considered positive is that "collecting Warhammer stuff" is now more
acceptable (and even partially understood) to the mundanes, as long as the
collector is under 14 or
so. Any older, and you're in dangerous territory still.... ;-)
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:21:33PM -0500, Allan Goodall wrote:
wrote:
> (Anyone else remember the Secret Message in issue
That's the badger. (The editorial staff had just been told that their jobs
were moving from London to Nottingham, on a month's notice with no relocation
allowance. They all resigned instead.)
R
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 7:27 AM, John Atkinson wrote:
> Is Laserburn still available?
Yup. Go here: http://www.15mm-md.com/
Be forewarned that the last time I ordered from them (3 years ago?) it took a
LONG time for them to ship Hordes of the Things.
Damo
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Robert Mayberry wrote:
> I think that the issue is that they wanted to create a medieval
In actuality they started off with a galactic post-apocalyptic
setting. 'Mechs were extremely rare -- the pilots gods among men
(and women). You'd launch raids for spare parts, etc.
Myself and the crew really enjoyed the game until the whole Clan thing ruined
it.
D.
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 6:06 AM, John Tailby wrote:
> If artillery can accurately and quickly demolish mobile armies
Artillery is also a tool -- it can be used to deny passage or you can
advance behind a wall of it. You can burn who passages of ground, drop
bomblettes, generate smoke, etc. I guess my point is that it's more than just
dropping rounds on upright infantry platoons in the open. It's a tool.
Pretty much like any weapons system really.:)
Damo
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 7:05 AM, John Atkinson wrote:
> But modern artillery needs only moments to prepare to fire.
A data point nothing else: Back in '89 we could "hipshoot" our M109s in about
5 minutes. Standard battery setup was closer to 10 minutes of real frenetic
activity. Modern day gunbunnies don't know how good they got it.;)
D.
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:21:33PM -0500, Allan Goodall wrote:
As well as the famous message (as above) hidden in the contents
listing, they also snuck in a quarter-page "R.I.P Games Workshop" ad
with a tombstone on it.... ;-)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIf
both sides have large and effective artillery forces and can hit and kill
anything they can detect then the only defence will be to be undetectable..
You could do this by high tech stealth technologies or in low tech armies by
hiding below ground. Advancing inside a box barrage or behind artillery laid
smoke doesn't offer any protection from enemy artillery rounds and could
infact prepare the enemy for an attack and invite counterfire from defending
artillery on the basis that you are sheltering an attack in you barrage. By
1918 the artillery tactics had evolved so that they only fired just before the
attack to keep the enemy suppressed rather than a 3 day barrage to alert the
enemy to the impending attack. I like the ideas behind some of the discussions
around the "war environment". Depending on the war level certain units may
become available and the war environment less restrained. You might have a
number of levels ranging from "local dispute" between 2 corporations with
hired mercenaries ranging up to "total war" with WMDs, orbital strikes,
airpower the whole works. Thus you can get away from the "I picked max tech
level artillery as my army" = I win. I am no expert but I think that a
military formation that moves about with a whole bunch of radars going is
effectively signalling here I am come and kill me. Most military units don't
give away their position with unneccessary EM radiation.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 7:08 PM, John Tailby wrote:
There certainly were plenty of prepared multi hour barrages in WWII. Usually
to kick off an op and, if properly planned to HIT the maximum number of known
targets before they could respond or get out of tents and into fox holes to
take cover. They also still used walking barrages on targets. The advantage of
a walking barrage is that the enemy cannot see through it. What kind of target
is there on the other side. AND if you do it right, your troops are RIGHT
behind the barrage. You don't have much time between that last shell burst AND
a platoon of enemy squaddies jumping into your foxhole with you. (WWII British
troops practically walked into their own shell bursts)
> [quoted text omitted]
Ditto on the enjoyed it until The Clans. The game at that time felt very much
like Dune with a bit of a grittier feel but with giant robot combat. I was
never a huge fan of the mechanics of the game, but played it religiously for
years with a huge group of friends. The politics and personalities of the
Inner Sphere we always a lot more interesting than The Clans.
-Eli
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 7:53 PM, Eli Arndt wrote:
> Ditto on the enjoyed it until The Clans. The game at that time felt
Agree 100%. We played LOTS of BT and Mechwarrior typically running
tank companys -- the boys didn't get paid as much as the glory
hunting 'mech drivers but there was always work...
Lots of great fun building the initial reduced company up to a battalion of
vehicles...only to have them smoked due to bad intel.:)
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lSom
e people on one of the 15mm yahoo group lists was complaining that the
Maryland distributor was not shipping things, and the HoTT guys couldn't get
ahold of the Maryland guy. I toyed with stopping by his house to see if he's
still alive (since there's a climbing area not terribly far from there
;-)
) but haven't yet.
Mk
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Damo <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 7:27 AM, John Atkinson wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Damo wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 7:27 AM, John Atkinson wrote:
Try http://www.15mm.co.uk/ For better results....
Evyn MacDude infojunky@ceecom.net
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Damo <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Robert Mayberry wrote:
Funny, I didn't actually mind the Clan as much as many others. I wasn't a huge
fan of them, but I liked how they shook everything up, made people have
to re-figure how to fight again. And I really liked the potential they
showed in (I think it was Stackpole's?) books.
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Evyn MacDude <infojunky@ceecom.net> wrote:
> Try http://www.15mm.co.uk/ For better results....
I went there to complain about their US counterpart. Once the note went in I
got a "Oh I'm very sorry..." note from the UK and within two weeks I had HoTT
from the MD shop.
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
enjoyed BT and Mechwarrior the times I played, but fire control (apparently
inferior to what is available to us in direct fire) bugged me. Suppose the
game woulda been really bloody if it had been up to scratch.
Best,
Ken
> Damo <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 7:53 PM, Eli Arndt wrote:
> Ditto on the enjoyed it until The Clans. The game at that time felt
Agree 100%. We played LOTS of BT and Mechwarrior typically running
tank companys -- the boys didn't get paid as much as the glory
hunting 'mech drivers but there was always work...
Lots of great fun building the initial reduced company up to a battalion of
vehicles...only to have them smoked due to bad intel.:)
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
remember trying to backwards engineer BTech to Striker. I came up with Tech 5
Fire control (basically an optic with reticles). That was the only way to
explain the ranges.
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn
From: Ken Hall
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:24 AM
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!
I enjoyed BT and Mechwarrior the times I played, but fire control (apparently
inferior to what is available to us in direct fire) bugged me. Suppose the
game woulda been really bloody if it had been up to scratch.
Best, Ken
> Damo <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 7:53 PM, Eli Arndt wrote:
> Ditto on the enjoyed it until The Clans. The game at that time felt
Agree 100%. We played LOTS of BT and Mechwarrior typically running
tank companys -- the boys didn't get paid as much as the glory
hunting 'mech drivers but there was always work...
Lots of great fun building the initial reduced company up to a battalion of
vehicles...only to have them smoked due to bad intel.:)
Damo
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Thats rough... I'd given up on them and gaming at that point...
My good memories of GW were pre sell out, I used to go to the manchester
(UK) store and buy D&D, carwars, traveller & citadel minis back then -
for me it was a treasure trove and a source of great Joy - looking back
I can say that this wqas a result of the sheer diversity of games available
from a range of producers... when it became just GW product, it simply palled
& lost my commitment... Shame really.
Andy<html><div></div></html>> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:50:42 +1000>
From: aebrain@webone.com.au> To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!> > Ground Zero Games wrote:>
> One of the things that did a lot to sour GW's reputation in the UK > >
was their practice in the '90s of finding a town with a good, healthy >
> independent games shop and initially supporting them up to the hilt, >
soon as GW's marketing boys saw that said independent's sales of > > their
product were up to a certain level, they would move into the > > same town
with one of their own stores and effectively withdraw (or > > at least
massively downgrade) their support for the independent > > store. > I saw
exactly this happen here in Canberra. The week after a GW shop > opened up 100
metres from the Independant, their orders started getting > lost or misplaced
too,> > Zoe> >
_______________________________________________> Gzg-l mailing list>