[GZG] Question: What's in a name - WYSIWYG or not?

Hi all,

I posed this question on TMP the other day, and thought it was worth repeating
here:

If a mini (say, a vehicle or starship) is described as belonging to a specific
power or faction in a specific game system, is that going to make you any less
likely to use it with a different force or in a different game system than if
that same mini was described in very generic terms? If I named something as a
"UNSC Marines MkVII "Piranha" Light Grav Tank", would you ONLY think of it in
those terms, or would you still think "hey, cool tank, that'll do for my
Peoples' Republic of New California Revolutionary GuardŠ"? And, if you DID
use it for your own army, would any of your little
gaming buddies grumble that "that's a <xxx> tank for <xxx> army/game,
you can't use it for your PRNCŠ."

What prompted this thought was the fact that while our Stargrunt infantry
figures have always been named for particular powers within the game
background, the vehicle ranges have always been kept fairly generic rather
than being specifically tied to a faction, and we've always encouraged people
to use them for whatever forces they like; but I'd be very interested in any
opinions either way on thisŠ.

Related to this, do folks like to see vehicle types NAMED, even if they are
not specifically tied to a force or faction? Do you think of
the V15-01 as a Cougar, or just as a tracked MBT...?

Reactions to the thread on TMP so far seem to suggest that most folks are
happy with using stuff for whatever they wish, with only a couple of people
going with the other view; It'll be interesting to see what the GZG ListMind
thinks!

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAct
ually, more then 75% people I game with use minies from very different game
systems in alternate game systems as long as the minie in question is somewhat
in the near ball park as the original. Example: I like FT, but I am almost in
love with several ships designs from B5, Earth Force for one, and prime ship
for me is the Hyperion cruiser, which suites me just fine as a battlecruiser
for the NSL, or an Omega Dreadnought as a BDN.

So, no. My answer is most of my peeps would not grumble, or complain at all.
And we would happily use minies simply because "OMFG That things is fraggin
awesome" Good enough reason to use, play or buy any type of minie if you ask
me

Vince

In a message dated 9/27/2008 7:01:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jon@gzg.com writes:

Hi all,

I posed this question on TMP the other day, and thought it was worth repeating
here:

If a mini (say, a vehicle or starship) is described as belonging to a specific
power or faction in a specific game system, is that going to make you any less
likely to use it with a different force or in a different game system than if
that same mini was described in very generic terms? If I named something as a
"UNSC Marines MkVII "Piranha" Light Grav Tank", would you ONLY think of it in
those terms, or would you still think "hey, cool tank, that'll do for my
Peoples' Republic of New California Revolutionary GuardÅ "? And, if you DID
use it for your own army, would any of your little
gaming buddies  grumble that "that's a <xxx> tank for <xxx> army/game,
you can't use it for your PRNCÅ."

What prompted this thought was the fact that while our Stargrunt infantry
figures have always been named for particular powers within the game
background, the vehicle ranges have always been kept fairly generic rather
than being specifically tied to a faction, and we've always encouraged people
to use them for whatever forces they like; but I'd be very interested in any
opinions either way on thisÅ.

Related to this, do folks like to see vehicle types NAMED, even if they are
not specifically tied to a force or faction? Do you think of
the V15-01 as a Cougar, or just as a tracked MBT...?

Reactions to the thread on TMP so far seem to suggest that most folks are
happy with using stuff for whatever they wish, with only a couple of people
going with the other view; It'll be interesting to see what the GZG ListMind
thinks!

Jon (GZG)

**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators.      (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> If a mini (say, a vehicle or starship) is described as belonging to a

I don't care what you name the miniatures themselves. However, I would
prefer more direction within the rules. Does X faction use grav/GEV
technology, or are they mostly wheeled/tracked?

That having been said, I have a thing against walkers. If the "official" set
up for a faction indicated they used walkers, I'd not use that faction, or I
would just ignore it.

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

I'll only care about "type" if I happen to care about the setting in
question -- and for scenarios in that setting.  Other than that I'll
mix miniature lines faster than you can say "GW Cadians and Copplestone
troopers backed up by DLD APCs taking on a horde of Zombiesmith zombies."

Damo

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJon
,

Coming at your question as one of your long-timers, here's my view:

1) I buy GZG miniatures because they look good, aren't overdone like some G
companies W miniatures, and because the rules are pretty adaptable. 2) I don't
need to brew my own universe because yours is pretty inclusive
and non-specific enough to have varying interpretations.
3) The only brew-your own I do is recreating into SG or DS or FT stuff
for
RPGs or a particular setting for a scenario (hence Steelgrunt-esque LOTR
games, SW themed SG and DS, and so on). In those cases, I want figures that
look like what I'm trying to recreate - GW LOTR figs, WEG 25mm SW or the
new plastics, etc. Where GZG wins here is that some figure ranges work very
well
for re-creating some settings - UNSC = Traveller Imperial Marines,
Kra-Vak =
2300 AD's Kafers or Predators, GZG Mercs - genericaly useful, GZG NSL
Pzgd = Roughneck Chronicles Mobile Infantry, etc. Since you cannot and would
not market these as such (exception Hammer's Slammers), I feel quite free to
expropriate stuff to work beyond its original scope. For vehicles, 2300 AD M9
= Goliath (or is that Gladiator?), Hoverjeep = Hoverjeep, Wombat APC
=
2300 AD German APC, Rommel = German Luki tank, etc. 4) Anyone who gets shirty
with me about what game I'm playing and what figs I use is either a pedant and
should be summarily disemboweled or is welcome at least to go and spend their
own money to buy, time to paint, etc. figures more appropos. I use the best
match I have at hand. If someone doesn't like it, they can do better or take a
hike. 5) As to vehicles: I like to know what faction a vehicle is notionally
aligned with. Some utility vehicles might be used by several forces, but MBTs
and such will tend to be associated with a bloc of nations if not a single
nation. I enjoy that association. But I also freely distort it to
suit my version of your universe - the ESU and the NAC are all over and
are huge, so they'd have vehicles of all niches. The Aussies, tending to
occupy small, unpleasant worlds that no one else wants, would tend to need
vehicles appropriate to the less hospitable worlds. And some nations are more
oriented around defense than offense so their catalog will reflect that.
Consequently, I follow some of your guidelines, but feel free to do my own
thing and mix your lines, those from old crow, DLD, Brigade, etc. together.
But I still like to know your notional associations.

So my vote is give them model names and national associations. The colour text
is fun and sometimes I steal it. But keep encouraging free association and use
in general. And when describing a vehicle, mention enough detail to give the
generic description

"Grav Tank, medium sized, one large main gun in turret (possibly DFFG or
HEL), commander's multi-barreled APSW/RFAC/SAW, angular design to turret
an body"

or

"Tracked IFV, medium sized, small turrret with chain gun/RFAC and light
guided missile system, smoothed edges and fluid lines, distinct graceful
alien feel, should have cargo space for about 6-8 human sized troops,
rear deployment door"

Generic, informative, but you could still name the first "Excalibur NAC Medium
Grav Tank" and the second "Phalon Parthian IFV".

Whatever you do, just keep churning out nice looking miniatures with decently
high manufacturing standards. We'll find uses for them. And let your website
host pics of them painted up in different schemes, maybe in different games in
different settings, and that will convey the 'use them for whatever' approach
you want to convey.

TomB

> --- On Sat, 9/27/08, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

When playing within the background that the mini is intended for, I would be
unlikely to use it for a different force. I probably won't plop a Klingon ship
down and call it a Federation ship.

On the other hand, when I am playing a homebrew background (which is more than
90% of the time), I will use whatever I think looks good without concern for
what the manufacturer says it is.

Until you make New Roman infantrymen, I'll continue to use other infantry
figures.

Further, as you tend to produce only a limited number of figures for each
line, I have to mix and match.

You see, my mechanized line infantry wears hardshell full body armor (New
Israelis!) whereas light infantry and scouts wear vests only (forget who I
bought, but they have vests and boonie caps). Militia is going to be less
lavishly equipped than Regulars, etc, etc, etc.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
wrote:
> If a mini (say, a vehicle or starship) is described as belonging to a

I would think that would be dependent on the technological and economic
assumptions of your universe, which Jon carefully doesn't make.

If grav provides a significant tactical advantage in relation to its economic
price, all factions will use as much of it as they can afford for the best
formations they have. And tracked or wheeled for what ever is left over.

Jon, if I liked the design I would be willing to use for whatever force I
could.

Currently I'm looking at some of the New ESU to fill out my Midgard Herding
fleet. Because I used some of GW Tau ships to "start" my force out. So the
look is there.

I know a buddy here has in his CBT Vehicle forces both SJ Orge GEV and such,
and some of your DSII and for those low tech militia unit, he has Micro Armor
forces.

Well there my $0.01, would have beem.02 but well with the market crashing...

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. ~ Ernest Hemmingway

"I'm a Member of Red Sox Nation"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abc3CevHgms

<<Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:59:40 +0100
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
Subject: [GZG] Question: What's in a name - WYSIWYG or not?

Hi all,

I posed this question on TMP the other day, and thought it was worth repeating
here:

If a mini (say, a vehicle or starship) is described as belonging to a specific
power or faction in a specific game system, is that going to make you any less
likely to use it with a different force or in a different game system than if
that same mini was described in very generic terms?>>

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGro
> und Zero Games wrote:
Light Grav Tank", would you ONLY think of it in those terms, or would you
still think "Hey, cool tank, that'll do for my Peoples' Republic of New
California Revolutionary Guards"? And, if you DID use it for your own army,
would any of your little
> gaming buddies grumble that "That's a <xxx> tank for <xxx> army/game;
you can't use it for your PRNCs."
> [quoted text omitted]
The mini itself, I have no problem with making into whatever I want it to be.
My "NAC" fleet (quotes because, while the ships themselves are
mostly "old" NAC designs, they have no specific markings -- yet)
includes an "Atmospheric Squadron" made up mostly of ESU ships which look as
though they're at least partly streamlined. Similarly, my OUDF
fleet has a "Strike Fleet" made up of non-BORON designs from other
manufacturers, my rationale being that the OU bought in some hulls from
outside for purely military roles, while the BORON ships get the more general
"cruising" jobs; and my UNSC fleet filled in what I remember, rightly or
wrongly, as a gap in the initial release of the range by adding a couple of
BCs from another maufacturer because I particularly
liked the design. And I have ESU ships and a couple of ESU/NAC hybrids
acting as the "small ships" in an Empire of Man fleet currently headed
by a pair of /General-/class BCs (haven't worked out how to make a
/President/-class BB yet). But you get the idea.

Once it's painted, however, it becomes a little harder to justify using
it as what the Evil Empire calls a proxy model -- with the caveat that
this only strictly applies to ships with recognisable markings, and
particularly names, etc., in English or any other recognisable human
language. It's difficult to accept that the USS /Enterprise/ or the EDS
/Yamato/ is, in fact, a tug/carrier for a squadron of Battle Riders from

a little-known League of Non-Aligned Worlds race when you can see the
name and serial number painted on the hull. OTOH, alien ships are rather

easier to deal with that way; if I want to use Phalon or Minbari ships as a
Kinshaya fleet to fight the Klingons, then who can reasonably say that they're
wrong?

I suppose what that boils down to, in terms of your questions, is that I

make use of anything in the way of minis that I think will fit in a
fleet/army that I'm building. "Official" names and designations are nice

to have, but I will discard them if they don't fit the way I want them to. For
instance, I like Brigade's AmRep ships, but they seem a little small in
comparison with the GZG ranges, so I will downgrade, say, a nominal CL to
being a DDL, and so on.

As for grumbles from fellow players, well, I've never had any to deal with of
that nature. In general, if you identify the type of ship each
model represents as part of the game set-up or when the enemy gathers
enough intel to identify its capabilities, there's no ground for complaint.
I'm not sure I'd want to have to put up with someone who was that petty; it
smacks of the worst of the Gumby Workshop zealots, and while taking WYSIWYG to
that extent can barely be justified for tournament play, it's well OTT for
casual gaming.
> What prompted this thought was the fact that while our Stargrunt
Well, I've said something on this when the subject of generic vs specific
vehicles came up before. I go along with the generic idea and letting people
choose their own mix of vehicles accorind to taste and
their idea of the doctrine used by a given faction/nation/race. Of
course, I recognise that, from a commercial point of view, producing
specific designs for each f/n/r offers the chance to sell more minis,
but I remember when Brigade switched their starship range from being that of
the SemFed to individual fleets for the various Iron Cow nations, and I didn't
like it. Perhaps it was an irrational reaction, but I didn't particularly care
for the ships in my fleet suddenly being deemed to be on opposing sides. It
made commercial sense for Tony and co. to do what they did (and saved the
SemFed from appearing to either be the galaxy's most outrageous militarists or
its most inverterate tinkerers, due to all the different ship classes they
had), but my gut objected to the destroyers of my fleet, deliberately chosen
for their design resemblance to the larger ships, suddenly being presumed to
have been created by an entirely different nation. As I said earlier,
irrational, but powerful nonetheless.
> Related to this, do folks like to see vehicle types NAMED, even if
I like them being named, even if the name makes no sense by the time
I've used the mini as part of a force for an entirly different f/n/r
than it was nominally intended for (if there is one). It catches the
attention, too: I'm a definite vacc-head, so ground vehicles are pretty
uninteresting to me, but I at least took a look at the Wombat APC when I

saw it in the catalogue, purely because of the name. And a name can help

when talking to other players: saying, "This round, the platoon of
Cougars on this hill are going to launch anti-tank missiles at the
Goliaths on the road there," is easier and simpler than reeling off a
stream of alpha-numeric gibberish or even just calling them all tanks,
even if the forces involved are meant to be the United Esperanto League
and the EkiekiekiF'Tang! Hegemony, neither of whom can /pronounce/
"Cougar" and "Goliath", much less call their vehicles by those names!

Phil

I'm comfortable with mixing and matching; however, I like having the same
figures across scales. It is hard to get the same figure at 15mm and 6mm so
when I find something like that I get really interested. With space ships, I
mix and match all the time. Scale is much less important there. The ship's
look matters more, but I've found that you can find many ships in many lines
that complement one another nicely (painting helps here).

Honestly, the real value of having something labeled ESU or NAC or NSL is that
you have a common stylistic theme across the whole line. With NSL, for
example, you get blocky, solid designs. If there's only one option for a
"wheeled" chassis, then you get a lot of uniformity on the table. I say this
even though I like modularity.

So I guess what I'm saying is that from a fashion perspective, I think that
having a faction in mind when you design a vehicle is a good organizing
principle for the figure's overall look.

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> I posed this question on TMP the other day, and thought it was worth

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> And, if you DID use it for your own army, would any of your little

I don't currently play with anybody like that. And I won't either. I don't
play games where the size of your wallet or your luck in finding a mini means
you win. No collectible games. If I'm out numbered for other reasons, like a
campain, that's ok. If I'm out gunned because you paid $75 for a Super Star
Destroyer on Ebay, forget it.

That's why I love Full Thrust. Any ship, any universe, any time, any media.

Paper and counters? Yep. Minis? Yep. Play by email? Yep. Full computer? Yep.

Now, I'm not a Stargrunt player today. It's mainly because the prepainted
stuff I've bought so far is out of scale. I've got a ton of prepainted Star
Wars figures and abandened GW figures mostly painted. But I really need FMA to
play with games with them and convert other players.

Speaking of converting players: I've been teaching new players at cons for a
couple of years now. I was thinking of making a series of free instuctional
videos for people who can't get to cons but have internet access. Anyone got a
problem with that? Jon?

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

Excellent, imagination in SF gaming is alive and well - despite the
best efforts of Certain Large Companies(tm)...  ;-)

> Jon T. wrote:

> If a mini (say, a vehicle or starship) is described as belonging to a

Nope. I'll happily use them wherever they fit in in my existing forces
regardless of what they're called :-)

Later,

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net> wrote:

> Now, I'm not a Stargrunt player today. It's mainly because the

o.O

Out of scale? Did you mean Dirtside?

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Anyone got
> a problem with that? Jon?

Fine with me, Mike!  :-)

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

If I buy a mini, I get to use it any way I want, and if someone doesn't like
that they don't have to play with me. So I don't really care what they are
called or what the fluff says. I love that there is fluff, but it's still all
just fluff to me.

However, unlike Allan, I love walkers, more is better.

I'm here more for the rules. Even if you stopped making the wonderful mini's
I'd still be here for the rules.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTim
e for me to chime in, now that a number of others have.

These answers are my own, and may or may not conform to "popular opinion" or
what you would like to hear. I make no claims for anyone else.

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Hi all,

Yes, if described as used by or belonging to a specific power/faction,
then for THAT game system I would be less likely to use it in a different
force.

However, I have less self-imposed limitations for using the same mini in
OTHER game systems. For example, if I were to play Brigades SF tank game and
use their minis, I'd probably use 'em as they are described by
power/faction. However, bringing some of the same minis over to the GZG
universe, and they would get reassigned wholesale to other
powers/factions
as the need required.

> If I named something as a "UNSC Marines MkVII "Piranha" Light Grav

I think it's a rather black/white question you ask. I would *tend* to
think of it in the described terms, HOWEVER, if it doesn't "fit" and I see it
fit somewhere else better, then that's where it'll go in my head.

> And, if you DID use it for your own army, would any of your little

Nope. They don't know from SF minis. ;-)

> What prompted this thought was the fact that while our Stargrunt

I'd personally like to see power-specific vehicles. But that's just me.

> Related to this, do folks like to see vehicle types NAMED, even if

Here I feel the most strongly about. Yes, I think you should name vehicles.
It does more than just give it a "name" - it gives it an *identity*. It
is very much like rock climbing routes. You can have a bunch of different
routes up a wall - one up a corner, one up a crack, one through an
overhanging roof, one up a blank face. But if one climber talks to another,
they'll want to refer to the routes by name. As soon as, say, the crack climb
is named, mention the name to anyone who has climbed there or heard of it and
instantly everyone will be on the same page as to which climb one is referring
to. I think this has a direct application to minis. You call something the
"Cougar MBT", and everyone who is remotely familiar with it will instantly
know the mini that is being referred to. Call it instead
V15-01 tracked MBT, and it just won't bring the same visual cue to most
people (except those who memorized the catalog) (no, I'm not one who
memorized the catalog ;-) ). Names have meaning, names have power. Names
give identification for everyone.

Annnnd that's my two bits worth.

Mk

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
definately prefer it when each faction has their own distinct look and feel.
As opposed to everyone having the same mixture of gear. Â I don't think the
games are as successful or as enjoyable when both players have the same model
but are using completly different rules. Â If playing Full Thrust using the
GZG universe I would use the models as they are described. If I was playing
Warmachine or Hordes, I would buy the appropriate models. I might "proxy"
some models while trying them out, but if I wanted to play the game regularly
I would expect to buy the appropriate models. Â If I was playing my own game
or one where there was not a specific set of models for them I would use
models that are suitable from any manufacturer I liked. Â I think armies look
best when they come from a consistent range of models, unless you want a
polglot look like refugees. Â I definately think each vehicle should get a
name or "code name" if it's an alien vehicle and a paragraph of text
describing it's intoduction, notable battles and how it fights. Makes it much
more compelling than a catalogue code or generic text like "medium APC tracked
with AT missiles".

I'm in favour of giving the vehicles names like Cougar, but not necessarily
tied to a power (aka not NAC Cougar tracked MBT).

G'day,

If the figs named under an affiliation are cool, I'll probably toe the
line, but in general don't  really pay attention to it - none of my
sci-fi armies except FSE fleet actually have figs that match the
official lines... mainly as none exist, but that's a minor detail;)

E.g. use vietnam and modern Aussie figs for SG (with GZG paladin wheeled tank)
WWI tanks for one DS force NSL troups with TAU vehicles for another DS force
Daleks with War of the worlds walkers for another DS force

Cheers

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Damond Walker wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net>
wrote:
> Now, I'm not a Stargrunt player today. It's mainly because the

No, I mean that most of the stuff I have is scaled 25mm-30mm.  Roughly.
Like this:
http://www.amazon.com/TITANIUM-STAR-WARS-3INCH-VEHICLES/dp/B000GL1Q8S/re
f=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1222781186&sr=1-9

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIf
it is named as belonging to a specific power I would use it for that specific
power or for mercenaries. I can well imagine there will be some big megacorps
selling the same models for all who can afford them.

Just my thoughs,

Greetings,

                                                             Catinator

Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> írta:

> Hi all,

> G'day,

How do GW Tau vehicles compare in size to the NSL troops? Do the vehicles look
too big?

> > G'day,

I think Beth's talking about 6mm versions here (presumably, as DS is
mentioned), but even in 25/28mm I think the Tau vehicles are
sufficiently "unconventional" that the apparent size wouldn't be a
problem. They would just represent pretty hefty vehicles/dropships.

Oops, missed the DS bit. This would be the Forgeworld (resin) versions of the
vehicles?

[quoted original message omitted]

> Oops, missed the DS bit. This would be the Forgeworld (resin) versions

I guess so. Beth's obviously getting paid too much if they can afford
FridgeWorld minis AND eat...  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

> ----- Original Message -----

The only time I like WYSIWYG is in demo games - when the scenario is KV
vs the Earth, I like having KV models ḟor the KV, UN ḟor the UN, and so
on. Otherwise, whatever, as long as it's unambiguous, and gives a reasonable

visual eḟḟect. As an example, either all cardboard counters or none. In a
multiplayer game, I have no issues with one player using BḞG Imperials ḟor
ESU, another using SḞB Andromedans ḟor NSL etc. And a PAU ḟleet may be a
mix oḟ NAC, NSL, ESU etc ships oḟ course. But please no mixed ḟleets
oḟ Tyrannids, Eldar, Gorn, and Phalons, with
destroyer-sized models representing superdreadnauts, and cruiser-sized
models sometimes representing ḟrigates, sometimes battlecruisers. Unless
representing a "Galactic Alliance" oḟ diḟḟerent races with diḟḟerent
technological capabilities, in which case even that is OK.

Iḟ someone ḟeels that the visual eḟḟect is wrong, they have the
responsibility to supply replacement models.

Zoe

G'day,

1) Yes it was DS and they looked fine, but Derek has a Tau 40K army and they
look fine next to his NSL too in 25mm (because they're all unconventional
sweeping lines etc like St^3 Jon said)

2) I wish I was getting paid enough to afford to buy direct, but as I'm too
attached to my first, second or third borns to sell their souls to
the devil for the $ required for that all out Tau is second/third/e-bay
hand (except one pack of Tau forgeworld drones) so not that expensive if
you're prepared to take what you can get (thankfully they have painted up
nicely regardless);)

Cheers

> 2) I wish I was getting paid enough to afford to buy direct, but as

I see. Thanks for the information. So how do the resins compare to
1/286
metals in terms of preparation needed, etc.?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:05 AM, <cqin@ece.ualberta.ca> wrote:

> I see. Thanks for the information. So how do the resins compare to

> From forgeworld? Gimme the lead any day, I have yet to get an order

This is the 1/300 Epic line.

I have had fewer problems with their 28mm figures....

G'day,

They had a wee bit of flash on some figs, but not much, so were pretty clean.
I washed (and let dry) mine before priming (I vaguely remember being told this
was important for some kinds of figs before painting, not sure if I really
need to in this case but it didn't hurt at least as the figs painted up real
nice)

Cheers

Beth

[quoted original message omitted]

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:34 PM, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

> G'day,

Sounds like your experiance has been much better than mine have been.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lG
'day,

> Sounds like your experiance has been much better than mine have been.

I did all my purchases about 2.5 years ago so don't know if that contributed
to the difference (were yours more recent on older moulds perhaps?)

Cheers

Beth

It's been many years since I ordered from forgeworld but my experiences with
them were also very good. The resins had plenty of flash, but it was very thin
and easily removed. The casts were otherwise perfect.

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Evyn MacDude <infojunky@ceecom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:34 PM, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:19 AM, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

> G 'day,

In the same time frame....

It just might be me, I have been having one of those lives.....

--
Evyn

Hmm... For the price they charge, this kind of inconsistency is rather
disturbing...

[quoted original message omitted]

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
have bought several Forgeworld items from different ranges over the
years including quite a few of their 1/300 aircraft. I have had some of
the thin parts a bit warped but that's not unique to Forgeworld resins. Â In I
found the kits free of significant issues. Some of the thin elements are
subject to warping but hat seem normal with resin. Â Maybe the orginal poster
just got a bad batch

----- Original Message ----
From: Chen-song Qin <cqin@ece.ualberta.ca>
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Sunday, 5 October, 2008 2:12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question: What's in a name - WYSIWYG or not?

Hmm... For the price they charge, this kind of inconsistency is rather

disturbing...

[quoted original message omitted]