Today I was at the local game store and the topic of SGII came about. No
sooner had said the name did the local GW fan contingent tell me that SGII
"sucks" because it doesn't have a points system. Even after I tried explain
Jon's reasoning for this, they told me that GZG doesn't want to make money
because "powergamers and munchkins are the only gamers in the SF market."
Without points "you might as well be playing historical wargames."
I offered that there were a couple very balanced fan created points systems
available on the web. That didn't sway them either. "Tuffley made a mistake by
not adding a point system, he'll never compete with GW by doing that."
Comments?
Later
> On 28 Feb 2004 at 18:40, Mark A. Siefert wrote:
> Today I was at the local game store and the topic of SGII came about.
So were these guys powergamers, munchkins or both? Or did they not play SF
games?
They were of the 40K/WHFB/Void school of gaming.
[quoted original message omitted]
Today I was at the local game store and the topic of SGII came about. No
sooner had said the name did the local GW fan contingent tell me that SGII
"sucks" because it doesn't have a points system. Even after I tried explain
Jon's reasoning for this, they told me that GZG doesn't want to make money
because "powergamers and munchkins are the only gamers in the SF market."
Without points "you might as well be playing historical wargames."
I offered that there were a couple very balanced fan created points systems
available on the web. That didn't sway them either. "Tuffley made a mistake by
not adding a point system, he'll never compete with GW by doing that."
Comments?
LOL Mark, You can't save the religiously afflicted.......) That and at the
rate of their financial commitment to the Evil Empire, sort of makes fantical
loyalty logical.........)
And what, may I ask, is wrong with playing historical wargames? ;-)
[quoted original message omitted]
I concurr, absolutely nothing wrong with historicals, in fact much good can
come from them.
Some of the best sci-fi and fantastic milieu games I've ever played have
come from history.
You really should have been there when I participated in a re-creation
of Waterloo using NetEpic and all those glorious little epic figures.
(Wellington was an Eldar and Blucher an ork....... go figure).
Really though, I think that a steady diet of one or the other will one day
give you a gaming version of the stomach flu. Variety is the way to go;
points, historicals, whatever, just have fun.
Thanks
Pat Connaughton
E-mail ptconn@earthlink.net
[quoted original message omitted]
And I bet that most of the players would not have know if not been told.
I have never understood this mentality, in Historical or SF/Fantasy
games. I guess some don't like to force their brain cells into actually
thinking about the scenario. Of course, you could have them use GW's points
and then use weapons conversions to SG. Or give them a system where all costs
are figured to the nearest 10,000th.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
And what, may I ask, is wrong with playing historical wargames? ;-)
Personally I like historical and Sci-fi equally.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:40:26 -0600 "Mark A. Siefert"
> <siefertma@wi.rr.com> writes:
<snip>
> I offered that there were a couple very balanced fan created points
I don't understand why they think anybody would care to bother about
competing with Gross Wannabe-Wargames!
Never found a figure I would buy at retail from them, never found a set of
rules they produced that didn't make like limburger gone bad, and never much
cared for their 'Play our Rules OUR way ONLY' attitude. And
that _is_ my balanced, rational opinion. You should see my tirade mode.
Or maybe not, it's not even a little less then rabid...
In [gag, choke, gasp] defense of some of the reportedly better aspects of the
company's efforts, I have not seen Epic or Rogue Trader rules which some
people, who are superficially sane at least, report as good products. And I
have collected a few fantasy human figures in grab bags that were identified
as possibly 'early' GW figures that were fairly reasonable.
Makes me think I might have a little idea how the Aussies think about
some of the American military leadership/mindset when we get into the
"We invented [fill in the blank]" mode.
Gracias,
Makes me think I might have a little idea how the Aussies think about
some of the American military leadership/mindset when we get into the
"We invented [fill in the blank]" mode.
[fill in the blank]........Bull Sh** perhaps not even that
but the argument can be made for DODs' perfection of it.......)
> Mark A. Siefert wrote:
Ah, so 'both'. Good to know that they can identify their own problems. Maybe
in a few years or decades time they'll get over them. Of course we'll still be
waiting for BDS even then...
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:40:09 -0000 "Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net> writes:
<snip earlier posts>
> They were of the 40K/WHFB/Void school of gaming.
Alas, that is true. There are definite advantages to 'corporate organized'
companies versus the 'Single POC of contact is the company' but the
tradeoffs... Trying to find the balance is the hard part in all efforts
perhaps.
Gracias,
Exactly my thoughts.
[quoted original message omitted]
In all fairness, I know a lot of GW players who are neither munchkins or
powergamers.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Of course we'll still be waiting for BDS even then...
Ah, the seeds of evil sown bear fruit...
> You really should have been there when I participated in a re-creation
Sounds a bit like Flintloque roulette; they had Brit orcs and I think the
Germans were dogs(?). Very cinematic view of history, of course, as everything
was visions of Sharpe and Chauvelin and the like. I always wanted to do the
Peck Hornblower's escape from the French.
A friend Outrider did a scenerio he called Ork-inawa. Palm trees and
landing boats. I don't think much of the history came into the game, but it
had a nice feel and look.
> In all fairness, I know a lot of GW players who are neither munchkins
I've certainly mentioned them. The fellow who'd said how much he'd enjoyed the
game he'd just got pasted in, was playing 40K. The fellows who wax lyric of
the old days of Rouge Trader seem perfectly cogniscent of the problems already
mentioned. It's the feel of a new game, and the joy of the play, they recall
lovingly.
***
Never found a figure I would buy at retail from them, never found a set of
rules they produced that didn't make like limburger gone bad, and never much
cared for their 'Play our Rules OUR way ONLY' attitude. And
that _is_ my balanced, rational opinion. You should see my tirade mode.
Or maybe not, it's not even a little less then rabid...
***
I have, a few; I'm still trying to figure how to take Dark Eldar craft to make
Martian VSF air kites, and most folks admire the Tau vehicles. And, I
got a kick out of Man o War, in the main, and some of the box/board
games have devoted fans on this list.
Still, the best part of GW stuff in a rabidly loyal GW community if is you
don't care to paint. With folks dropping painted armies ridiculously low
priced to pick up the flavor of the month, you can do quite well. Course, eBay
has kinda killed this.
Does anyone know where the little story of an Stargrunt squad ambushing Space
Marine apes might be? That was certainly priceless!
The_Beast
> Doug Evans wrote:
Only copy I can find is presently here:
http://www.angelfire.com/games4/chubbybob/welcome_to_ground_zero.htm
G'day
> Today I was at the local game store and the topic of SGII
While the bitchy side of me would be dying to answer along the lines of "Yes
that's obviously because GW has already cornered the market on
well-balanced, complete and value for money rule sets...".
Unfortunately that would probably lead to either blank looks on their part or
ostracism and still not bring the "I have paid through the nose so feel
obligated to defend" people around. So the best response in my experience is
to see if you can organise a game they can
watch/participate in, even use GW figs if you have any. Also get them to
toss out ideas for scenarios and play one (this is easier if you have enough
experience to take their idea and make it a playable scenario on the fly).
Also have copies of the point systems available for them to take if they show
even the slightest interest, but are still hesitating over the rule set
(people like this are happier to take stuff off the net if they don't have to
find it themselves, especially if it also looks flashy).
In the end people who have had their socks knocked off find it harder to
argue... they also find it harder to chase you down an asphalt street if the
bitchy class of answers comes out anyway;)
Have fun
I used to play their Epic rules, and even enjoyed it some. I finally gave up
the game though after about a year because I got tired of their "buy our
newest models this month or never win another game because these new models
can easily beat the old ones" sales model.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Mark wrote:
> Even after I tried explain
You should have asked if they were powergamers or munchkins! *L* Or, you
should have said, "You wouldn't like SG2 anyway. You need to use cover, and
fire lanes, and icky stuff like that."
It's a religious war, and you're not going to convince them otherwise. I
thought that their comment about historical wargaming was telling. For them,
the metagame of "how do I tweak my points and pick units with the
right rule loopholes to win" is important. It's why _Magic: The
Gathering_ became so popular. You can "play the game" in the privacy of
your parent's basement when there is no one around, in the form of building
your deck or army. Then you get to play it at the local store.
Jon's aiming at a different market. They can't see that, and they never will.
> Don wrote:
> Personally I like historical and Sci-fi equally.
As do I. I find that a good deal of GZG players fit into this category,
particularly DS2 and SG2 players, but also FT players. Look at the
arguments we can get into about realism in PSB. We all enjoy sci-fi
gaming, but we like it grounded in realism. There's a big cross-over
between hard military sci-fi fans and military history in general.
> Glen wrote:
> In [gag, choke, gasp] defense of some of the reportedly better aspects
I have _Rogue Trader_. It has problems. It uses a "move then fire"
sequence that many serious wargame designers considered obsolete in the late
70s, let alone a decade later. There are no penalties for moving then firing.
There are no opportunity fire rules (which were later called "overwatch"
rules, and added in a White Dwarf issue). There are
no command/control rules, other than the fact that the leader of the
squad is your best guy. I can't remember if there were rules for cover, but I
think there were.
However, they resulted in a fun skirmish game. I converted the system by
adding overwatch rules and a modified _Squad Leader_ turn sequence
(which didn't allow you to move if you fired in the Prep Fire phase). This
worked well, and gave a fast paced game. Okay, leaders were still
too powerful, and there was no command/control, but the game was fun.
The main problem was the same as with any wargame: players tended to fight
bigger battles with it than were reasonable. Then it fell into the arms race
spiral, where new figures were more powerful and began to rule the game. I
still have a copy of the rules (in a binder, as the book fell apart) but I
finally sold off all of my figures, including my beloved space dwarves.
I liked the original _Space Marine_ and still have it, though I haven't
played it in ages. I'm keeping the figures for use in DS2. Oerjan
actually likes _Epic 40K_, so that's piqued my interest in picking up
the rules.
> And I have collected a few fantasy human figures in grab bags
Yes, those old Citadel figures were well priced and pretty good basic fantasy
figures. I sold off all of those, too! *L*
> I offered that there were a couple very balanced fan created points
> made a mistake by not adding a point system, he'll never compete with
Well, does Mr.Tuffley really want to compet with GW?
I understand the desire for a points system, as I understand the lack of a
'need' for one. But really, I think we're looking at apples and oranges here.
-P.
I've been wanting to run a campaign where players move fleets between star
systems, fight a Full Thrust game for control of that system then fight a
ground-combat game for control over the planet(s) of that system in
order to
lay claim to the wealth/resources of that planet.
I wanted to be able to let players build their own units
Stargrunt, due to it's lack of a points-based system is ill-suited to
that.
Members of my group have expressed interest in using either Silent Dark by
Wolfe Games or Dirtside, with strong leanings towards DS2 because of the
scale.
--Tim
> On Monday 01 March 2004 10:53 am, Paul M. M. Jacobus wrote:
"Tuffley
> > made a mistake by not adding a point system, he'll never compete
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> I liked the original _Space Marine_ and still have it, though I haven't
> played it in ages. I'm keeping the figures for use in DS2. Oerjan
As does Alan Brain :-)
FWIW I know many historical games, particularly ancients/medieval ones,
which use points systems rather too heavily; so for me the "you might as
well play historical games" comment was a complete dud :-/
Later,
My friends and I are doing this exact thing right now.
We're using Full Thrust and Dirtside to play out a small "fringe worlds"
campaign. We are about to have our first combat this weekend... my task force
ambushing an escort on a scouting mission.
I'll let you know how it (the campaign) turns out.
> On 1 Mar 2004 at 11:15, FlakMagnet72 wrote:
> I've been wanting to run a campaign where players move fleets between
"Tuffley
> > > made a mistake by not adding a point system, he'll never compete
> Personally I like historical and Sci-fi equally.
As do I. I find that a good deal of GZG players fit into this category,
particularly DS2 and SG2 players, but also FT players. Look at the arguments
we can get into about realism in PSB. We all enjoy sci-fi gaming, but we
like it grounded in realism. There's a big cross-over between hard
military
sci-fi fans and military history in general.
I think that is the real dividing line between GZGs and GW players. The
Warhammer 40k players are more fantasy-Sci-fi
players than the GZGs types that tend more realism based. Just an
observation.......)
> FlakMagnet72 wrote:
See http://firedrake.org/roger/ft/sg2points.html and the references.
But bear in mind that environmental factors (eg how much cover, how it's
distributed, what the objectives are, which way the roads run etc) can be a
big factor also.