> Now, I WOULD object if we started talking about GW figures and the
What about conversion of GW figures and Kryomek background to SG2 rules
?
But I digress.
I'm a bit more rigid than some about mixing models, but I certainly was sold
on using models already in my collection to play FT, SG2, and DS2.
And there was a time (yesterday afternoon?), when I bought models from a
different line for use in my GW games...
> Tom McCarthy wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> And there was a time (yesterday afternoon ?), when I bought models
Tom,
I took a non-GW dwarf army to a GW day at the local hobby
store, they did not seem to be pleased, and I never got a single judgement
call to go my way.
Perhaps I just feel oppressed! Or perhaps.....
Bye for now,
> Tom McCarthy wrote:
Why would you buy perfectly good models to play some of the worst games on the
planet?
> Tom,
And you're SUPRISED?!?!
> Perhaps I just feel oppressed! Or perhaps.....
************************************************
What is it about GW, they produce somof the best minatures around(though i
agree that they sell them at the most absurd prices) but still their
background is very rich and full of ideas, so don't just slag them off all the
time.
Daniel Preece
On Monday, April 27, 1998 12:48 PM, 97010582
> [SMTP:97010582@student.darlington.ac.uk] wrote:
Putting on my Full Metal Anorak (FMA)...
Can we please move any futher
Games Workshop (GW) vs GZG off topic/flame/suck/rools/advocacy etc.
to private email. thanks
> 97010582 wrote:
[snip]
> > >Now, I WOULD object if we started talking about GW figures and the
That may be, but this particular comment has more to do with the fact that
discussion of GW stuff without the GZG rules context is better done elsewhere.
Now to give this some GZG content: I think it is interesting that GZG games
are thought of as generic, but they really do have a mindset that allows them
to do some styles more easily than others. I'm sure that's necessary, of
course. But they do
seem flexible enough to handle some in-between ground. I'm thoroughly
uninterested in playing GW's 40K, but like Stargrunt II. On the other hand,
I'm sure I treat it differently than others would, using GW (epic)
figures. That's OK. I like Star Wars better than more realistic-style
science fiction, so some amount of far-outness is fine.
Funny, but I don't get quite the same impression from Full Thrust as I
do Dirtside or Stargrunt. (Do you always say/write "Dirtside II" or
"Stargrunt II" when speaking/writing about these games? It makes some
conversations slightly clumsier. I think I'm just going to lop off the
"II" part. :-) Full Thrust seems to be less concerned with realism.
Of course, it would be kinda hard for it to have the same sort of similarly to
modern warfare that the other games have.:)
Hmmm. Playing FT is so much simpler than playing DS or SG, in setup and play.
I ought to play it more. I wonder if my son (5 years old) could play this, if
I let him move directly instead of writing orders.
> You wrote:
> Hmmm. Playing FT is so much simpler than playing DS or SG, in setup
could >play this, if I let him move directly instead of writing orders.
At a recent con, I talked two kids into playing a demo game. They used their
StarWars toys (the plastic ones on clear stands) to play the introductory
scenario in the FT book. The younger one was maybe 9? They picked it up by the
third turn or so. IMHO FT is the easiest wargame to learn I've played.
Absolutely! I once played with a couple of neighborhood kids, using Superior
ships without bases, with circular template out of the FT II book. I think
they were 7 and 10.
They each had heavy cruisers, me with a battlecruiser. They split, then closed
in behind me. Trashed me good! (Ok, I wasn't trying THAT hard to
manuever. ;->=)
I look foreward to FT III with the possibility of mixing the more complex
'realistic' movement with simpler FTII movement arcs, just so those needing
the challenge can fly their way, while there'll be simpler rules for those
kids I want to include.
We shall see if the dream will become real...
The_Beast
jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John Atkinson) on 04/27/98 12:11:42 PM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> >Hmmm. Playing FT is so much simpler than playing DS or SG, in setup
Ogre is also a very simple game to teach. The advantage of FT over Ogre,
however, is the use of the miniature ship figures. A starship combat game with
miniature figs, simple rules, and rapid play is a great combination to
introduce new people to the hobby.
I also find it quite useful to balance the scenario in their favor. It gives a
new player much pleasure to blow up a few destroyers and light cruisers with
their heavies or battleships.
> Jon Davis wrote:
> Ogre is also a very simple game to teach. The advantage of FT over
Yes, but Ogre has a set of miniatures rules, too. That's how I got into
playing DSII; Ogre was too limited.
As a bonus, I can use my microarmour miniatures for both games!
Unfortunately, you can't buy Ogres anymore. They make great Bolos and DSII
allows you to customize them as you wish, something that the original Ogre
doesn't.
If anybody is wanting to get rid of their dust-collecting Ogres, let me
know...
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> There are Unit and Ogre creation rules...Try looking on SteveJackson's
> Donald Hosford
Yes, but once you play DSII, how can you go back to Ogre? Can't you picture
infantry bolting when they see a giant steel monster cresting the hill?
That just won't happen in the original game.
> Paul Lesack wrote:
> Jon Davis wrote:
Snippage!
> Yes, but Ogre has a set of miniatures rules, too. That's how I got
There are Unit and Ogre creation rules...Try looking on SteveJackson's
website.The game was originally a "map and counters" game. Most of the
miniature rules and stuff can be converted back to the Map version, by
dividing the ranges by
2....
> If anybody is wanting to get rid of their dust-collecting Ogres, let
> You wrote:
> I also find it quite useful to balance the scenario in their favor.
It >gives >a new player much pleasure to blow up a few destroyers and light
cruisers >with their heavies or battleships.
I didn't play! Too easy to win against newbies. I let them go at it with each
other, and umpired. Unfortunately the younger one couldn't
roll to save his life, and I had to tell the older one to chill out--he
was taking waaaay too much glee out of blowing his younger brother's ships to
dust.
> You wrote:
> As a bonus, I can use my microarmour miniatures for both games!
Who makes great Bolos? I've been wanting to add a Dinochrome Brigade
to my Tagmatic/Thematic/Mercenary/Volunteer force mix[1].
> Absolutely! I once played with a couple of neighborhood kids, using
I've been having some thoughts recently about a VERY stripped-down small
booklet of just the basic FT core rules (suitably updated), explained in
very simple terms especially for newcomers, young players and non-gamers
-
sort of "FT Lite". Any opinions on this idea? Could even be sold as a package
with a few ship minis!
Jon (GZG)
> jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John Atkinson) on 04/27/98 12:11:42 PM
On Tuesday, April 28, 1998 10:23 AM, Ground Zero Games
> [SMTP:jon@gzero.dungeon.com] wrote:
This is what SFB did as an introduction set and it was actually very playable.
It had rules board and card counters. It also had a robot opponent to train
with. Best thing SFB published.
A while ago you published the Beer & Pretzels FT rules. These are possibly too
simplistic but as you sugest just the latest core rules should be fine. I
think the automated opponent really helps people
try out the rules before going public/on-line
If you are targetting young gamers then the language will have to be
appropriate
Contents could be everything to get you started
Rule-book
Quick reference chart
A simple turn gauge
Some card stock counters or a simple set of miniatures very similar to the
counters in FT for the introduction scenario.
Small play mat/board
6 x D6
Packed in a box file or similar
> I've been having some thoughts recently about a VERY stripped-down
You cold package it with the carrier/battle group bundles you already
do. Haven't met anyone who didn't start off an FT fleet by buying one of
those. Simple production values (B&W, maybe even no pics) and knocking it down
to
the very core rules - movement (cinematic), fire, fighters, damage and
thats about it. If you drop ALL the optional / advanced rules and maybe
needle beams too you could get it down to maybe 4-5 pages even..
I think it would be a great idea, but in pure business terms you would want to
think about how much it would bite into sales of the standard FT rulebook. A
guide might be how many copies MT has sold compared to FT..
TTFN
Jon
Jon, I think something like "FT Lite" is a great idea, particularly packaged
with a few ships. A (long) while ago there was some discussion on such an idea
on this list.
To all, BTW, since Jon and KR usually seem to respond to questions quicker
than I can, I'll only comment if I can add something to the conversation! I am
here and listening though.
Cheers, Mike
Ground Zero Games <jon@gzero.dungeon.com>
28/04/98 10:22
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Mike Elliott/UK/BULL)
Subject: Re: X to GZG conversions...
> Absolutely! I once played with a couple of neighborhood kids, using
I've been having some thoughts recently about a VERY stripped-down small
booklet of just the basic FT core rules (suitably updated), explained in
very simple terms especially for newcomers, young players and non-gamers
-
sort of "FT Lite". Any opinions on this idea? Could even be sold as a package
with a few ship minis!
Jon (GZG)
> jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John Atkinson) on 04/27/98 12:11:42 PM
-I've been having some thoughts recently about a VERY stripped-down
-small
-booklet of just the basic FT core rules (suitably updated), explained
-in
-very simple terms especially for newcomers, young players and
-non-gamers
-
-sort of "FT Lite".
-Any opinions on this idea? Could even be sold as a package with a few
-ship
-minis!
-
-Jon (GZG)
I personally think this is an EXCELLENT idea. I would tend to suggest it being
a package of figs with 'a free set of basic(introductory?) rules' as the tag,
but I never tried to suggest I was good at marketing. Or accounting; no idea
whether the economy of scale of selling several figs at once could make the
statement true...
My own feeling is that this would also give a base-line for those of us
trying introductory demo/tourneys. It's tempting to give new players all
the 'bells-and-whistles', and you don't want to bore the quick-witted,
but you will always have a few dunces such as me, that will get overwhelmed
with details and miss the basic fun of the game.
Even so, I consider the current FT II amongst the least threating, easiest to
pick up set of rules as I've ever seen. Even better than the original Starfire
which I still admire, and the last version of that I saw
definitely needed a 'Quick Start' set. ;->=
The_Beast
Sorry, but I'd definitely consider fighters as non-introductory.
Definitely a reason to 'trade up' to the full version, especially after the
first time you are thrashed by 'em.
The_Beast
> John Atkinson wrote:
> At a recent con, I talked two kids into playing a demo game.
They used their StarWars toys (the plastic ones on clear stands) to play the
introductory scenario in the FT book. The younger one was maybe
9?
They picked it up by the third turn or so. IMHO FT is the easiest wargame to
learn I've played.
I taught my son to play Full Thrust when he was six and a half. We didn't plot
movement and we used some Star Trek adaptations in order to use his
MicroMachine toys. He caught on real fast and destroyed my ship on a
1-on-1 confrontation. Second battle was better - a draw with both of
us losing 2 out of 4 ships.
He's now nine and enjoys playing and also watching me paint up fleets from all
the weird spaceship castings that I can find.
> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:25:22 +0100, Tim Jones writes:
[Basic contents snipped]
I would second the idea of BASIC contents. The goal would be to make this
cheap enough for impulse purchase. If you throw in mini's and the price is
like $20, people will hesitate. But if tis like $8 or $10, with counters and
maps and all, that would be great. Maybe even do a $3 or $4 version (a la
Cheap Ass Games) with the total minimium. Assume people have dice somewhere.
All they really need is 4 pages of rules, some cheap counters, a turn guide,
and ship sheets. If it was that cheap, I would expect a number to sell a large
number just on the name and reviews.
On Tuesday, April 28, 1998 2:01 PM,
Doug_Evans/CSN/UNEBR@UNebMail.UNeb.EDU
> [SMTP:Doug_Evans/CSN/UNEBR@UNebMail.UNeb.EDU] wrote:
Definitely
> a reason to 'trade up' to the full version, especially after the first
The approach in the 'Introduction to SFB' which worked very well was to have a
section of complete rules and then a little practice scenario to check you had
a clue. At any point you could stop and the game would still be playable IIRC
it went some thing like
Basic Movement + Orders
Firing Basic Weapons Simple Damage Allocation Advanced Movement Advanced
Weapons
So you could phase in simple fighter rules if you wanted to. The little 'Clue
Scenario' really was a good idea. For example after the basic movement rules
have a little starship race (kids would love it). After Basic weapons you had
to hunt and destroy some robot drones.
Hurray for the Romaioi!
David Best, who also owns Byzantines (amongst others)
> ----------
> I've been having some thoughts recently about a VERY stripped-down
As with the number of others who have responded, I'll toss my two
cents/bits/pence/whatnot in. This, combined with a small package
of minis, would be an ideal gift to 'sucker' in friends who you've talked to
about the game, but haven't done anything about, or who keep using your
rulesbook and minis.
Mk
> You wrote:
Yup! I've got a nice DBA army of Rhomanoi from the Age of Conquest (Macedonian
Dynasty, from Basil the Macedonian to Basil Bulgaroctonus). Between that,
Turtledove, and Drake, I've really had a motivation to
get into the history of the Rhomanoi. I _like_ 'em.
> At 09:35 28/04/98 -0500, you wrote:
> Between that, Turtledove, and Drake, I've really had a motivation to
TTFN
Jon
On Tuesday, April 28, 1998 3:34 PM, It's not the years, it's the mileage...and
I just put several
> more on... [SMTP:KOCHTE@stsci.edu] wrote:
> cents/bits/pence/whatnot in. This, combined with a small package
I agree it would make a great Christmas/Birthday gift
for family and friends and just what I could give my Brother this year, as
he's such a pain to buy for.
Target price (15 - 30 US dollars) (10 - 20 pounds sterling)
> -I've been having some thoughts recently about a VERY stripped-down
I too think that it is a good idea. I suggest that one or two introductory
scenerios be included.
Enjoy,
10th Century Byzantine. This is my ancients army No 2.
Tony
twilko@ozemail.com.au
> At 21:00 27/04/98 -0500, you wrote:
> the name of the nation I'm using in DS/FT.
> On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
Byzantium, I think...the central army was the Tagmatic force, and the
provinces raised 'Thematic' auxiliaries?
So are your armour units called 'Cataphracts'? (sp?)
[snip]
> This, combined with a small package
It would also make a great "prize" to give out at Cons for demo games to
ensure those that say "cool game" don't walk away without a good chance of
playing at a latter date.
> You wrote:
> So are your armour units called 'Cataphracts'? (sp?)
Have just begun massive reorganization of my Mini designs. But my Heavy (Sz 4)
Grav Tank is called the Belisarius, The Tank Destroyer varient is Narses, and
the Tracked Thematic tank is the Justinian.:)
Some of my 'Cattlelifter' (Irregular unpaid volunteers) designs include the
Hyperkerastai and the Prokousotores (sp on the last). As are the formations
they equip.
Cataphracts will probably show up as unit designations, indeed.
Right now I'm trying to decide on the Varangians. My current translation is
that the Nea Rhomaioi rent an entire Brigade of Marines from the NAC, a la the
Sultan of Brunei and his SAS squadron. Whatcha think?
What about the Scandinavians? Surely a standing contract of a Brigade of
Scandinavian Merc's would fit the bill perfectly?
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
Well, you've got two 'eras' of Varangians. Original Guard was 6,000 Kievan
Rus. Obviously ESU Mercs, right? Then about 1070 they switch
to mostly Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Dutch due to Willy the Bastard's
downright unneighborly stance on armed Anglo-Saxons and Danes.
I guess as a compromise Scandahoovians would do, but I just like the
idea of NAC Marines. . . Or maybe NAC ex-Marines. :)
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >What about the Scandinavians? Surely a standing contract of a Brigade
> of >Scandinavian Merc's would fit the bill perfectly?
Not exactly. According to the Nestor's Chronicle, these people were mainly
Swedish sent to Constatinople by the Kievans instead of getting paid for their
services in a Kievan civil war, so Scandinavian fits the bill better
than ESU. (The various Kiev-era Rus principalities used a LOT of
Varangian (Swedish) mercs up 'til about 1040.)
> I guess as a compromise Scandahoovians would do, but I just like the
Well... a mercenary company responsible for the ruler's safety; initially
hired from the (relatively non-aligned) Scandinavian Federation, but
later on (when the SF began pulling their mercs in to counter ESU aggression)
replaced by a NAC unit?
> You wrote:
> If their based on the 10th Century then it should be
Yeah, yeah. My background isn't complete yet. When it is, I will be
more than happy to put together an e-mail and pass it around via
e-mail.
> What no Trapezitoi, Akritoi, Skutatoi, Peltastoi or Pisloi?
Trapezitoi would be what we call the scout batallions. Skutatoi would make a
nice term for heavy mechanized infantry. Peltastoi would, IMHO, be a bit
anachronistic, regardless of What'shername (Alexai's niece)'s
opinion. Psiloi--God knows.
> The Varangians should definately be from the Scandinavian
You win! Scandanavians it is!
> John Atkinson wrote:
> make a nice term for heavy mechanized infantry. Peltastoi would,
> opinion. Psiloi--God knows.
Daughter. Anna Komnena was her name :-)
> At 21:16 28/04/98 -0500, you wrote:
If their based on the 10th Century then it should be Klibanophoros with any
vechile unit being Cataphractoi.
> Have just begun massive reorganization of my Mini designs. But my
> the Hyperkerastai and the Prokousotores (sp on the last). As are the
What no Trapezitoi, Akritoi, Skutatoi, Peltastoi or Pisloi?
> Right now I'm trying to decide on the Varangians. My current
The Varangians should definately be from the Scandinavian Federation. (And
commanded be a big red headed bloke called Harald)