Prev: WAY Off Topic GW Epic to Ogre (was Re: Ogre Figures) Next: Allan: Company name and address again.

Re: [SG2] 15mm Figs, Anyone? A company wants to supply...

From: Steve Gill <Steve@c...>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:00:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [SG2] 15mm Figs, Anyone? A company wants to supply...

David Brewer wrote:

>> Look, it works for the kids that are their primary market. 
>
>Fair point. It's one that I'm in two minds about, though. One mind
>says anything that undercuts GW can't be a bad thing, while another 
>says that anything that encourages this dreadful gothic style, and
>the dreadful rules that accompany them can't be a good thing, either.

I know how you feel. Their prices suck and should be fought, but on the
other hand their games suck and shouldn't be encouraged futher. On the
other other hand they DO attract a lot of kids into gaming, some of whom
DO go on to bigger and 'better' things.

>I leave it in the hands of market forces, and ignore it.

It might work, but I doubt it. No one has the marketing and advertising
muscle to deal with GW.

>> It's the
>> relative proportion of the figures that really grates with me, a
gorilla
>> would be proud of some of those chests and arms.
>
>...yet if you scope out the cut-away diagramme of power armour from
>Rogue Trader, you'd be hard pressed to get a skeleton inside it...

True, but I have the answer. They're all really Boomers escaped from
BGC, the power armour thing is just a smokescreen.

>The weapons really grate with me. Weapons should be long and thin.
>Ask Freud. Ask an engineer. Any device for accelerating projectiles
>should be long. I'm told that's true for lasers also. 

Yup, the longer the better for power concentration and accuracy both. So
long as the weapon isn't unbalanced.

>Mind you, particle accelerators can be bent into circles... bring on 
>the Souzaphones of Death.

Or make it tighter and have long and bulky.

>Well, I've never been too enamoured of the Traveller "tech-level" 
>thing, technology being so rigidly stratified strikes me as extremely 
>counter-intuitive. Nor have I ever seen any hard-SF power armour 
>sculpted that I didn't want to improve with a lump-hammer. Designs
>that play to a particular genre-styling work alright within their
>milieu (50's retro, Bubblegum Crisis, even gothic wombles) but I've 
>never been convinced yet by that which would seem neutral and 
>'realistic'.

Hey the tech-level thing happens even now. Ever tried comparing third
world armies and militias to first world forces? What about the colonial
period - spears, bows, and swords vs machine guns and cannon - great
stuff.

Power armour design is a personal thing. I like smooth and not too
cluttered, just the bare necessities.

>Plenty of civilians, as you mention, would be a good thing, likewise 
>police, guerilla insurgents etc. Nuns-with-guns I can leave.

Aaaah, but I just love those nuns...

>Out of interest, advanced in what way? This may be the sort of rash
>statement that seems laughable after a few years... but where does
>military combat uniform go from now? The last century has moved
>decisively away from tight tunics and fashionable hats. How would a
>New Aglian Royal Marine differ from Royal Marine c.1982? weatherproof 
>loose clothing, body armour, webbing, grenades, ammo, rifle, IAVR, 
>canteens, green beret, bushy moustache and a cheerful grin...

Ever see the 80s design 'battle suit 2000'? Smooth all-over heavy grade
Kevlar (repaintable to the cammo pattern of your choice as needed),
helmet with laser designator etc, AT rockets in the backpack, mineproof
boots. Good stuff, and they're still improving the design.

>Neat? Even with sleek power armour, you need that clutter with all
>the ammo, dressings, rations, letters from your mum...

Yeah, but most of those are in your 'living' pack, not on your combat
rig. You drop all the unnecessary stuff when the kaka hits.

>Well, I agree that troops, realistically, don't want to run around.

Who does? :)

>Realistically, when the shooting/game starts, they want to lie down
>and/or hind behind something. Who'd blame them?

Funnily enough it has to be drummed into people. Most people just stand
there looking around when shooting starts.

>Realistic combat poses would, I suppose, run to "prone/crawling",
>"prone/aiming", "prone/wishing-it-would-all-go-away", "prone/hurt". 

In actual shooty shooty combat yup, those and running like the clappers
when it's your turn in fire and movement.

>Yet, harsh taskmasters that we are, we propel them forward to do or 
>die. Prone figure to my thinking, would be neither very flexible in
>use or marketable (though infinitely preferable in 6mm). That leaves 
>me with running, crouching and kneeling. Two squads blazing away at 
>each other while the figures lounge around and yawn doesn't really 
>yank my visual chain.

Maybe, though that's what they'd be doing most of the time. I do have a
preference for walking to just plain lounging, a little bit of movement
is far better than none.

Really it's whatever suits you. I just have a thing for the casual look
and prefer it every time, have done since some time in the, <ulp, gack,
whisper>, seventies. Mind you action poses weren't much cop back then.

I also use my figures a lot for role-playing, combat poses somehow just
don't look right in RPGs most of the time.

-- 
Steve Gill
Steve@caws.demon.co.uk		  -	    just beCAWS

Prev: WAY Off Topic GW Epic to Ogre (was Re: Ogre Figures) Next: Allan: Company name and address again.