Re: [URL] Latest GZG Advert

On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 Mike.Elliott@bull.co.uk wrote:

> >yeah! what you should start doing is 1/1000 nanoarmour, or, even
>better,
> >microships - where a BB is a couple of inches long and costs 1 pound;
> 
> Tom, think laterally. Just because its identified as (say) a destroyer
in
> the catalogue doesn't mean you can't use it as (say) a Battleship in
> your games.

i know, i know, and i've done this quite a few times. there is a line in
one of the appendices to ft which says exactly what you've just said,
more
or less word for word. i rember pointing this out to a friend who wasn't
happy about me using a GZG BC as an FT BB, and who was subsequently very
perplexed that a company could advise people to disregard its own
classification of models - at this stage, we weren't far out of our
pudding workshop days, so such a thing was unthinkable :-).

anyway, the problems with that are:

- doesn't sit well with munchkins; not really a big problem - a thump in
the head usually sits even less well. not that i'm advocating violence
against such people, you understand. well, maybe just a little.

- the battleship models generally look a lot cooler than the destroyers
-
the NAC BC is really sweet, but the destroyer is a bit ... uch.

- you are then stuck for smaller ships (potentially)

- there are no carriers small enough

- most people have assembled fleets based on the standard size patterns,
so if you suggest playing a game using only their smallest models, they
get upset. microships would introduce a way you can do this with some
sort
of formal legitimacy. i can't express this terribly well (p-nitrophenol
phosphate seeping into brain ...), but it's like the difference between
25
mm and 1/300. a bit.

all in all, though, you're right. i just really like that BC.

actually, come to think of it, the NAC BC/BB looks a lot like the
eponymous ST Voyager. surely not ...

> You might have a problem with what to use for fighters
> (pinheads maybe?)

little bits of card saying "FIGHTER GROUP A"!

Tom