Re: SG:AC discussions (was: Official - More re GZG news update - NEW RELEASES!)

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org>
wrote:

> That certainly doesn't describe the
> game as I've experienced it.
>

The game I tried was at Historicon a number of years ago -- like I said
perhaps the rules are better now?  Or perhaps the GMs thought they'd
"simplify" the rules for a con game?  Who knows.  I do remember four
hours
of the most awesome levels of tedium and frustration.  I'd certainly
give
it a another go.  I'll give your batreps a read.

>
> The existence of Serious Tournament Play seems to put off at least as
> many people as it encourages. This is especially true in a historical
> setting, where someone's custom army may be vastly more game-capable
> than a genuine historical force.
>
>
You can't please every person every time.  We know of several companies
who've followed that route and have been wildly successful wrt
tournament
style play and the markets that spring up around that concept.	It's
Jon's
ultimate decision of course but the concept has legs as proven by the
industry in general.

>
> Really? I thought "the rules are basically Warhammer" was the
> principal reason for its success: a simple system that people know.
>
>
Folks throw that description around for any system that uses buckets of
dice to hit/damage/save.  Folks used to say that FOW was successful
because
it was Warhammer WW2 (perhaps they still do?).	I always found FOW to be
much more subtle than anything in the Warhammer line.  That said FOW
certainly shared the IGOUGO move-shoot-assault model.

D.