Re: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)

[Robert N Bryett <rbryett@xxxxxxxx>]

> The rule book only has two pages of "fluff", page 65 and 66, which  
> is mostly a Tuffleyverse timeline. Oh, and three short paragraphs  
> on page 2. You'd be hard pressed to find a better "rules to fluff"  
> ratio outside of a historical game set.

Ooops! Yes, you're right, and I take back the "fluff" remark. I'm  
just allergic to fluff, so I obviously exaggerated. Sorry.

> I don't really think SG2 is after the same target market. SG2 is aimed
> at a more mature player who respects what the rules are trying to do
> with regard to command control and morale.

So...  what? Write off new players as "not mature enough" and lose  
them from the game?

I'm sure SG2 is not aimed at the 40K market (thank goodness), and I'm  
not suggesting that it should be. However players I've introduced to  
SG2 who *have* played 40K (but quite often looking for something  
better) are put off by the "no points" nature of SG2. "How can the  
game be fair?" they ask (and bear in mind that not a few have been  
r**ted in GW game-store games by bent rules and the battle-winning- 
model-of-the-month, so trust levels are low). I like the "no point  
system" feature of SG2, but inexperienced players (and inexperienced  
scenario writers/umpires like me...) could do with more support. Your  
suggestion of scenario books sounds like a good one.

Thanks for your comments on 15mm BTW. Some food for thought.

Best regards, Robert Bryett
rbryett@xxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l