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

In message <kokz0FAVZ7$yEwfX@caws.demon.co.uk> Steve Gill writes:
> David Brewer wrote:
> >In message <199702062103.QAA07547@smtp1.sympatico.ca> Allan Goodall
writes:
> >> Anyway, I told them about Stargrunt 2 and explained that in my
opinion it is
> >> best played as a 15mm game. 
[...]
> >Well, God forbid we get another GW-esque range of Space Wombles with
> >unconvincingly short-barreled weapons without shoulder-stocks, waving
> >swords around. Gothic, my arse.
> 
> 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 leave it in the hands of market forces, and ignore it.

> 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...

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. 

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

> >I'm not sure what is meant by Traveller-style. 
> 
> The official Traveller ranges were a magnificent series by GW and (I
> think) Ral Partha. They had everything from very neat Starship
Troopers
> powered armour down to 'low-tech', nearly twentieth century troops for
> backwards planets. Good stuff if you can find them.

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'.

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

> >I suppose for Stargrunt I'd be after figures not-unlike the actual
> >GZG Stargrunt range, modern-looking figures with distinctively not-
> >twentieth-century-looking uniforms and futuristic details. It suits
> >the whole modern-with-futuristic-details feel of the game.
> 
> OK for low-tech, but I'd also prefer to have some neater, more
advanced
> looking types.

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...

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

> >The problem with the GZG figures is that they are not posed with
> >much drama. "Sniper being obvious", "soldier standing around looking 
> >vacant", "officer pointing into middle-distance" could so easily have

> >been "sniper crouching, observing with binox", "soldier running for 
> >cover", "officer waving frantically and shouting abuse". So I'd look
> >for really dramatic poses. Anybody standing up should be running.
> >Anybody shooting should be kneeling at least, very heavy armour,
> >perhaps, excepted.
> 
> Got to disagree with you here. I really can't stand 'action' poses,
and
> much prefer to have the more casual, relaxed look. To me it is more
> realistic, you very rarely get to see troops running around unless
they
> really have to.

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

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

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

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.

-- 
David Brewer