Re: X to GZG conversions...

97010582 wrote:
> 
> What is it about GW, they produce somof the best minatures
around(though i
> agree that they sell them at the most absurd prices) but still their
> background is very rich and full of ideas, so don't just slag them off
all
> the time.
[snip]
> > >Now, I WOULD object if we started talking about GW figures and the
> background
> > >universe in any terms other than how to convert said into the GZG
rules.

That may be, but this particular comment has more to do with the fact
that discussion of GW stuff without the GZG rules context is better done
elsewhere.

Now to give this some GZG content:
I think it is interesting that GZG games are thought of as generic, but
they really do have a mindset that allows them to do some styles more
easily than others.  I'm sure that's necessary, of course.  But they do
seem flexible enough to handle some in-between ground.	I'm thoroughly
uninterested in playing GW's 40K, but like Stargrunt II.  On the other
hand, I'm sure I treat it differently than others would, using GW (epic)
figures.  That's OK.  I like Star Wars better than more realistic-style
science fiction, so some amount of far-outness is fine.

Funny, but I don't get quite the same impression from Full Thrust as I
do Dirtside or Stargrunt.  (Do you always say/write "Dirtside II" or
"Stargrunt II" when speaking/writing about these games?  It makes some
conversations slightly clumsier.  I think I'm just going to lop off the
"II" part.  :-)  Full Thrust seems to be less concerned with realism. 
Of course, it would be kinda hard for it to have the same sort of
similarly to modern warfare that the other games have.	:)

Hmmm.  Playing FT is so much simpler than playing DS or SG, in setup and
play.  I ought to play it more.  I wonder if my son (5 years old) could
play this, if I let him move directly instead of writing orders.

andy

-- 
Andy Skinner
askinner@avs.com