Re: QUESTION FOR OERJAN

>OERJAN,  exactly wot do you mean by defining which SG II scenario i am
>talking about?
>
>i was not aware that SG II had gone the  route of the newer versions of
>40K with a set number of specific, offici, gaming  scenarios to be
gamed
>to the point of barfing from boredom.
>
>if it as, a shame.
>
>i was rather under the impression that a person could set down and
>design almost limitless scenarios  for gming in the SG II system.

You can, nothing has changed; in fact, I'm very much in favour of  the
sort
of characterisation and "fleshing out" of your units and personnel that
you
obviously use. Nothing wrong with this at all, and when we finally get
FMA
Skirmish out you'll find that this sort of thing becomes even more
integral
to the game.

BUT, as several people have already pointed out, the original "HARKEN"
posting made NO mention of games at all, or any of the use of the
personality you were describing in a game; it simply looked like a rant
about a US politico that you disliked, and that I (as a Brit) have
certainly never heard of.

If you'd simply prefaced it with something like "Here's a good new
character template to use as an NPC", then your intentions would have
been
a lot clearer.....

Aside from this, I do still think that the idea of a separate
"gloves-off"
list for use when things start to drift really off-topic is a possible
solution to a lot of the OT/flame* problems the list has been having
recently, but it is a solution that would only work with the
co-operation
of everyone involved.

Jon (GZG)

* Anyone else noticed that "OT" is the designation for Flamethrower
tanks
in Russian......?
Coincidence or what....?   <GRIN>

>
>DAWGIE