Why are we wargame nutters?
The darnedest thing came whizzing into my mind set this morning like a ricochet dumb dumb bullet bouncing around the corrugated iron confines of the field post. Unfortunately Baldrick copped it and in the process dropped the turnip soup. The Soup will be missed.
Had a terrific conversation with dearest friend Mr Potter and he convinced me to brush of the dust of Operation Overlord by Battlefront. I had then two days of considerable renewed fun playing this game. Of most fun to me was playing God and setting up the terrain and the battle field and pitting units against each other in some mad scientist way of experimenting. (Decadent and propostrouse I know.. but when you feel you can’t get any further in life, this is terrific)
This I realised is what I love about wargaming… I actually think of my units as real flesh and blood.. and over the years I have become much more as Kitchener in my tactics than the “slowly slowly catch a monkey” tactician. Which is working in the games be they on the table or on the computer.
So obviously games are so much nowhere near a reality simulation (unless you play Japanese Bayonet charges). And yet we harken to take ourselves to a place from books of fantasy or heroic commando commics….
In essence we are wargame nutters.
Lol, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m always careful with the lives of my minatures and sprites.
Yes you are!
We know, because ever since your little apes learnt how to throw a stone and move on to using a sling and shot… we the opposition, the collection of shot and pin cushions know that balistics is your game.
And where that fails then lightnig fast dancers of war is your choice. We have seen the little Chimps doing their danses in circles arms flailing …
However the pincushions of my armies still know what it is like to recieve strength 4 bow… repeatedly.
Hey … her is a cool joke…
How do you confuse Mr Light when setting up a fantasy game …..
Set up no hills! H a H a
Cruel cruel man. Nevertheless I can win without archers, or hills. I just prefer them because archers are thematic of the wood elf army and fielding them in single ranks is ugly and impractical.
You’ll note though in the rumours for 8th edition there is talk that archers (or all missile troops, can’t remember) firing in two ranks regardless, and that missile troops won’t get an extra rank for firing from hills.
Well.. umm I did not take time to read the bell of lost souls, (I love that site by the way, very our gen in nature, has some sort of attitude that some WH sites loose in thier “look at me, look at me!” feeling; and it is USA, wow.. so not an USA attitude.. or is it grass roots? The enigma of the USA midset.)
however these things that they are changing can only be called progress,. WHF is such a big game you can only assume these things are play tested now. Or is the business model using the community in a test bed method, reying entirley on the popularity to carry it thru if it is a problem? I think not. However.. you never her of beta rules do you?
As I understand it, and I could be wrong, they do a lot of in-house testing across the company as a whole. Which is why there are always rumours because all the GW employees in the far flung corners of the GW empire have seen/played the game and are willing to spill to whoever in order to make themselves well thought off.
As for progress, yeah I think it is. Anything that isn’t closing the doors is progress. However there truly is room for improvement and I think some of what is rumoured really is a step toward that. Obviously it remains to be seen if any of them pan out in the way they are described and ultimately if they are good for the game. Having played Warhammer through almost 4 editions now I know that not all of GW’s ideas are good ones. But it’s reasonable to think that on the whole the game is still improving which I think is true.
I’m getting the Generals Edition…. the way I play it would be more usefull for me than somthing that assumes I remain in combat.