Slitherine

Any plans for a list book covering the above? Of course there would have to be a few more rules to cover things like magic and the undead!!

Eques wrote:Any plans for a list book covering the above? Of course there would have to be a few more rules to cover things like magic and the undead!!

I think there is a yahoo list discussing ideas for 'fantasy' FoG. I am not sure of the address but you should be able to find it with the group search.

don't do it! would osprey seriously back that up anyway? I can't think of any opsrey titles like "Goblin Military Clothing: 1st-3rd Ages". (shudder) leave that stuff to GW and Wallethammer.

vingthorr wrote: Wallethammer.

I think its a great idea and i'd be interested in seeing more info on it

And so we come full circle.

It was the fantasy supplement in the back of Chainmail (miniatures rules from 40 years ago) that was credited with providing the point-of-departure for Dungeons & Dragons.

What irony, eh?

If anyone sees me in Games Workshop then they have permission to Energy Bolt me.

I am one of those that think Magic did a lot to harm Historical gaming many years ago.

Time was when many Schools had a Wargame club, That became a Fantasy club.

Ok!! I own up to once building a Snotling Army.

Spartacus wrote:Ok!! I own up to once building a Snotling Army.

Wow, i had forgotten about snotlings. I recall I had a little stand of them. You could make an entire snotling army? These days a blister pack of snotlings would probably cost as much $ as a couple battle groups. If I opened the latest FOG army book and it had pictures of snotlings, witch elves, high elves, drunk elves, and sober elves, I would . . . well, I don't know what I'd do.

Spartacus wrote:If anyone sees me in Games Workshop then they have permission to Energy Bolt me.

I am one of those that think Magic did a lot to harm Historical gaming many years ago.

Time was when many Schools had a Wargame club, That became a Fantasy club.

Ok!! I own up to once building a Snotling Army.

Well, HOTT was a follow on from DBx and it's an excellent set of rules. Many DBA players prefer it to DBA since V2 of HOTT was published as it is much clearer and doesn't need a player's guide that's longer than the rules.

Steve P

Oh boy... no no. I'm a GW "refugee". Please, let's not get back into fantasy and... gasp, even worse... sci fi wargaming. At least, I can't go that route.

I ran a gaming club for a few years when I taught high school and the kids thought that the GW games were all the rage. Then, I managed to convince a few to try a certain very popular "historical" game about World War II... that opened the door to their own (and my) salvation...

Then I found FoG and I junked any GW stuff I had lying around. I might still have some paints, but that's about it. If I went back to that gaming club (and my teaching job), I'd just paint my vastly superior minis or read my superior ruleset while they complained at each other and cried over the next uber powered army replacing their old army, having to buy more minis at ridiculous costs, etc etc etc...

shudder... no thank you. Maybe for some. But not me.

OK, agreed, but the shamelessly blatant greed and rampant customer wallet-raping practiced by "Golf Whiskey" do not necessarily constitute a valid reason to totally dismiss all non-historical miniatures gaming.

Aside from greed and lack of ethics, the problem with "Goober Weenies" was the proprietary nature of their whole gig. A player-created fantasy supplement, using generic fantasy figures available from a variety of sources, would not suffer that drawback.

Now, this is not to say that I personally have any burning desire to re-create the battle of Helm's Deep, just that I hate to see anyone "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

deleted

(poof, gone)

possum wrote:

philqw78 wrote:..........Deleted for the squeamish......

Proposed tattoo for Phil's forehead - "Not safe around children"

Seriously, dude, that's disgusting. I would even go so far as to ask you to remove that.

Well he has, but you reposted it.

rbodleyscott wrote:

possum wrote:

philqw78 wrote:..........Deleted for the squeamish......

Proposed tattoo for Phil's forehead - "Not safe around children"

Seriously, dude, that's disgusting. I would even go so far as to ask you to remove that.

Well he has, but you reposted it.

fixed

possum wrote:OK, agreed, but the shamelessly blatant greed and rampant customer wallet-raping practiced by "Golf Whiskey" do not necessarily constitute a valid reason to totally dismiss all non-historical miniatures gaming.

Aside from greed and lack of ethics, the problem with "Goober Weenies" was the proprietary nature of their whole gig. A player-created fantasy supplement, using generic fantasy figures available from a variety of sources, would not suffer that drawback.

Now, this is not to say that I personally have any burning desire to re-create the battle of Helm's Deep, just that I hate to see anyone "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

Interesting to consider that the 'open source' of the original RPG's somehow ended up as the corporate monster that is GW. Tactical Studies Rules anyone?

Since FoG allows you to fight a Roman versus Samurai battle, a certain amount of fantasy is already existant.

Probert wrote:Since FoG allows you to fight a Roman versus Samurai battle, a certain amount of fantasy is already existant.

negative. anachronism, yes. fantasy, no.

caesar vs. genghis khan. both historical figures with historical armies = anachronistic matchup.

Gromm the goblin king vs. prince Decaprio of the lawn elves = fantasy

hammy wrote:

Eques wrote:Any plans for a list book covering the above? Of course there would have to be a few more rules to cover things like magic and the undead!!

I think there is a yahoo list discussing ideas for 'fantasy' FoG. I am not sure of the address but you should be able to find it with the group search.

That would be http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FoG_fantasy/

Middle Earth is the fantasy realm most heavily represented in the lists and discussions, but all welcome.

Mike

vingthorr wrote: negative. anachronism, yes. fantasy, no.

caesar vs. genghis khan. both historical figures with historical armies = anachronistic matchup.

Gromm the goblin king vs. prince Decaprio of the lawn elves = fantasy

What about Gromm vs Ceaser? Anachronistic fantasy?