> Most wargames that I know of are usually historicly or at least factuall=
y based,
> (Napolionic, Civil War, Armour, ect....)GW games are none of the=
se.
Hordes of the Things, Fantasy Rules!, De Bellis Fantasticus, Missum,
=
Reaper, all come to mind for equivts of WHFB. Ogre, DSII, Stargrunt for
E40=
K or WH40K.
Heck, I have a copy of DragonLords by Grenadier, which involves=
dogfighting Dragons. Had to make up my own rules for the Undead and
Multi-=
headed varieties.
Plus FullThrust, Star Fleet Battles.... the list goes on =
and on. Anyone
who's done a fair bit of research on historical stuff pre-In=
dustrial
Revolution knows how much sheer guesswork is involved. Many of the=
"historical" army lists are thus "fantastic". They're just the best that
c=
an be arrived at given human effort and available resources.
Ok, you have=
a point :). I don't know about all those you mentioned(I wish there was a =
wargamming group around where I am) but my point was that GW games are fair=
ly illogical, even allowing for the Si-fi/fantasy elements. I.e. even in a =
si-fi setting, they still don't make much senes. Do't know about those othe=
rs though.
-james
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Tue Jul 01 1997 - 11:05:24 UTC