Page 11 of 16
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 12:30 am
by Mikey
Dusk - Warhameer 40,000 (Wh40k for short) was originally a tabletop miniature mass battle game. The truly in-depth backstory and universe subsequently gave rise to RPG's, tabletop small-scale combat games, naval battle games, and a whole subsidiary of Nottingham Press devoted to Warhammer (the medieval-style universe) and Warhammer 40k fiction as well as technical readouts, etc. There is a series of PC games known as
Dawn of War. Here's one of the greatest sources of information about the universe that I have found:
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page
Click on "categories" on the left-hand nav menu for a site map of topics.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 12:32 am
by Duskofdead
Thank you.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 1:36 am
by Teaos
How is it ENT's fault that they 'screwed' with a non-canon source?
Its always ENT's fault... always.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:02 am
by RK_Striker_JK_5
Teaos wrote:How is it ENT's fault that they 'screwed' with a non-canon source?
Its always ENT's fault... always.
Bullcrap. ENT gets a lot of undue flak. This is one of those instances.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:10 am
by Teaos
Always...
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:12 am
by RK_Striker_JK_5
Teaos wrote:Always...
Bullcrap... Again. Total and complete.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:53 am
by Duskofdead
When I first started posting on the forums, everything was Voyager's fault, or Janeway's fault. Then somehow it became all about the TNG Federation being stupid and incompetent. Now it's rolled around to Enterprise. I guess it's cyclical?
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:01 am
by Teaos
No its always been ENT's fault. We just try not to think about it to much.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:26 am
by Mikey
Yep. ENT is the franchise's equivalent of 20th century France.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:55 am
by Captain Seafort
Duskofdead wrote:When I first started posting on the forums, everything was Voyager's fault, or Janeway's fault. Then somehow it became all about the TNG Federation being stupid and incompetent. Now it's rolled around to Enterprise. I guess it's cyclical?
It's all of the above - Janeway's fault for her deep personal stupidity, the TNG-era Federation's fault for institutionalised stupidity, and Enterprise's fault for B&B's stupidity.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:19 pm
by Duskofdead
Captain Seafort wrote:Duskofdead wrote:When I first started posting on the forums, everything was Voyager's fault, or Janeway's fault. Then somehow it became all about the TNG Federation being stupid and incompetent. Now it's rolled around to Enterprise. I guess it's cyclical?
It's all of the above - Janeway's fault for her deep personal stupidity, the TNG-era Federation's fault for institutionalised stupidity, and Enterprise's fault for B&B's stupidity.
So viewable Trek consists of TOS and DS9? Kinda limited.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:29 pm
by Captain Seafort
The best Trek consists of TOS and DS9. Watchable Trek consists of most of TNG, some of Voyager and some of Enterprise (all of it in seasons 3 and 4).
Unwatchable garbage includes early TNG, most of Voyager, and most of Enterprise.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:31 pm
by Duskofdead
I suppose that's a matter of intense subjectivity. I found a lot of DS9 droll and almost all of Voyager at least entertaining. With DS9 if something wasn't actively advancing the war story, or about Ferengi, it was usually a yawnfest.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:37 pm
by Captain Seafort
I found DS9 seasons 5 and 6 to be the best televised Trek of the lot (they can't beat II or VI as the best ever). Voyager at its best in seasons 4 and 5 was better than DS9's poor start, or TNG's crap start, but was never as good as any of earlier ones in their heyday. Most of the time Voyager would have been somewhere between 'meh' and 'crap', but was dragged up by Picardo into something worth watching, if only for his scenes.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 1:06 am
by Teaos
I still stand by my opinion that I'd rather fu*k a cheese grater than watch the garbage that is TOS.