Re: Star Grunts Point System (Beware flame war erupting...)

Neil wrote:
> 
> Darryl Adams said:
> 
> Here is a quick point system (Based on DirtSide II) I did up last
night at
> work. It should give reasonable figures.
> 
> What the point system wont do :
> 
> 1: Buy troop quality. I disagree with this rule. Let the scenerio or
dumb
> luck deermine this.
> 
> 2: Cover all eventualities.
> 
> What I want in return.
> 
> <<SNIP>>
> 
> Just a quick point here in general I think the idea of having anything
0
> point rated is a bad idea.  "I'll have 40,000 militia in battledress
armed
> with a heavy auto pistol.  How much?	Well nothing actually."
> 
> Sorry to be a bit flippant but this whole subject of point values is a
bit
> of a dead end isn't it.  They are only of use in tornament games
surely.
> Half the fiun is pitting unbalenced forces against each other.  If one
side
> wins then trade armies and play it again.  See you even doubled your
fun.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Neil M
Ok, let's qualify some things before I begin. First, I play almost all
of the GW games and enjoy them, despite the flaws that my group has
tried to correct with house rules. Second, I prefer points systems, but
don't think they are mandatory, nor do I think they are inherently
broken. What I find disturbing is the above comment about two forces
going at each other, then the players switching sides. 

One thing I think makes the GW games stand out(and Warzone as well) from
a game like Stargrunt(or DSII or FT) is that GW is a role-playing game
disguised as a miniature wargame. It has all the features of a wargame,
but stresses the importance of characters that the players either create
or use the "special" characters that GW provides. These characters are
actually the heart and soul of a GW game. That's why super-characters
rule GW games, is because that's what these guys wanted to do. The idea
of GW gamers swicthing sides for an evening's fun is alien to them,
because the background and mechanics stress "loyalty" to the force you
picked. It's a very specific thing. Chaos players are not likely to just
pick up an Imperial Guard force; they picked the Chaos force because
something about the background appealed to them. (Unless they are
min-maxers, but I don't consider them real gamers anyway) 

Now having said that, Stargrunt works (and no I haven't played it or
read the rules) on being separate from any specific background. While it
has a background, that background is not integral to the game mechanics,
as 40k or Warzone of Warhammer Fantasy is. If it were, the idea of
switching sides would be anathema to the person who picked a force with
a specific background. It's much like the Narns and Centauri players of
FT in the Babylon background. A Narn player switch and play Centauri?
Blasphemy. But as soon as the background is removed and it's just
ships/armies/platoons against another, switching sides is no big deal,
and could be quite fun. 

I realize I'm rambling and maybe I don't have a point other than this.
Diss GW for being money-hungry marketers as opposed to die-hard gamers,
for lacking rudimentary playtesting skills, for forgetting their rules
in lieu of newer "naff" models, but don't diss the players who happen to
like some of the games despite all that. I realize Neil really didn't
but his message just got my fevered little mind rolling, so I responded.
There is too much GW bashing on this group. You don't like them fine.
But if I want to hear that, I'd look on the warhammer newsgroup and hear
it from people who are die-hard GW fans.

Gary A. Ballard
gdaddy@misnet.com
The Rambling Non-Point Maker