Re: Stargrunt "one" points system?

> Let me get this straight: You enjoy excercises in futility?
> 
> Hey. let's get together for some tennis. Maybe I could win a match for

> once, because there wouldn't be any strings in your racket -- and you
say 
> you'd still enjoy it.

Exercises in futility can be lots of fun.  I enjoy horror roleplaying
in genres in which the `heros' are likely to die painful, messy deaths
by the end of the series and everyone playing knows it and takes
pleasure in getting there.  It can be a blast to play `the bad guys'
who're destined to lose in the end but get to have all the best
melodramatic lines on the way.

In my mind, the game's the thing, and if it looks like it'll be an
enjoyable game, I'll run a platoon on power armoured troops in an
Alamo setup against your constantly reinforced line infantry with the
goal soly to see how long I can hold out.  Yes, with the inevitable
loss and death of my entire force.

> You contradict yourself here, or maybe I didn't make myself clear
enough.
> 
> If you fight a delaying acting, and die to the last man but delay the 
> enemy, guess what?
> 
> YOU DIDN'T LOSE!
> 
> YOU WON!

And how do you account for this greater overall context with a measly
point system?  How does having 300pts of troops whose goal is to delay
your force for six turns get computed?	And how does their changing
morale state factor in?  And how does this help you, self-admitted to
be interested only in equal pick-up games, feel like you didn't get
run over?

Maybe its just because I'm not a power-obsessed, success-driven
weenie; I play for the experience, for the pleasure of playing, not
just so that I can put another mark down on my scorecard and gloat
about having taken another one out.  I play because I really enjoy the
game, win or lose, and like to match wits against an opponent and the
Hand of Fate.