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

On Wed, 28 May 1997, Gary Ballard wrote:

> broken. What I find disturbing is the above comment about two forces
> going at each other, then the players switching sides. 

This has been a componant of real wargaming since time immemorial; not
only know your own forces, but your enemy's.

> 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,

If its a roleplaying game, its a shoddily designed one, without
character development or exploration.  No, not a roleplaying game at
all under any kind of thin disguise, but a wargame with a veneer of
setting over it.

> but stresses the importance of characters that the players either
create
> or use the "special" characters that GW provides. These characters are

But mostly the latter, because they're more 'efficent' and, for some
strange reason, GW fans dote on the 'tournamentality' of their figs.

> 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) 

An argument can be made that the 'army loyalty' of the GW gamers
actual /limits/ the potential enjoyment they can have from
experimenting with a variety of tactics and environments.  Your
argument makes a virtue of a flaw, but it carries no weight by mere
assertion, given there are significant numbers who would argue the
point.	They don't play GW games.  At least one reason is clear.

> 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

I love the way you make assertion without basis, creating public
opinion without supporters and conjure proof from stardust.  Either
SGII has an included background or it doesn't (it does), either
backgrounds with strong factionalization engenders 'army loyalty' of
the kind you're suggesting or it does not (clearly, it doesn't).  You
can't have it both ways, your argument does quite a bit of
toe-targeting.

The idea of switching sides is a /common/ one amongst historical,
modern and SF wargamers.  Its a good way to balance scenarios when
playing a series, its a way to gain insight into both your opponant
figs' and opponant's combat preferences, it has a definite use on the
battlefield in miniature.

GW finds it useful to /promote/ this mythical feeling of anathema
because it means they sell more high-powered single-figures across the
board; if people playing GW were satisfied with having armies of
relatively weak forces and trading them around, they couldn't charge
$15+ for single figure blisters.  Its in their best interest to
support 'army loyalty' and engender unthinking acceptance among their
brain-dead scions.

> 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. 

With all the above points in favour as well.  You still haven't made a
decent supporting point regarding why the idea of trading armies is
generally 'anathema,' even in a strongly factionalized setting,
because SGII itself provides counterargument to that.

> 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

We don't 'dis' players, in specific, we do dis their mindless little
foragings and tendency to swallow whatever handed by GW, hook line and
sinker.  If that seems to strike a bit close to home for you, perhaps
you should re-evaluate your attitude toward GW.

> 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.

If you don't want to hear GW-basing, you'd probably best get out of
wargaming altogether.  There are far too many perfectly valid bashes,
with strong supporting arguments, to be made for your feelings to
stand in the way of that tremendous outflow.

-- 
[  Alexander Williams {thantos@alf.dec.com/zander@photobooks.com}  ]
[ Alexandrvs Vrai,  Prefect 8,000,000th Experimental Strike Legion ]
[	     BELLATORES INQVIETI --- Restless Warriors		   ]
====================================================================
		      "There are no innocents."