RE: SG:AC discussions

Very good points. Hadn't thought it through.....

Patrick Connaughton

"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival"-W. Edwards Deming
E-mail - ptconn@earthlink.net
Skype - j.patrick.connaughton

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Wilkinson [mailto:twilko@ozemail.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 4:51 PM
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Subject: Re: SG:AC discussions

On 25/09/2014 6:54 PM, Roger Bell_West wrote:
>> Yes, in principle I agree; the problem is coming up with one that is
>> simple and quick without allowing too much mini-maxing.....
>> Whatever we do, SOMEONE will instantly over-analyze it and then
>> gleefully inform the entire internet that it is "broken", thus
>> proving how much smarter they are than the people who put a lot of
>> effort into designing it....  ;-)
> While it may smack a bit of the GW approach, I think that having
> standard organisations can go a long way to covering up the cracks in
> a point system. If your NAC Marine company is a standard roster plus a
> bit of optional support, you won't get the problem of someone taking
> lots of a single unit type (which is very often where a point system
> breaks down).
>
> Roger
>
>
>
One of the things that was odd and very fun, usually, abut first edition

40K was that the army lists were semi random. You paid points for the 
type of squad and then rolled up any special gear/weapons. It meant that

your heavy support squad might have 4 heavy bolters (machine guns) and 
no rocket launches or your sargent paid points for grenades and usually 
got HE, might get krak (AT) or even occassionally the uber powerful/fun 
vortex grenade.

So my suggestion would be fixed organisation at platoon level for a 
company based game (with points) then randomised special/support 
equipment that are paid for then rolled up.

Ok so now I am up for 4 cents.

Tony Wilkinson.