> At 06:33 PM 5/27/97 -0400, Alexander Williams wrote:
> YOU may be paying him so, but not not suppose to presume what *I* am
I don't have the time to sit down and do the point analysis of weapons
effects, movement, etc. I spend enough of my time in High order mathematics as
it is. I pay game designers to write and evaluate good game designs. The games
should be well design, smooth in operation and have done the complex algebra
required to ensure that value of units mean what they are rated for. This
gives me a common mathematical language to use to evaluate a scenario without
having to examine the die types, expected values maneuverability ratings and
Skirtosis in the rules mechanics to then generate a scenario. Give me a thumb
nail point system and then I can take into account all the other variables
we've been talking about. Some of us have a living to make and do not have the
time to waste to generate a common standard to start from before making the
myriad adjustments required. If you don't want to use the point system, then
please ignore that portion, it took up a whole two pages in DSII... If you
don't want to play against the power point players, etc. Then don't play them.
There is far more room for abuse in an open mathematical system than in a
closed one.
> On Tue, 27 May 1997, Phil wrote:
Geez guys... calm down...
Can we just have an OPTIONAL point system? If someone want to use it go ahead.
If you hate point system don't use it.
Phil: if you want to a point system, I think someone wrote a testing point
system a while back, use that and modify it. You can ask that person to post
the point system again.
************************************************************************
*
*"To be or not to be that is the question."
*
*To be is infinite better then to be in the limbo flowing around...
*
*So..... Get a life... :)
*
> At 04:38 PM 5/27/97 PDT, you wrote:
Waaah Waaah...Oh yes..the rest of us Stargrunt players are unemployed and
unsociable time wasters. We have nothing better to do than run thousands of
possible outcomes to a miniatures game battle all day. IT'S CONSUMING MY
LIFE!! DAMN YOU JON!! HEELLLLLPP!! God forbid, it took me a whole 15
minutes to come up with a playable scenario. Too bad your all consuming job
takes up all of your mental powers. Seriously though, if you worry so much
about the "myriad of adjustments required", perhaps you should seek
relaxation therapy! I have! It works wonders!! :)
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.
1. No flame wars. This is a discussion about a point system. If you agree,
good. I believe that a scenerio should be used to determine what is put on the
board. I see the point system as training wheels so that it weens the "model
of the month" mentality out of a lot of players. If you disagree with points,
I dont want to hear about it. Instead of flaming me, write a scenerio engine
that can cope with flkexable force deployments (dependant on model
availability)
The ALPHA SGII Optional Points System
In order to use the system, determine what the figure is armed with (either
useing what the actual figure has, or what you want to have). Common sence
should be the main factor here.
1.. The costing of the SGII force is by figure.
1.1 Human
1.1.1 Trained (power / line in DSII) 1pt
1.1.2 Untrained (Militia) 0pt
1.2 Kravaak (insert later)
2. Armour
2.1 Battledress 0pt 2.2 Partial Light 1pt 2.3 Full light 2pt 2.4 Light Power
3pt 2.5 Heavy Power 4pt
(Power armour speed should be determined on the scerio, and the percieved tech
level of your force)
3. Weapon
3.1 Infantry Weapons
3.1.1 Improvised 0pt
3.1.2 Light/Heavy Autopistol 0pt
3.1.3 SMG 1pt 3.1.4 Hunting rifle 1pt 3.1.5 Assault Shotgub 2pt??? 3.1.6 Low
Tech Assault 1pt 3.1.7 Adv Tech Assault 2pt 3.1.8 Gauss Rifle 3pt
3.1.9 + Greade launcher +1pt
3.2 Support Weapons
3.2.1 Conventional MG 3pt 3.2.2 Rotary Cannon 4pt 3.2.3 Gauss 5pt 3.2.4 Plasma
5pt 3.2.5 Auto GL 4pt 3.2.6 MLP 3pt 3.2.7 IAVR (Per shot) 1pt
3.3 Missiles
B E S
3.3.1 GMS-P 10 20 30
3.3.2 GMS-L 20 30 40
3.4 Sniper Weapons
3.4.1 Conventional 5pt 3.4.2 Gauss 6pt 3.4.3 Laser 5pt 3.4.4 Heavy (Anti
Vehical) 7pt
4 Infantry Roles
These points represent specialits and detachable troops. Care must be used to
avoid abuse (Arming vehical crews with plasma guns and power armour et al).
All specialist troops come with eirther autopistol or SMG (scenerio specific
or army specific)
4.1 Missile Crew (Min 2 per weapon) 10pt each (plus missile for team)
4.2 Sniper 10ot + sniper weapon and armour
4.3 Engineer (Teams of 2+) 25pts
4.4 LAD 40pts (***comments please****) 4.5 Art Observer 50pt 4.6 Vehical crew
0pt (plus armour and weapon)
4.7 Heavy Weapon team (min 2+) 10pt (plus heavy weapon for
team)
4.8 Scouts 10pt + weapon and armour
4.9 EW trrope (***comments please***)
5. Heavy Weapons and Vehicals
Use DSII, as these rules derive off it.
> 4.2 Sniper 10ot + sniper weapon and armour
> At 10:34 PM 5/27/97 -0500, you wrote:
I appologize. I was trying to show how silly of an argument this was. It was
my attempt to be VERY sarcastic. Guess it wasn't too successful. Hell, I put a
smiley face in there somewhere. I really wasn't trying to flame anyone. I
really have had relaxation therapy!!! heheheh...
> Some of us have a living to make and do not have the time to
Hey, guys, come on, okay? Chill, on both sides. This is turning less than fun
or even interesting to read. This list and its members are a good bunch of
nuts, whatever side of a discussion they're on. As someone recently pointed
out (Rob?), this list is one of the few that the *doesn't* cater to flame wars
and yelling and screaming and stuff. It's an enjoyable list 'cause the
*members* are enjoyable and have thought-provoking and/or thought-out
opinions to present in a civil and adult manner.
Isn't it possible to retain these qualities and still have a discussion
about pro/con of points?? Please? I'd *really* hate to see this list
degenerate into fractured sides of violent dispute.
Mk
Over the last few days..... a lot of people wrote.........
In the Playguide/Rules Jon has stated he will put together a points
system if people want one. Obviously a lot of people DO want one.
Let's ask him. If you don't want ot use them don't.
But from my perspective, as a recently retired professional soldier these
rules and guidelines for play ARE excellent and you will more likely get a
more realistic result from not using strict points
If you want a guideline for scenarios, then use what most armies use for
combat ratios:
In attack, employ odds of 3 to 1 as a minimum for infantry/armour
for arty 5 to 1 (including counter battery fire) In Defence use mines and
other obstacles to channel the enemy into YOUR preferred killing ground.
As further guide; an APC has approximate firepower to a Section of
Infantry, a Tank to a Platoon+, Section of Power Armour to two sections
of Inf (although I admit I have never actually seen Power Armour in the
Training Areas of Northern Australia or Sennelagar!!)
I apologise if this ends up being another rambling on the list.
> >YOU may be paying him so, but not not suppose to presume what *I* am
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 wrote:
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.
> On Wed, 28 May 1997, Neil wrote:
> Just a quick point here in general I think the idea of having anything
No. Thanks for the feedback.
Yes, having 0 points for a figure can be a problem. I was working on the
assumption that a DSII militia stand for 4/5 people was 15pts, so for
SGII it would be 3 points per figure.
Arming and outfitting the milita person would take a minimum of 2 points
(Partial light armour, and Assult Rifle) add 1 point each for an IAVR, and you
have the basic fighting ability of a Milita in DSII.
If you want to have a million naked troopers on the table, becuase they
cost 0 points, I think even the pro-points players will tell the person
to go jump (reminds me of the human armour trick in Car Wars..)
Again, I stress, only allow militia if the scenerio allows it.
The point system IS for convention play and a tool to allow new players into
the system.. If stable enough, and the interest is there, a SGII compettion at
SAGA 98 may be in the works
(depends on interest and if I want to do it :-)
> On Wed, 28 May 1997, Gary Ballard wrote:
> broken. What I find disturbing is the above comment about two forces
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
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
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,
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
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?
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
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.
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.
> as 40k or Warzone of Warhammer Fantasy is. If it were, the idea of
Hey, btw, Mike, in my next PBeM game you're going to be commanding a Centauri
starhip...
[ducks and runs]
> There is too much GW bashing on this group. You don't like them fine.
True. While I'm not particularly fond of the game system or some of the
ideas, I do like some of the figs just fine. :-) (anyone notice how
some of the Cadian guard units could make fairly passable Centauri grunts?
And some of the Eldar dudes work fine as Minbari warriors - they need
those high helmets to fit o'er their boney heads!) I decided long ago to leave
it each to his own and play what I want to play (FT, SFB, Magic, Ogre, B'tech,
WarpWar, Starfire, Imperium, Harpoon, etc, etc, etc...)
Mk
> Alex Williams wrote:
[something I won't even repeat here]
Apparently Alex, you feel that I agree with the GW argument of stick to your
army. I don't. It is an interesting idea to switch off armies, and probably a
great way to get people at a con into a game, by letting them play a variety
of sides. What I was saying is that to Hardcore GW gamers, that idea doesn't
wash, and it seems that lots of the people intent on running SGII games at
cons are attempting to convert GW gamers.
The idea I'm taking exception with is that this is a Full
Thrust/DSII/SGII mailing list, and all too often when the
points/non-points argument crops up, the first thing most people against
the points argument seem to wish to do is bash GW. I don't need to hear that.
I don't swallow everything GW does. My GW armies are mostly complete, so thank
God I don't have to. But I do enjoy the game, and I like the background and I
like the points systems used, even though it does fall apart in some areas.
Flawed maybe, but not broken.
Stop using GW as a scapegoat for your arguments. Anyone who's ever dealt with
GW knows their flaws, and I'm tired of hearing them repeated as an excuse to
canonize Jon Tuffley. Yes, Jon has made good games, but he's not the only one,
and GW isn't the only company making mini's that gouges the market. FASA's
BTech comes to mind, and hey we have Heartbreaker now(but at least they are
cheaper). It's easy to bash GW to prove your points, and I for one have never
liked hitting easy targets. Takes all the fun out of arguing.
> On Wed, 28 May 1997, Gary Ballard wrote:
> Neil M:
Agreed, but easy to cure. Just assign a minimum cost of 1/2 points. Or
whatever.
> > Half the fiun is pitting unbalenced forces against each other. If
> broken. What I find disturbing is the above comment about two forces
I agree. Speaking *strictly* from a figure painter/collector point of
view, I want to play with MY figures. Period. That's the reason I play a
miniatures game instead of something with cardboard counters. I enjoy painting
and collecting the figures sometimes more than the actual game.
Now, some games and backgrounds are generic enough to switch sides and
still keep my figs. A cruiser-sized spaceship is still a cruiser-sized
ship. For some games, all the figures are mine anyway. But there are going to
be problems.
> From gaming point of view, switching sides is a good idea (although