RE: [NetEpic ML] RE: Unit Point Costs

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:35:24 -0400

Hi!

-----Original Message-----
From: Eivind Borgeteien [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:56 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] RE: Unit Point Costs

This will bring about a lot of changes!

--><grin> since when are WE afraid of changes.

Point cost are a way of making armies unike. In stead of making a
revolution
pointwise, we should do what we have done uptil now, use the formula as
a
guidline, then playtest.

Pointcost reflects the society and fluff of the different races. Orks
get
cheap infantry because they are good breaders, eldar get cheap skimmers
because of their superior tchnology, squats cheap praetorians because of
their homeplanets demand for big and sturdy machines. This has all been
OK
to me, and IMHO i cant see any reason what so ever to take away this
flavour.

-->Sorry, but I don't buy this. From a game balance point of view this
is pure murder. The eldar can have their skimmers, orks their massed
infantry and squats their preatorians, but they ALL must pay the price
for the effectiveness of their units. Windriders are but one example,
the other is the gross under-cost of Squat praetorians, there's just NO
way can they keep costing what they do now since they got templates.
They are better than titans in every respect and cost woefully low. But
for that I'll wait for the corresponding army list.

An other thing, Netepic is great because of the discussions, the
possibility
to have have some influence on the hobby, the possibility to partake in
it
in a way that no other games can. If things here are to be reduced to
mathematical discussions, Im out.

-->It's not about math, it's about fair. Most things are fair, some are
not. Why should we drag on with GW costs when we know as a fact they are
unfair? You mention playtest and I agree. I have been playing for and
against eldar with cheap wind rider hosts for since second edition came
out in 1991-92 and simply put they ARE unfair and need to be changed.
Praetorians have had templates since version 1.0, that's 5 years of
testing and virtually everyone agrees they are grossly under-priced, so
they need to be changed too. Game balance demands that units cost
according to effectiveness. I don't mind in the end how fair pricing
occurs, but that it must occur is beyond any doubt.

-->Problem is how you change them? Why continue to use GW's subjective
way of placing costs? Most games out there HAVE a points system. Why not
us? It's infinitely more objective than what GW or comparative costing
provides. More importantly you can argue that a certain skill or whatnot
is under/over priced, but once agreed on standards, then EVERYONE lives
by the same standard. Our current problem is that there is NO standard,
nor an objective way to set a standard. That's what Birol tried and IMO
he was right on his approach.

Peter
Received on Mon May 13 2002 - 19:35:24 UTC