Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Cameron Bentsen <stu7i95_at_...>
Date: 31 Jan 1997 12:42 EST

>
> Incidentally, I'd like to speak up in favor of not necessarily removing
> half-point hosing. While I agree that giving 2 VPs for 150 points of,
> say, Eldar Guardians is not fair (and one reason why I don't see them),
> I think I've earned those 2 VPs fair & square if I've just offed a unit
> of Bloodletters. After all, to kill three of them, you actually have to
> kill 4.5 of them -- effectively, the whole troop! That's a better break
> point than the Squats get! ^_- And while the regeneration may be
> accounted for in the points cost, I don't think the half point hose
> hurts them at all.

I disagree. What you're actually talking about here is a unit that is slightly
undervalued. What we really should do is get rid of the "half-point hosing"
(as you put it) and make the Bloodletters be worth 175 VP (and worth 1.75 VP,
or 7 VP, or whatever.) There really is no excuse for not making units have VPs
directly related to what they are worth, providing you ensure that all units
are properly balanced to their effectiveness!

People have been arguing on the list recently about SM bikes versus IG bikes.
I agree that SM bikes are better and more resilient than IG bikes, and this
is reflected in the points cost. However, it should not be doubly reflected in
the amount of VP you get for breaking the same number of points of troops;
if it is, you're paying for the quality twice.

Once again, the main problem is that there is too broad a range of effectiveness
for things that are worth 150 VP. In order to correct this, we need a finer
scale (i.e. 25 point increments) and if we're going to do that, we should
keep partial VPs (or multiply by 4, or whatever) in order to ensure that things
are really worth what they say they are worth.

Cameron Bentsen, Ottawa
Received on Fri Jan 31 1997 - 17:42:00 UTC