re: worldscale conclusion

From: rjmeints_at_...
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:07:48 -0400

Like Graham, Simon, Nick and several
others, I too understand Ian's point
of view, but that doesn't mean that I
agree with it. For some reason, I feel
that because we disagree with him, he
and a few others feel we CAN'T understand them. Last time I checked, that's not
how (pleasant) arguments have to work.

I sat down last night and read through
the rules (gasp!) and found very little
for this whole point-counterpoint argument to sustain itself. Whatever anybody thinks, the rules give us nothing concrete to go on. Even HQ drafts I have had a peek at don't clarify any of it, at least as far as I could find. Thus, we are left to our own devices.

As for me, the choices are simple:

1. Have numbers that consistently mean something useful.
2. Don't use numbers.

I've heard Greg Stafford say "F*CK the
numbers" on more than one occasion. It's possibly (if not probably) the last thing in the game he wants to worry about.

On Christian's theory:

---

Sorry, but having an ability "only
apply to within its own race" is
clearly not the intent of the RULES.

There are numerous specific examples
where the ability CLOSE COMBAT is used
between races with no modifiers, sliding scales, adjustments, etc. There are other abilities outlined in the examples the
same way.

Rick Meints