|
Ok, I am thinking on the validity of your points and do not disagree in concept with your definition of synergy, nor how you are approaching the challenge.
For the record, when we were discussing synergy in the other thread, it was about MLs, BUT, and this may have been my perception and possibly not others, within the context of improving how FW's play or can be more effective. If that was not everyone elses understanding, then I can see how we've been looking at each other wondering what the other was thinking.
So, having said that, let me state what I am looking for, what sort of solution out of this proposal I am interested in seeing.
1. An effective and simple mechanism for providing the driving concept behind this exercise, and that would be introducing "synergy" to the list. I want to see how that can be effected in this proposal.
2. I agree that would require a change in how MLs work and the formations that carry them. The list of formations carrying MLs is small right now and I want it to stay small at this point. That will help keep the comparison of list functionality easier.
3. This is not an exercise in re-writing the list, especially in regards to the current inventory of formations and units. That helps support Item #2.
However, I see that may change how we look at drones. Not heavy drones, just drones. That also means that there is no reason to add Hammerhead variants, fiddle with Orcas, Units and formations in Section 6, or Air Caste units.
So to provide an example of the framework for the proposal let's talk about the ever popular Scorpionfish. This unit has supporters and detractors. I think that there is enough circumstantial evidence in IA3-Taros to keep this unit. I don't deny that I like the concept. Does that mean that all the missiles, in particular the AP versions should be retained? No, I'd say that "feature" (AP missiles) is on the table for discussion and modification.
Example #2. The Moray. That is in Section 6. Section 6 is a "Parking Lot" area. In corporate speak, that means the unit is not gone from the list, but is not part of the core for this round of discussions, with discussions being what we do to get us to the next playtested release. The Remote Sensor Turrets are in the same situation. So are human Auxilaries.
Example #3. Stingrays. I will make no bones about this. I like Stingrays. I admit, there isn't the briefest amount of evidence that the Stingray exists in any fluff anywhere. About the only way you can come up with the Stingray is to identify the need (which was done in previous versions) and extrapolate to some degree, how the Skyray operates.
So, in the spirit of E&Cs proposal, they don't fit anymore as they are entirely a fabrication of the previously generated lists. I consider the deletion of the Stingray fair game.
Now I could say, could you find a way to work the Stingray's capabilities into the Skyray, thus killing two birds with one stone, but that was proposed earlier and discarded as an idea. That's fine, let's see where the proposal takes us.
Example #4. Tetras. There has been some discussion about this unit being over-gunned. Proposals to reduce it's AP shots more in line with what is expected, would be considered in scope, primarily because it is a low impact, low risk downgrade.
4. Some units that have the ML might lose it in the proposal and some might gain it. That's Ok. I want to see how that effects the approach.
5. I am Ok with modifications to what is core vs. support. I don't know if I am opening a can of worms by saying that, but let's give it a shot.
6. Adjusting costs is also part of the exercise as long as we exclude Air Caste units.
Can we all agree to the above framework?
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
