(jb1 @ Oct. 04 2007,17:24)
QUOTE
The only confusion I see is in this thread's contents of trying to fix a (problem??) that doesn't exist. The rule 6.3 and the following are really straight forward in 8th grade level of understanding that should be left alone. ? If you don't want the bloody vehicles just don't take them,if you want them you got them-simple,non of this 5pts here 10pts there crap. This addition and subtraction that is mentioned is what is confusing....and the reasons for it make just as much non sense.
If anything is confusing is the fact that some armored vehicles have no more armor than some of the troops!Thats some of the stuff that needs attention,not special rule 6.3.1 Space Marines transports. BTW I've worked on that by using D10s KISS
jb1, I find it humorous that you reference that the rule should be understandable by anyone at an 8th grade level but you find addition and subtraction of numbers in '5's to be confusing... 
Ginger, you summed it up pretty well. I'm not married to the idea of doing the SMs this way and obviously Neal isn't either (and it was his proposal, so everybody yell at him 
). However the point increases to the air transports would be welcome changes. While this proposal is not without contention, the ideas that the Thunderhawk and Landing Craft are too inexpensive are accepted by a majority of players (at least it had been in the past). This strange little point adjustment would fix a bunch of problems in one fell swoop.
Personally I find it odd that people wouldn't want to try it out. So far the only valid argument I've seen against changing this is that the rule is fine as it is. E&C makes a good point: there are people asking about how to do this all the time on the SG forums._________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
