Re: Walkers, was RE: grav

Then, IMO, they should not even be included at all.  Mr. Tuffley also
states 
that the game system is designed to be generic, so that you can apply it
to 
any fictional background you want.  If this is true, then in a fictional

background which accepts the validity of Mecha (See: Suspension of 
Disbelief), a game which accommodates that background SHOULD grant equal

value to mecha, or not bother to pretend to be that all-encompassing.

Brian

"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis
is 
of no use."

				 - S. Freud

>From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>Subject: Walkers, was RE: grav
>Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 17:07:22 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>--- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > My question was rhetorical - the point being that
> > for the game to be fair
> > and balanced,  a walker, while having a different
> > set of abilities and
> > limitations different from those of a Grav tank or a
> > tracked tank, should be
> > just as effective a unit in the game as any other
> > vehicle costing the same
> > amount of points.
>
>I think Mr. Tuffley made it quite clear in his rules
>that oversized (ie >1) walkers are not part of the
>background or really even the core rules.  They are in
>there for battletech idiots who love Giant Robots[tm].
>  They were never intended to be balanced against tanks
>because Giant Robots are a lousy military idea.
>
>John
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
>http://personals.yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________________