Re: Walkers, was RE: grav

John Atkinson wrote in reply to Brian Bilderback:

> >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.

DS2 is supposed to be a generic game. Sure, mechs are poor military
units - 
which means that their points value should be correspondingly low.

What better way to hammer home the inefficiency of mechs than having the

rules declare, through the points system, that the mechs need a 2:1 
numerical superiority to beat conventional tanks with similar equipment?
:-)

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."