Re: Points, was Re: grav

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> 
> John Atkinson wrote:
> 
>  >>I can't really comment on that since I don't have
>  >>Heavy Gear, but your description suggests that the
>  >>Heavy Gear design system was unbalanced or
>  >>biased towards Gears - in a fashion similar to how
>  >
>  >It was balanced towards marginally capable vehicles
>  >and/or vehicles with glaring design flaws.
> 
> Such as? Well, "any walker" to begin with, but apart from that?

The Heavy Gear design system is this amazing thing that has to be
seen to be believed. 

Between version 1 and version 2 of the rules it got moved from the
core rule book to a supplement of its own. Between publishing the
core rules of version 2 and the vehicle design supplement (when
there were no official design rules in print) Dream Pod 9 were
giving away a PDF file of the design rules. Since I have this PDF
file, anybody who want a copy can ask me for one and I'll send it.
(1.3MB)

Heavy Gear is mostly a role-playing game, and the design system
reflects this. Design is mostly descriptive, a vehicle doesn't so
much have "systems" as it has "stats", "perks" and "flaws" much
like a GURPS character would. Since the game seems (from the very
little contact I had with it) to mostly revolve around tactical
combat that's arrived at in a mecha-pilot roleplaying game, the
whole points system (and implications thereof) seems entirely
moot. Probably the most attractive element of the game is the
outstanding artist that does all the mecha/manga illustration.

-- 
David Brewer

"It is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a stone at every