RE: [DS] No Capacity was: Points system (fresh)

-----Original Message-----
From:  Ryan Gill

[snip]
What you should be saying is

Vehicle A With weapon of X effect and Y movement.

Vehicle B With weapon of X effect and Y movement.

[Bri] Yes!

The problem is that when you tack on that extra capacity, its going
to eventually get used.

[Bri] WHEN you add equipment you add the points equal to the increased
tactical value, not before you add it. Using the converse of this (with
a
capacity system costing for what you could mount regardless of it you do
mount it or not), all vehicles of the same capacity would have the same
points (as you _could_ use the capacity for the same equipment). This
could
be a valid way to balance units, _if_ all equipment of a given capacity
were
equally effective. Otherwise, you must only charge points for the
effectiveness of equipment added to the vehicle.

[snip]

>I have a problem with the fact that you're squishing two things
>together and saying they are the same when they are not. Size =!
>apparent signature.
>
>[Bri] True. Size <> signature. However, size has _NO_ game effect, but
>signature _does_. Thus, signature should effect points, and size should
not.

Inches and scale have no game effect. We could just have sticks a
certain length for each type of movement rate or range. But they are
a good common unit. Size in DS/SG is a very quick thing to describe
to someone learning the game and it creates additional reference
points when describing a vehicle.

[Bri] I don't understand your point. You don't get charged points for
inches
(except when they pertain to weapons effectiveness or movement). My
point
was that you do not charge points for anything that does not have a game
effect. You cannot charge for _potential_ effectiveness, only
_actualized_
effectiveness.

My comments marked by [Bri]