RE: Walkers

I think the solution to the +1 size problem is to:
1. Limit it to medium range or less.
2. It should work both ways. A mech that is tall
enough to warrent the +1 size should also be viewing
the top of standard vehicles, not the front of them.
This is a much larger cross-section. So normal
vehicles should be +1 size to the walker.
3. Walkers should either count any attack that
normally hits top armor as hitting front armor (as
the actual top armor would be so hard to hit since
it has a small cross-section).

But as the other Brian stated, this should only
apply to humanoid walkers and tripod walkers, not
to walkers with a longer horizontal axis than a
verticle axis (4-legged, 6-legged, etc.).

-Brian Bell

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Brian
Bilderback
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 20:10
To: GZG_List
Subject: DS: Walkers

First let me reiterate that I am a Battletech escapee
and thus a little hard on mecha.  I for one like the
restrictions placed on them in DSII regarding
increased signature.

However, it seems that while the rules claim to be
addressing walkers in general, and even vaguely refer
to AT-At type walkers, some of the rules for the
construction and use of walkers really seems more
applicable to bipedal walkers, particularly humanoid
mecha.	I'm specifically thinking of the special rules
for mounting weapons, arcs of fire, and dual mounts on
arms.

In addition, I've also felt that the Infantry
Walker/Combat Walker/Transport Walker distinctions,
and their size limits (eliminating the middle range of
size classes especially) were a little stilted.

So I was thinking of splitting walkers into two
mobility types.  At first I was considering Bipedal,
and Multipedal (I know, technically Bi is Multi, so if
you can think of a better word....), but then I
realized there are non-humanoid Biped walkers in
fiction (e.g. AT-ST's).  So I decided on Humanoid
Walkers (HW'S), and Non-Humanoid Walkers (NHW's) Both
would have the same terrain modifiers.	I am torn
regarding actual movement points.  HW's would use the
canon rules regarding mounting of weapons, whereas
NHW's would use standard vehicle rules for mounting
weapons.  Only NHW's would be allowed to carry
infantry. (alternatively, for you Battletech fans,
allow HW's to carry PA, and limit leg infantry to
NHW's)

I'm also tempted to remove the +1 signature rules from
NHW's, since they don't have to stand quite as upright
as BPW's.  Sure, there are fictional examples, such as
AT-AT's and Battletech Behemoths, but they're just
silly looking compared to, say, Btech Scorpions and
Tarantulas.  You could keep the signature limitation
in place and use stealth to simulate low-slung
designs, but I have been converted to the church of
stealth is Overpriced.	If stealth were fixed, that
would be the perfect solution.

=====
Qui me amat, amet et canem meum.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com