RE: Walkers

--- Brian Bell <bbell1@insight.rr.com> wrote:
> I think the solution to the +1 size problem is to:

The thing is, I  only think it is a problem for
certain types of walkers....

> 1. Limit it to medium range or less.

Makes sense.

> 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.

I'm not sure I agree, because I think the +1
represents more than just the cross-section of the
mech or vehicle:  It represents how high above the
surrounding terrain and the horizon a walker stands. 
A silhouetted target is going to be much easier to hit
than one seen against a cluttered backdrop.  A mech
looking down at a vehicle may see a different
cross-section than regular vehicles, but it's not that
much bigger - especially for smaller vehicles.	And
the vehicle still has the advantage of having the
terrain around him cluttering the mech's view.	

I would agree that short-ranged attacks from mechs
count against normal vehicle's top armor (except for
VTOL's)

> 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).

Rather than arbitrarily saying front armor, I'd say
applied to appropriate side.  And a gain, only on
bipods and possibly tripods.

> 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.).

Agreed.  The more I think about it, the more different
varieties of walkers present themselves.

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

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