DS3 features

Brian said:

I want some visual clue as to how powerful a vehicle is when I see it across
the table.

"Oh. Here comes a little jeep with what looks like a machine gun, but over
there are 5 Ogre Mk. IIIs. I will concentrate my fire on the Ogres. Boy! Those
Ogres popped quickly. OK your turn... What do you mean that machine gun fires
nuclear shells at a range of 60"?!?!?! OK <grumble>
page 47..."

Yes, pure munchkinism, but in a system without limits possible.

When you mix miniature ranges, and each player bringing his predefined forces,
you can face a lot of this type of situation (although not usually as extreme
as above), where a smaller, less menacing model (GHQ Abrams) is more powerful
than a larger one (Ral Partha Battletech PPC Carrier).

I am not complety arguing against you. You should be able to match the model
to its capabilities. But 2 people looking at the same model might see widely
varying capabilities (is that a PDS or GMS?).

[Tomb]

Note 1: I mostly agree.

Note 2: This vulnerability has nothing to do (well, not much) with
rules. I can do that now - there is no direct relationship between mini
and ruleset in DS2. I can say my scotia iltis is size class 5. What's to stop
me? Answer: Agreement between players on what constitutes a size class. Not
the rules!

Note 3: If the other player paid X (large number) points for his little
nuclear jeep, in theory you should have a lot of stuff on your side that
is non-munchkin-like to fight him with.

If so, where is the unfairness? If you're both keeping your designs secret
(mostly bunk in my opinion), then you can do just the same to him. But that
exists now... you could come to the battlefield with a pile of heavily armed
VTOLs and he could arrive with the GMS jeep army! That's the silliness of
secret force battles with munchkins.

In reality, you generally have some idea of enemy capabilities (their existing
designs). True, you could be unlucky enough to be at the first battle for
which a new technology is debuted, but if that is the case, you should be
getting onto your intel people about their poor prepration!

So, I would address this issue by making most designs public (Jane's 2183) but
not telling which ones I plan to bring. Also, realistically, you'd have some
clue of typical organizational structures of your opponent. Either that or
you've got a larger problem than a weak point
system....

[quoted original message omitted]

Tomb said:

*SNIP*

> Note 3: If the other player paid X (large number) points for his little

Oy, again with the snippage....

> So, I would address this issue by making most designs public (Jane's

Mr.Barclay speaks the truth. besides, while most of us do have an aversion to
megamunchkin tactics such as those bandied, There are a few
mouth-breathing types who CRAVE a scooter-from-hell concept... There are

some things you just can't make rules to prevent, and minchkinism is one of
them. There are gaming social reactions that work a lot better. And if the
minmaxers want to run jeeps that can take out the death star, more power to
'em. I don't have to play them.

3B^2

> At 3:00 PM -0500 4/4/02, Tomb wrote:

But it provides a good yardstick to measure with. You have to have some unit
of measure to compare. If not size, then something else.

> Note 3: If the other player paid X (large number) points for his little

So he's got a Davy Crockett mounted on the back of an M38. Big deal. You're
playing with nukes or not. If so, then how he delivers a given yield should be
in the rules. One could just as easily argue that you can deploy nukes with a
team of power armor. But, prior arrangement needs to be made. Currently the
only way you deliver nukes is large artillery, HARs and DFO. This is in
keeping with modern doctrine and methods. The W80 backpack thingy is a very
special case.

> If so, where is the unfairness? If you're both keeping your designs

I've got a set group of vehicles that I've played with several people. They
know what they are and as I've got the largest contingent of DS useful figs,
we usually use what I have more often than not.

> In reality, you generally have some idea of enemy capabilities (their

This is true. A tank could be a dressed up command vehicle with just exterior
camoflage, but it'd better be the same size vehicle with the same size power
plant. Two similar figures shouldn't be size 2 and size 5.

> So, I would address this issue by making most designs public (Jane's

Or design several sub types such that they are very similar. Is that a FIST or
is that a GMSH carrier? Is that a command post, an APC, a supply vehicle, an
engineer vehicle or something else?