Re: re-draft the prototype rule ?

[William and Melissa Johns <gizmology-at-gizmology.net>]

After thinking it over, it seems to me that a tank that made it to the 
prototype, but not production, stage ought to be given some kind of 
consideration.  Really, it only comes down to the shape of the model - in 
one shape, it's a Panzer IV, in another shape the exact same hardware 
(motor, tracks, gun, etc) is called a Comet, in yet another shape, the 
exact same hardware is called a M-70 and not allowed.  If you close you're 
eyes, you wouldn't be able to tell the various models apart, as they'd have 
identical performance.  A tank that never made it into production wouldn't 
have any advantage over one that did.

On the other hand, it does tend to open Pandora's box, doesn't it?  Gurps, 
Mecha, Star Wars, things that walk, ad nauseam.  (Why, that would be almost 
as weird as Tigers fighting alongside Comets, or WW I British Mk Vs versus 
a Persian Gulf era M-1 Abrams.)

I'm not reaching any conclusions here, just saying the suggestion 
definitely merits discussion.

Bill "I wanna build a Tzar Tank" Johns

(Tzar Tank: http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sidor/tsartank1.htm )



At 11:01 PM 7/20/2004, you wrote:
>At 03:12 PM 7/19/2027, you wrote:
>>But I think a discussion is needed as to why the prototype rule was added 
>>in the first place.
>
>I seem to recall that it was to keep sci-fi fantasy tanks (Star Wars, etc) 
>off the field.
>
>
>--
>
>"Action without intelligence is a form of insanity, but intelligence 
>without action is the greatest form of stupidity in the world." Charles F. 
>Kettering
>
>
>
>

--

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Mikhail 
Bakunin