I like the DC for non-AE scenarios. Grenade bundles or an improvised explosive device can be so represented.
Lt. Mtrs...another matter, while I like to use them in certain situations, they can, with that rof and -1airburst/CH ability, ruin an otherwise 'balanced' scenario. Tough to design into a smaller scenario for sure, at least for me.
I've had a longstanding prejudice against small tourney-sized scenarios in general. Recently I have thought on this issue and arrived at the following conclusion.
My issue stemmed from trying to use some of the smaller SPeed scenarios as time filler, quick start scenarios that can be setup and played through in a short time span. The problem with this is that most of these scenarios do actually require a certain amount of time to properly understand what the designers' intent may have been, in regards to setup/tactics etc.. Failure to properly 'get it' usually results in a playing that is outside of the designer's intented parameters, which then results in a lopsided outcome, and a hissy fit that these scenarios have problems...you know.
Looking over some of my older designs, I can see that I expect the players to grok the thing so that they will arrive at a point where the scenario is 'balanced'. Most of these designs give an extra game turn or two to allow a player who may make a mistake in setup/entry to recover and still make a fight of it. This can however go the other way, for instance, when a brilliant player can get it quickly and use the extra time to take advantage of terrain or tactics to make it easier for him to win. This could be seen as unbalancing as well.
So, as opposed to ROAR or other attempts at letting others know about a scenario's perceived 'balance', perhaps more useful to some would be a rating of difficulty, not so much in rules usage per se, but as to time required to consider a proper defense/attack plan etc.. I think this could be best done by a competent designer of said scenarios easily enough. I'd hate to have scripted design notes which take this thought process away from the players, but to have just an idea of what it might take to get to a point where the scenario is balanced would to me be ideal.
Just my take, tough call too. What do you think?
