In other words, compensate for problems with the rules by completely ignoring the rules.

Not my favourite approach.

If you'd like to interpret it that way, I suppose; though its creating a new mechanic, not ignoring existing ones.  Its got precident on these forums -- for example, there are some who consider ACAEBG a problem, and deal with it by creating custom powers to "ignore" those rules. 

I'd rather hack the Thaumaturgy system to make huge rituals non-trivial.

Ok, I'm with you on this.  But I'm not going to suggest ways to deal with nukes assuming that everyone has bought into a custom Thaumaturgy ruleset -- especially since I don't recall there being even a tentative consensus reached during the discussions had on that topic so far.

Because there's nothing wrong with a nuclear bunker Ward. It's cool, it makes sense, it's the sort of thing you'd expect from the Merlin.

Sure thing.  That sounds like GM plot device, to me, which fits under the concept I presented.  Though my personal view is that even the Merlin is incapable of such a thing on the spur of the moment.  If, on the other hand, he had spent the decades since the close of WWII pouring power into a painstakingly crafted, rune-inscribed crystal, designed to create a one-shot shield to protect against a nuclear fireball...

The problem is not that an anti-nuke Ward works, it's that Harry Dresden could set one up without too much trouble.

Or even a minor practicioner with a variation of Ritual that includes wards, yes.

But even beyond that, nukes are the very pinnacle of humananity's potential for destruction.  If you can withstand a nuke, then there's basically nothing humanity can do you.  As such, I think the setting works better if they are something to be feared by nearly everyone, supernatural or not.  Wizards are powerful, but should not be able to directly compete with the destructive potential of a nuke by way of raw force.  Even the Queens should fear them -- maybe they might survive a direct, but at what cost?  At least, that's my opinion.

PS: Just found this. I think it's relevant.

Relevant, yes.  Correct ... well, opinions vary, obviously.

There is never a blanket answer to an ethical question.  This includes questions about Bono avatars.

That's why there's a problem with looking at Catches the way the RAW does.  If, instead, you treat the selection of the Catch rebate value as a vote on the part of the player as to how often the Catch will come into play (just like picking aspects that describe enmities is a vote to include those enemies in the campaign), then it fixes itself -- because if the two players who choose "noose around your neck" and "transgendered squidzilla ink" but both pick "will rarely come into play", then those two Catches should be treated equally.  If necessary, the GM can create a squidzilla community in some corner of the Nevernever, as well as aboriginal Fae who harvest the rare creatures for their ink, which is considered a delicacy among Gruffs.

Poof.  Now there's no right answer, and you can have fun building your Catch any way you want, then discussing what Catch value would be close enough to reasonable that trying to satisfy the frequency wouldn't damage the setting (ie, making the transgendered squidzilla ink Catch a common one might take the game too far into the realms of silliness for the players' tastes).

Regarding the Evoker squidzilla idea, that only works for a broken Catch rule.  A working Catch rule would provide a discount based on how much of a liability the Catch is to the character possessing the power.  And since for 100% of those who bought the power the limitation that they be transgendered squidzillas would provide no liability whatsoever, there should be no Catch discount for it.

As he mentioned up top, he's trying out a custom blend of D&D and Fate, combining Fate's classlessness and D&D's largely equipment-based system.  Why?  His player(s) prefer it that way.  Regardless, thus the desire to have greater weapon differentiation.

Perhaps you could give various weapons a bit more differentiation by way of bonuses to certain maneuvers/declarations, and/or by treating each weapon as an aspect.  For example, perhaps polearms could allow the wielder a bonus to maneuver a held at bay aspect, and/or the ability to invoke the weapon aspect for a bonus against mounted targets.  Bludgeoning weapons might grant a bonus to applying a stunned aspect to their target.  (And so on.)

Note that the "bonus" granted could vary, depending on preference.  It could be as simple as a +1 or +2 to the maneuver rolls.  Or it could be as significant as being able to perform the maneuver as a supplemental action, assuming you hit with your attack action.  My guess is that putting the benefits somewhere in the "weak to modest" range of stunts might work best.

Another option might be to grant special bonuses only to those trained in the particular weapon -- make a serious of "stronger" stunts that represent such training.

Note that none of the above is intended to be balanced for use in a standard DFRPG game, but could work for a more weapon-focused fantasy homebrew setting.

I was going to say this:

Actually, I think that a Drunken Master concept might be best created via aspects and compels.  Considering a Drunken Master is likely to be smashed all of the time (or at least as much of the time as possible), I'm not really sure it should be worth any refresh at all.  I would be hesitant to apply Catch-like rules to it, because the Catch implies that there is a means by which an opponent can bypass the power(s) in question.  You could make an argument for your Feeding Dependency customization -- though my position would still be that the downsides don't really justify doing so.  Using aspects (probably a high concept) fits better, in my opinion.

but as I was writing, my opinion has begun to shift a bit.

I think I still don't like using the Catch specifically, for the reasons above.  But you could also generalize the Catch into a more general Limitation, using fairly similar rules.  But I think its important to make such a limitation carry an actual disadvantage if its going to grant a refresh rebate.  I'm kind of thinking that for a Drunken Master, the Limitation should be that it can only be used while under the effects of a drunk-related consequence (probably a social consequence).  Severity doesn't matter (a mild consequence 'wears off' quickly, which becomes a mixed blessing to such a character).  So this Limitation carries it's own disadvantage mechanic -- compels against the consequence, as well as the temporary loss of a consequences.  Probably more advanced Drunken Masters would counter this disadvantage by acquiring a stunt (perhaps granting an extra mild social consequence only for drunken consequences) -- which is fine, since you're basically buying off your Limitation.

I dunno how balanced any of this is, but it could be amusing!

I personally think this is a good thing. It leaves wards vulnerable on a personal scale to someone actively trying to punch through them and willing to do the prep while making the useful on the strategic scale against attacks not actually anticipating wards.

Ok, silly hypothetical.  Bob the wizard pisses off Dmitri the former KGB agent turned terrorist.  Dmitri has already contracted to deliver a briefcase nuke to Chicago, but now he's going for two-for-the-price-of-one.  He knows Bob is a wizard and will have defenses ... but he has a frickin' briefcase nuke!

So he hops on a plane, gets strip-searched at the airport, but the TSA doesn't find any spare tubes of toothpaste in his shoes or underwear, so they let him through with his briefcase "computer".  He heads over to Bob's house and hides the briefcase behind some bushes next to Bob's apartment.  Then he flies to India, and uses his cell phone's autodialer to figuratively press the big red button.

Ok, mechanics time.  This would probably count as using demolitions (crafting stunt, I think) which Dmitri doesn't have (he knows how to autodial, though), so the attack roll is probably around 0.  Bob has strength 4 ward (he's better at pissing people off than casting wards).  Even so, the attack roll is lower that the ward strength, so the blast gets deflected to India, incinerating Dmitri.

I have to admit, this is not satisfactory to me.  I'm thinking that the way to handle these sorts of things (anything from grenades on up to nukes) is to treat them as creating an "environmental hazard" (YS325) of some sort -- with suitably high hazard ratings (ie, equivalent of an attack roll).