209 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Lykaon, on 10 November 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

Well then why don't MWo lasers pinpoint damage? It is how it works with the table top rules.
Why don't LRMs apply damage in 5 point hits? This how the table top game does it.

The answer is several seemingly arbitrary design decisions were made that in the end upon execution create imbalancing effects.

I.S. ACs and PPCs do 100% of their damage to one spot in one shot.This is a vastly superior mechanics that exploits weaknesses in the armor mechanics.As a result Laser weapons are inferior mechanicly (or as I believe more in balance with the armor mechanics).

To make this problematic interaction between armor mechanics and pin point damage worse it seems the development team have embraced a faulty system as a means of balancing Clan vs I.S. autocannons.

Lasers Are pin point weapons. They put damage "EXACTLY" where you are pointing them. Now because they are jostled by your movement and the target twisting... does not change that. I would prefer lasers to be front loaded like ACs are, But I cannot get PGI to make that change so must work with what I have, unless I cannot.

I was against the Clan ACs being made burst fire, and I was going to have to eat Clan AC rounds for my main meals!

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

The point is, it is strictly Fluff that says ACs are firing rapid bursts. Only the way writers are writing the story, not playing the [tabletop] game. Canon rules [for the tabletop game] have ACs damage as single point of impact.

Fixed that for you.

You may notice that MWO is not a tabletop game. It is not intended to be a recreation of the tabletop game either, that was what MW Tactics was before it ... disappeared.

MWO is intended to be a real-time, first-person game set in the BattleTech universe, which implies it should be more concerned with BattleTech lore than BattleTech tabletop rules - since those rules were not made for a real-time, first-person game, but had to make concessions for the tabletop nature of that game.

One such concession was the single to-hit roll for the AC burst of projectiles. Similarly, it broke LRMs up into 5-point groups to lower the number of to-hit rolls needed (4 instead of 20 for a LRM-20).

Those concessions are no longer necessary, and the single-shot AC is in fact is counter-productive as regards weapon balance in MWO.

One of the best things MWO did was to make lasers beam-duration; it makes the damage delivery of lasers very dependant on the skill of the player (you need a steady hand to hit the same location for a whole second), which is exactly what you want in a first-person, real-time PvP game.

Frankly, I'd be over the moon if they found a way to make every single weapon in the game continuous-fire - that would really put the skill back into doing damage, and also make defensive maneuvering really, really important; you have to make a choice whether to face your enemy to do damage, or twist to spread the incoming damage. No more fire-twist-fire-twist, but real, game-changing decisions.

That will never happen though, but getting IS ACs to be burst-fire like their Clan counterparts might just happen.

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

We call that a Glazer safety round and is a variation on a Shotgun Shell. Are Shot Guns Cannons?

Actually, it's not a Glaser round at all, it's called a Rat-shot. Glaser Safety Slugs don't break apart until they hit the target, the Rat-shot behaves like a shotgun shell, spreading from muzzle exit.

Anyway, it was just an example of a shell designed to be fired from a (very small-caliber) handgun, to show that the rule "guns fire bullets, cannons fire shells" isn't absolute. Rat-shot is a shell designed to be fired from a handgun (revolver, pistol, or rifle).

Edited by stjobe, 11 November 2014 - 09:49 AM.

[Ultimax]

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

MWO is intended to be a real-time, first-person game set in the BattleTech universe, which implies it should be more concerned with BattleTech lore than BattleTech tabletop rules - since those rules were not made for a real-time, first-person game,

It should be concerned with weapon balance first and foremost. Not fluff.

Clan UACs are bad weapons, they don't compete well enough vs. Lasers or Missiles for their tonnage.

Competitive players consider CUAC 5s to be short ranged weapons (I agree with them) due to how bad their spread is, they do not have an actual effective range of 720m.



You keep lobbying for this, but it's bad design and it's clear it's bad design or we'd see more clan mechs not called "Dire Wolf" actually using UAC 10s and 20s, weapons that should be feared but are unfortunately a sub-optimal use of tonnage.

Turning IS ballistics into even crappier versions of those weapons, weighing more, taking up more crit slots and no ability to double tap outside of 5s would be a huge, huge loss for the IS.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 11 November 2014 - 09:52 AM.

[Bhael Fire]

Vassago Rain, on 11 November 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

Battletech 'machineguns' aren't real world machineguns. They're macross 'machineguns,' which aren't real world machineguns either.

I wasn't talking about BT mgs and ACs specifically. I was just clarifying the difference between an AC and a machine gun, as per the general definition of each.

You guys can do whatever you want with that info to debate over what that does or doesn't mean in BT/MWO. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

[stjobe]

Ultimatum X, on 11 November 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

It should be concerned with weapon balance first and foremost. Not fluff.

One does not exclude the other. Without lore this is just Generic Stompy Robot Shooter #243, not "a BattleTech game".

Ultimatum X, on 11 November 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

Clan UACs are bad weapons, they don't compete well enough vs. Lasers or Missiles for their tonnage.

I'd say that's more because people know what IS ACs are like more than anything else.

Also, nobody's saying making IS ACs burst-fire is the last balance change the game needs...

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

Fixed that for you.

You may notice that MWO is not a tabletop game. It is not intended to be a recreation of the tabletop game either, that was what MW Tactics was before it ... disappeared.

MWO is intended to be a real-time, first-person game set in the BattleTech universe, which implies it should be more concerned with BattleTech lore than BattleTech tabletop rules - since those rules were not made for a real-time, first-person game, but had to make concessions for the tabletop nature of that game.

One such concession was the single to-hit roll for the AC burst of projectiles. Similarly, it broke LRMs up into 5-point groups to lower the number of to-hit rolls needed (4 instead of 20 for a LRM-20).

Those concessions are no longer necessary, and the single-shot AC is in fact is counter-productive as regards weapon balance in MWO.

One of the best things MWO did was to make lasers beam-duration; it makes the damage delivery of lasers very dependant on the skill of the player (you need a steady hand to hit the same location for a whole second), which is exactly what you want in a first-person, real-time PvP game.

Frankly, I'd be over the moon if they found a way to make every single weapon in the game continuous-fire - that would really put the skill back into doing damage, and also make defensive maneuvering really, really important; you have to make a choice whether to face your enemy to do damage, or twist to spread the incoming damage. No more fire-twist-fire-twist, but real, game-changing decisions.

That will never happen though, but getting IS ACs to be burst-fire like their Clan counterparts might just happen.


Actually, it's not a Glaser round at all, it's called a Rat-shot. Glaser Safety Slugs don't break apart until they hit the target, the Rat-shot behaves like a shotgun shell, spreading from muzzle exit.

Anyway, it was just an example of a shell designed to be fired from a (very small-caliber) handgun, to show that the rule "guns fire bullets, cannons fire shells" isn't absolute. Rat-shot is a shell designed to be fired from a handgun (revolver, pistol, or rifle).

I seriously enjoy your arguments St. I really do. You are rarely personal about your rebuttals. and you are very logical and have good reasons for what you would like to see. I can't always be like that. I like what I like sometimes and will not yield.

This is one of those times.

We have a DoT lasers
We have variable location weapons with Missiles
We have Point of impact weapons with ACs

I am a fan of the three types of weapons. It shows in my builds. I have as many of them as I can pack on my Mechs and use them for what they are meant for.

And about Rat-Shot:

Quote

Rat-shot (or snake shot) is very small lead shot cartridge (typically #12 – 1.3 mm (0.05")) for use in rifled firearms as opposed to more traditional smoothbores such as shotguns. Such a cartridge with a shot load is often called a shot shell. The most common cartridges loaded with rat-shot are the .22 Long Rifle or pistol or revolver cartridges. Using rat-shot cartridges allows one to convert a handgun or rifle into a small shotgun suitable for short-range use.

Shotgun not cannon. which uses cartridges not shells. Calling it a shell is a misuse of terms.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

One does not exclude the other. Without lore this is just Generic Stompy Robot Shooter #243, not "a BattleTech game".


I'd say that's more because people know what IS ACs are like more than anything else.

Also, nobody's saying making IS ACs burst-fire is the last balance change the game needs...

It was a BattleTech game to me before I read the lore. The Lore has never changed my love of the game, it was the game that made me like the books even when it stitched a trail of depleted uranium shells across a mechs torso from the same AC20 I hammers a solid 20 point shell from.

And before you ask, Let me set this straight;
This is a Hat:

This is a Cover:

Never, and I mean NEVER confuse the two when talking to a Marine. So when calling a Shell a bullet or a Cartridge a Round, make sure you have your definitions covered.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 November 2014 - 10:16 AM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

I like what I like sometimes and will not yield.

I know Joe. I like you even though you're a pig-headed, cantankerous old bastich

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

And about Rat-Shot:
Shotgun not cannon. which uses cartridges not shells. Calling it a shell is a misuse of terms.

Quote

A cartridge (also called a round or a shell) is a type of ammunition packaging a bullet or shot, a propellant substance (usually either smokeless powder or black powder) and a primer within a metallic, paper, or plastic case that is precisely made to fit within the firing chamber of a firearm.

- wikipedia

A cartridge is the casing + payload, whether that payload is solid shot, high explosive, or pellets.

Calling it a shell is perfectly fine.

Edited by stjobe, 11 November 2014 - 10:17 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

I know Joe. I like you even though you're a pig-headed, cantankerous old bastich

Its my Hradani Upbringing!

Quote

Calling it a shell is perfectly fine.

Not if you are telling it to a Marine.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 November 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[Ultimax]

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

One does not exclude the other. Without lore this is just Generic Stompy Robot Shooter #243, not "a BattleTech game".

That's silly, lore sets the theme, it's the setting, the background the flavor. It tells us what mechs look like, what weapon types are available, it gives us factions with their history, their politics & plans.

Rules are rules, they need to be mechanically sound and balanced.

You don't need to base every single little detail on fluff that is inconsistent, old, and quite frankly often very poorly written for this to be a battle tech game.

Trying to use "the lore" no matter how faulty or poorly conceived as an "I win Hammer" in every argument, is pretty insincere - especially when gameplay rules from the original game are effectively just as equal if not more so in how the game should function.


So you are basically just cherry picking, because it suits your agenda.

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

I'd say that's more because people know what IS ACs are like more than anything else.

You can say that but you'd be wrong.

They don't compare directly vs. Clan Missiles or Lasers and if Clan mechs had access to IS lasers they'd compare poorly vs. them as well.

This has nothing to do with IS ACs, and everything to do with testing, trial & error.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 11 November 2014 - 10:23 AM.

[Nightmare1]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

I'm a Gamer. Have been for over three decades. I realize it is not TT, I don't have the minis on my table when I am playing. however I am playing MW:O Because it is related to the TT game. In fact if not for the TT Game There would be no books to provide fluff to the game system, there would be no MechWarrior Video games. Auto Cannons have been single shot Weapons in all the MechWarrior Games I have played unless they were Ultra Cannons. So I can even use that to support my stance that ACs do not need to change to make the game better.

I already recognized in a previous post that TT gave birth to the series. I'm just saying that TT does not translate well into an online game because it lacks dynamic qualities. The books, fueled by creativity, can fill that void. Differentiating the canonical authors and universe in the books from the short-ended fan-fiction spin-offs gives rich and useful source material to drive this game's development.

I'm just saying that making ACs into auto-weapons, like the Rotary Autocannons in MW4, would be a lot cooler than what we have now. I can't say that it would make the game better; just cooler.

At the very least, it wouldn't hurt to give us the Rotary ACs as an addition weapons option, now would it?

[Joseph Mallan]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

I already recognized in a previous post that TT gave birth to the series. I'm just saying that TT does not translate well into an online game because it lacks dynamic qualities. The books, fueled by creativity, can fill that void. Differentiating the canonical authors and universe in the books from the short-ended fan-fiction spin-offs gives rich and useful source material to drive this game's development.

I'm just saying that making ACs into auto-weapons, like the Rotary Autocannons in MW4, would be a lot cooler than what we have now. I can't say that it would make the game better; just cooler.

At the very least, it wouldn't hurt to give us the Rotary ACs as an addition weapons option, now would it?

But which Authors do we recognize? PPCs are Lashes in some Fictions and bolts in others. Lasers would be Cerulean or Ruby, We could ask for Glancing blows from Gauss Rounds to the head and Jump Jets used to kill Iconic characters. All Fluff All have Rules added to the game, But not stitching damage from ACs.

I used a Clan AC20 on the test server... I. HATED. IT. It did not have the power an AC20 has been known for. It was not devastating, it was laughable. I feel terrible for Clanners having to use such garbage ACs as they have been forced to use.

[Corbon Zackery]

This is a debated question that comes up every now and then. This is due to the fact that several different companies manufacture Auto cannons.

Caliber is fluff for the size of the barrel that the shell or shells are fired from and no standard caliber has been set for any of the classes of Autocannon. Autocannon in a class vary by manufacturer and model. With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire.

So at some point you might see the auto cannons split by manufacturer. With some doing burst fire, others doing single fire bulk damage, extra range, cool down, or extended range.

Its up to the developers if they want to split up auto cannons by manufacturer to provide more customization for players.

[Nightmare1]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

But which Authors do we recognize? PPCs are Lashes in some Fictions and bolts in others. Lasers would be Cerulean or Ruby, We could ask for Glancing blows from Gauss Rounds to the head and Jump Jets used to kill Iconic characters. All Fluff All have Rules added to the game, But not stitching damage from ACs.

I used a Clan AC20 on the test server... I. HATED. IT. It did not have the power an AC20 has been known for. It was not devastating, it was laughable. I feel terrible for Clanners having to use such garbage ACs as they have been forced to use.

For authors, I like Stackpole the best...

That's why I'm saying it would be nice to get full rotary versions of all the ACs (both IS and Clan). Folks that like the single-shell or burst fire versions can keep using those. The rest of us who like experimentation or who just play for kicks can run the rotaries. Besides, it's high time that a new weapon system be added to the game. The weapons we have now are starting to feel stale.

Clan AC/20s are definitely a joke. I won't purchase them because of the ammo shortage issues.

As far as rules go, I'm still waiting for knock-down to come back and for Death from Above to be implemented...

[Joseph Mallan]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

For authors, I like Stackpole the best...

That's why I'm saying it would be nice to get full rotary versions of all the ACs (both IS and Clan). Folks that like the single-shell or burst fire versions can keep using those. The rest of us who like experimentation or who just play for kicks can run the rotaries. Besides, it's high time that a new weapon system be added to the game. The weapons we have now are starting to feel stale.

Clan AC/20s are definitely a joke. I won't purchase them because of the ammo shortage issues.

As far as rules go, I'm still waiting for knock-down to come back and for Death from Above to be implemented...

I liked hos writing also, Can't say I liked the man himself though. And he gave us the most Fluff that needed to be added to the game of any other writer.

Nuclear Engine explosions
Glancing blows
Ghost Mechs (Jedi Mind trick)


Son Rotary ACs are a whole nother beast in CBT! An RAC 10 fires between 1 and 6 AC bursts per trigger pull! Yup 60 point burst and up to 6 times the heat. The crying that would occur would be legendary

[Strum Wealh]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 November 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Who did you quote in that post StJobe?



I'm just wondering cause as it has been laid out by the DEVs of CBT:

Core Rules

Sourcebooks

Fluff

Non Cannon Supplements.(ie Magazines)

...

...

...

...

House Rules

in that order.

Actually, I'd like to see your source for your statement regarding the order of things.

This source (including several direct quotations by Herb Beas II, then Line Developer for BT) indicates that "sourcebooks and novels" are on equal footing, canonicity-wise.

Quote

Computer games and the material printed only in Germany (with the exception of the Founding of the Clans novels by Randall Bills) are not considered canonical.

We have a rather simple matter of determining canon in-house: Whatever we establish for research material for the authors is canon.



Currently, that list includes:

All sourcebooks and novels produced for BattleTech by FASA and Roc in the United States

All sourcebooks and novels produced for Classic BattleTech by FanPro and Roc in the United States

All sourcebooks and novels (including electronic publications, such as BattleCorps) produced by InMediaRes (and its subsidiaries, BattleCorps and Catalyst Game Labs) in the United States

All material produced by WizKids for the MechWarrior: Dark Age/MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game lines



GENERAL INCLUSIVE NOTE: There are a few select instances where a story or article appearing even in these sources may be considered non-canon, but generally this is because the material was in error (such as date mishaps like original TRO3025's claim that the Zeus emerged from Defiance before the Mackie was even built OR Defiance even existed as such), or it was specifically published as a gag (such as Loren Coleman's infamous "Chapter 6" on BattleCorps)



The list does not include:

Magazines, even "official" ones such as BattleTechnology, 'Mech, and others

The MechWarrior, MechCommander, and MechAssault video and computer games, as well as the various BattleTech games produced for Nintendo and Sega game systems

The BattleTech cartoon series

The BattleTech comic book series



GENERAL NON-INCLUSIVE NOTE: Despite their non-canonical status, we have not gone into total denial about these sources either, but have simply opted to pick and choose what elements there are "canon" and what are not.

For example, the BattleTech cartoon series' events may not be canon, but the characters they contained were, and the series itself has been referenced as an in-universe "propaganda vid" for the children of the FedCom growing up in the wake of the Clan invasion.

Additionally, Total Warfare itself specifically & explicitly states (on page 36) that the gameplay rules are abstractions made specifically to accommodate limited space & playtime concerns.

Quote

Classic BattleTech turns represent ten seconds of real time, while each hex on a mapsheet represents thirty meters of a battlefield. However, players should note that such “real world” terms are abstractions when applied to the board game. Classic BattleTech is a game, not a detailed simulation. Therefore, the real world must take a back seat to game play—for simplicity, length of play, space required and simple enjoyment.

-----

Players will quickly realize that the longest-range standard weapon in the game can only hit targets out to thirty hexes (900 meters) from the attacker. Real-world primary main battle tank weapons have operational targeting ranges in excess of 4,000 meters. Because Classic BattleTech mapsheets are only seventeen hexes long, recreating real-world ranges on a table would require more than seven mapsheets laid end to end, for a playing space greater than twelve feet in length. Not many people have that type of table space, nor would it provide players with any tactical maneuvering room.

-----

Finally, the abstractions of real-world factors such as firing distance often can enhance the aesthetic of the game universe. Classic BattleTech has always been about “in-your-face” combat, which works best with closer ranges. Players are encouraged to remember such abstractions and not get bogged down in realworld mechanics and physics.

Moreover, the advanced Autocannon rules (found on page 100 of Tactical Operations) specifically & explicitly states that ACs "fire bursts of large-caliber shells to damage a target, much like enormous machine guns", and specifically & explicitly includes gameplay rules to deal with ACs being able to "walk" their salvos across multiple targets.

Quote

Rather than firing at a single target, any type of autocannon can be “walked” across two targets close to one another. An LB-X autocannon firing a cluster shot and Ultra and Rotary autocannons firing at multiple targets are a special case.

No matter what type of autocannon is being used, both targets must be in adjacent hexes and within range of the weapon. Determine the to-hit number for both targets and make separate to-hit rolls against each target, using the higher (more difficult) of the to-hit numbers and adding a +1 modifier for firing at multiple targets with a single shot. Note that this is not the secondary target modifier; that modifier does not apply to this type of attack unless multiple targets also are being attacked in the same phase. If the to-hit roll succeeds, the target is struck by a single hit that inflicts damage equal to half the normal damage done by the weapon (rounded down).

All Standard ACs, "slug"-mode LB-X ACs, Light ACs, and Hyper-Velocity ACs are burst-fire weapons & can use the "multiple targets" rule to strike multiple targets (or can concentrate the burst against one part of one target).

Cluster-mode LB-X ACs, Ultra ACs, and Rotary ACs are the exception, in that they (evidently) fire singular large shells per unit of ammunition.

• The LB-X ACs would essentially have an adjustable choke that, when set to "fully open", allows its shotshell-like cluster munition to spread wide enough to strike multiple targets; "If all damage is applied to the first target after a roll on the Cluster Hit Table, then no additional damage is applied to the second target. However, if some of the damage missed the target, use that 'missed' Damage Value as the new number to roll on the Cluster Hit Table to determine what damage struck the second target".
  
• The Ultra & Rotary ACs have alternate firing modes (the UACs have their 1x & 2x firing modes, while the RACs have their 1x, 2x, 4x, and 6x firing modes), where the "rapid-fire" modes (2x and above) allow them to strike each target with a number of shells; "If only one shot hit, it will strike one of the targets - determined at random - with a single shot that does full damage. If two, four or six shots hit, one, two or three shots will strike each target at full damage. If three or five shots hit, one or two shots will strike each target; randomly determine where the other shot lands".

So, to recap:

• Standard ACs (AC/2, AC/5, AC/10, AC/20): burst-fire weapons (multiple individual shells per salvo)
  
• LB-X ACs (LB 2-X, LB 5-X, LB 10-X, LB 20-X, both tech bases): burst-fire weapons in "slug-mode", single-shell-salvo weapons in "cluster-mode"
  
• Ultra ACs (UAC/2, UAC/5, UAC/10, UAC/20, both tech bases): single-shell-salvo weapons (fires one large shell in "normal mode" & two large shells in "ultra mode")
  
• Light ACs (LAC/2, LAC/5): burst-fire weapons
  
• Rotary ACs (RAC/2, RAC/5, both tech bases): single-shell-salvo weapons (fires one large shell in "normal mode", two large shells in "double mode", four large shells in "quad mode", and six large shells in "hex mode")
  
• Hyper-Velocity ACs (HVAC/2, HVAC/5, HVAC/10): burst-fire weapons

Edited by Strum Wealh, 11 November 2014 - 11:25 AM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Corbon Zackery, on 11 November 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

This is a debated question that comes up every now and then. This is due to the fact that several different companies manufacture Auto cannons.

Caliber is fluff for the size of the barrel that the shell or shells are fired from and no standard caliber has been set for any of the classes of Autocannon. Autocannon in a class vary by manufacturer and model. With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire.

So at some point you might see the auto cannons split by manufacturer. With some doing burst fire, others doing single fire bulk damage, extra range, cool down, or extended range.

Its up to the developers if they want to split up auto cannons by manufacturer to provide more customization for players.

The Chemjet 185mm Cannons used by Demolisher tanks fires a single shot. Found it, in an Ultra no less!

TRO:3060 - Ku Wheeled Assault Tank said:

... a Type 9 75mm autocannon. The clip reload system allows the gunner to select a one or two-round burst, giving the tank a devastating volley-fire capability.

Given the ambiguous definition of round, it could refer to a pair of bursts, but the phrasing and later use of the word volley suggest individual shells.
If you want to go with lore the weapons can vary vastly. Specifically, many standard and some Ultras simply had a RoF and burst length was entirely controlled by the pilots. Ultras simply had a means to double that RoF at the risk of jamming (very rare at a 2.78% chance over ten seconds). Others were burs fire in nature, some Ultras took this to the logical extreme and used cassettes with the Ultra mode loading and firing a second cassette in less than a second and the jamming issue was the cassette loading mechanism.

LB-X Autocannons are the only ACs lore wise, which were almost exclusively single shot, and even then a few models were burst fire. Some more research on the LB-X reveals no mention of LB-X being single shot only, though in lore sources it seams they more often fire in single shots rather than automatic bursts.

Edited for format and to keep everyone from correcting me. Once is enough.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 11 November 2014 - 12:28 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Quote

Currently, that list includes:
All sourcebooks and novels produced for BattleTech by FASA and Roc in the United States
All sourcebooks and novels produced for Classic BattleTech by FanPro and Roc in the United States
All sourcebooks and novels (including electronic publications, such as BattleCorps) produced by InMediaRes (and its subsidiaries, BattleCorps and Catalyst Game Labs) in the United States
All material produced by WizKids for the MechWarrior: Dark Age/MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game lines

All Source books allows the Super Griffin, that FrankenMech in Craston Snord's Irregulars and other One offs.

And do you know what Canon from Novels covers?
Actual game Mechanics? Very very rarely.
It covers historical events, When The Jade Falcon fought the Wolfs creating the Jade Wolves. The Date of Hans Davions death. So on.

Quoting Tach Ops... I knew this would come up.

Quote

Tactical Operations is the one-source reference for advanced rules that apply to on-world operations

Advanced rules are those rules not normally found in an Official Tournament or World wide event. So it is more of a Solaris 7 old boxset. Which we do have a rule or two that feel like they come from there. BUT the players don't get to tell the GM which rules they will and won't use, its the other way around.

[Strum Wealh]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

Son Rotary ACs are a whole nother beast in CBT! An RAC 10 fires between 1 and 6 AC bursts per trigger pull! Yup 60 point burst and up to 6 times the heat. The crying that would occur would be legendary

There were no RAC/10s (or RAC/20s) in CBT; both the Clans & the IS only had RAC/2s & RC/5s.
(Though, the CRAC/10 & CRAC/20 were made up by MekTek & put into their MW4 Mek Paks - however, they were never part of BattleTech proper or put into an "official" MW game release.)

[WarHippy]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

I disagree. That "literary fluff" is the canonical and correct way to implement them. The TT rules are mere board game rules designed to facilitate turn-based play. Any such should be discarded in favor of more dynamic mechanics to suit a real-time mecha such as MWO, and to capture the spirit of the books; especially the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy!

Except all of the books and literary fluff are based off the board game. To dismiss the TT game in favor of fluff is backward thinking. You sir are nuts!