209 replies to this topic

[Harathan]

ReXspec, on 30 May 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

LOL NO IT'S NOT. You're over-simplifying the Black Knight's role. Speed + armor + ecm + slugging potential gives the Black Knight a unique spot in the Heavy 'mech line-up if the Black Knight were to be added to the game.

The Black Knight was designed as a Command mech and has the benefit of being handy in most situations. Speed is not one of them. The maximum speed of the Black Knight chassis is 10k faster than that of the Awesome, on par with Thunderbolt and other armor-clad Heavy chassis. Only 1 version even remotely close to the current timeline (which isn't close at all) mounts ECM. It is not ubiquitous.

ReXspec, on 30 May 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

You're mixing up variants...

What are you talking about? The Black Knight is the Black Knight is the Black Knight. It's an SLDF era chassis and NO canon variants mount ballistic hardpoints.

ReXspec, on 30 May 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

This runs off the assumption that I've ONLY played Mechwarrior 4 and that I'm basing my arguments off of my experience in Mechwarrior 4 (which is completely false).

Because the only BT medium that has ever claimed the Black Knight to be a blend of IS and Clan tech, as far as I recall, is MW4. My assumption was pretty spot on, I reckon.

ReXspec, on 30 May 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

Did I say my experience with Mechwarrior 4 was the end-all of the arguments against the Chassis? I don't f*cking think so.

No, you just tried to claim that despite all the information in the Sarna link you tried to use to back you up, the Black Knight exists as represented in MW4. The image you used was the Black Knight as it appears in MW4, not TT. Again, I think my assumption was pretty much spot on.

ReXspec, on 30 May 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

Don't try to prattle off your limited experience in MWO. You will also fail.

The Black Knight is in MWO? Wow. Can you link to the stats? Maybe provide a screenshot? Unless what you meant to type was "limited experience in Battletech", which by any measure I've proven is greater than yours.

Dude, give it up. You got were proved incorrect. Take it with grace and move on.

Edited by Harathan, 30 May 2014 - 08:51 PM.

[ReXspec]

Harathan, on 30 May 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

What are you talking about? The Black Knight is the Black Knight is the Black Knight. It's an SLDF era chassis and NO canon variants mount ballistic hardpoints.

Wrong... wrong... wrong...

The BL-9-KNT was supposed to be the one portrayed in MW4. While it didn't mount ballistics, it was capable of mounting them. The wiki doesn't mention that bit of errata from the tech manuals.

Harathan, on 30 May 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

Because the only BT medium that has ever claimed the Black Knight to be a blend of IS and Clan tech, as far as I recall, is MW4. My assumption was pretty spot on, I reckon.

I don't know what recollection you're going off of, skippy because you missed a pretty important bit of Errata. You may want to look that up...

And no... sorry. Your assumptions were dead wrong. But that's the thing about ASSumptions. They tend to make an ass out of the person making them.

Harathan, on 30 May 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

No, you just tried to claim that despite all the information in the Sarna link you tried to use to back you up, the Black Knight exists as represented in MW4. The image you used was the Black Knight as it appears in MW4, not TT.

One, the image I referred to was not indicative of the source image. I chose that image because that design looks cool.

Two, again, wrong. Refer to the tech manual, genius. Or the RPG manual. I know my information is right, but I'm not gonna do your research for you.

Harathan, on 30 May 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

The Black Knight is in MWO? Wow. Can you link to the stats? Maybe provide a screenshot?

Pull your head out of your a*s, skippy. I was referring to your comment that was comparing the Awesome's performance with the Black Knight's performance. The Black Knight is not even in game yet and you're assuming it will perform like an Awesome when that is clearly NOT the case. Don't be obtuse.

Harathan, on 30 May 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

Dude, give it up. You got were proved incorrect. Take it with grace and move on.

Making false assumptions and conducting your argument in an asinine manner doesn't prove anything, skippy. I've been aggressive, but kept a rather cool head and offered counter-rebuttals to your asinine ones. Now it's your turn to wipe the sh*t from your eyes and stop with the assumptions.

[Escef]

ReXspec, on 30 May 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:

Wrong... wrong... wrong...

Harathan, by and large, is correct. ReX, all you are doing is making yourself look bad. If it's that important to you to look like a dipstick, hey, cool. Otherwise, I might suggest you stop repeatedly doubling down on being wrong, because people are just gonna call you on it, and you're gonna lose.

[ReXspec]

Escef, on 30 May 2014 - 09:39 PM, said:

Harathan, by and large, is correct. ReX, all you are doing is making yourself look bad. If it's that important to you to look like a dipstick, hey, cool. Otherwise, I might suggest you stop repeatedly doubling down on being wrong, because people are just gonna call you on it, and you're gonna lose.

Look, if it's his prerogative to overlook tech manual errata to be an ass to me, that's fine, but I'm not out to be "right" on the internet for the sake of some sort of d*ck-waving contest. I know my info is correct, but I wasn't being the ass that repeats "I'M RIGHT" until I'm blue in the face. I directed him to a source he could research for himself and I gave as well as I received as far as insults go. If I can inform him, then I'm happy with that, but I won't take insults lying down. If that makes me look like a "dipstick" to want to inform people then so be it.

But I believe the only "dipstick" here is the one who is riding to the defense of another--in white, shining armor.

Edited by ReXspec, 30 May 2014 - 09:54 PM.

[Escef]

ReXspec, on 30 May 2014 - 09:48 PM, said:

Look, if it's his prerogative to overlook tech manual errata to be an ass to me...

Please provide a link to this errata.

Every canon Black Knight mounts nothing but energy weapons. Period. Statement ends. As per canon rules, yes, you can force it to carry a ballistic or missile weapon. But that requires a lot of time and a good technician. Table top Battletech does NOT use a hardpoint system. MWO's hardpoint system is based on canon mech variants, and, as previously mentioned, none of them use non-energy weapons (unless you want to count the BL-9-KNT's, Ian's, or Ross's hatchets). Two of these mechs use Clan tech equipment, the BLK-NT-4D and BLK-NT-5H, which come out in 3127 and 3138 respectively. Note that neither of those dates are even close to the current date in the timeline in MWO (3050).

So, in short, the Black Knight is not fast, few are mixed tech (and those that are happen to be timeline inappropriate), there are no timeline appropriate versions that carry an ECM, and given the way PGI does hardpoints in MWO there is a ZERO PERCENT CHANCE OF BALLISTICS.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Black_Knight
http://www.masteruni...o=&FactionAuto=

[ReXspec]

Escef, on 30 May 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

Please provide a link to this errata.

Every canon Black Knight mounts nothing but energy weapons. Period. Statement ends. As per canon rules, yes, you can force it to carry a ballistic or missile weapon. But that requires a lot of time and a good technician.

You answered your own question and found the errata I was referring to: There is no forcing it. It is possible. I've done it a few times myself in TT, the RPG, and MW4. I'm positive others have done it as well.

Escef, on 30 May 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

Table top Battletech does NOT use a hardpoint system. MWO's hardpoint system is based on canon mech variants, and, as previously mentioned, none of them use non-energy weapons (unless you want to count the BL-9-KNT's, Ian's, or Ross's hatchets). Two of these mechs use Clan tech equipment, the BLK-NT-4D and BLK-NT-5H, which come out in 3127 and 3138 respectively. Note that neither of those dates are even close to the current date in the timeline in MWO (3050).

Again, you answered your own question.

As for the timeline, I never said the Black Knight would be released any time soon. I just said (along with many others) that I'd like to see it released.

Being that P.G.I.'s timetable and canon of the Mechwarrior Universe has been apocryphal, I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happened.

Escef, on 30 May 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

So, in short, the Black Knight is not fast...

Speed is relative to the Chassis and the weight class. In it's primary configurations it is goes at an average/high speed for a heavy, but is significantly faster then an assault such as the Awesome and can be optimized to go even faster without cutting some other capabilities of the 'mech.

Escef, on 30 May 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

few are mixed tech (and those that are happen to be timeline inappropriate), there are no timeline appropriate versions that carry an ECM,

Again, the timeline has been apocryphal. Even if what you say turns out to be true as far as variant releases go, it still wouldn't surprise me to see later variants of the same 'mech.

Escef, on 30 May 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

and given the way PGI does hardpoints in MWO there is a ZERO PERCENT CHANCE OF BALLISTICS.

-sigh-...

The decisions they will make as far as designing the Black Knight chassis goes have yet to be seen. Let's try not to make predictions for the devs, shall we?

Edited by ReXspec, 31 May 2014 - 12:09 AM.

[Escef]

ReXspec, on 30 May 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

You answered your own question and found the errata I was referring to:...

You don't know what "errata" means, do you?

[MadDrac]

QUADS

[Harathan]

Escef, on 31 May 2014 - 02:23 AM, said:

You don't know what "errata" means, do you?

That's hardly surprising, he doesn't know what hypocrisy means either.

Edited by Harathan, 31 May 2014 - 10:53 AM.

[ReXspec]

Escef, on 31 May 2014 - 02:23 AM, said:

You don't know what "errata" means, do you?

er·ra·tum

iˈrätəm,-ˈrā-,-ˈrat-/

noun
plural noun: errata
1. an error in printing or writing.

2. a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal.

In the case of the Black Knight, this specific errata is known as an "errata ex omissionis," which means an "error of omission." This simply means the author has created an exception to a rule or guideline by failing to mention whether something can or cannot be done.

Harathan, on 31 May 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

That's hardly surprising, he doesn't know what hypocrisy means either.

And calling me a hypocrite without citing my supposed hypocrisy is fallacious, to say the very least.

Edited by ReXspec, 31 May 2014 - 01:37 PM.

[Escef]

ReXspec, on 31 May 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

er·ra·tum

iˈrätəm,-ˈrā-,-ˈrat-/

noun
plural noun: errata
1. an error in printing or writing.

2. a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal.

In the case of the Black Knight, this specific errata is known as an "errata ex omissionis," which means an "error of omission." This simply means the author has created an exception to a rule or guideline by failing to mention whether something can or cannot be done.

There was no writing or printing error. And there was no list of corrected errors. The publication of rules allowing the customization of mechs is not errata.

[ReXspec]

Escef, on 31 May 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

There was no writing or printing error. And there was no list of corrected errors. The publication of rules allowing the customization of mechs is not errata.

-facepalm-

Of course there isn't a writing or printing error because elaboration on the Black Knight's load-out capabilities was not put in the tech manual in the first place!

That is the point! Hence the term, "errata ex omissionis" ("error of omission").

That implies the author did not intentionally leave the capabilities of what the Black Knight can load onto itself vague. It just is because it's inherent to the game's rules. As we both know, there is no hardpoint system in Mechwarrior. Which leaves what the Black Knight can equip open to interpretation (save for electronics and internal upgrades, which are pretty cut-and-dry).

Edited by ReXspec, 31 May 2014 - 03:49 PM.

[Escef]

ReXspec, on 31 May 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

-facepalm-

Of course there isn't a writing or printing error because elaboration on the Black Knight's load-out capabilities was not put in the tech manual in the first place!

That is the point! Hence the term, "errata ex omissionis" ("error of omission").

That implies the author did not intentionally leave the capabilities of what the Black Knight can load onto itself vague. It just is because it's inherent to the game's rules. As we both know, there is no hardpoint system in Mechwarrior. Which leaves what the Black Knight can equip open to interpretation (save for electronics and internal upgrades, which are pretty cut-and-dry).

By your standards the Black Knight's load out capabilities are identical to any other 75 ton mechs', and every mech EVER PRINTED has "errata ex omissionis" issues.

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 06 June 2014 - 02:29 PM.
Unconstructive

[Vanguard319]

I already have my Grand Dragon (Flame has the engine limit and hardpoints to emulate it.) I don't see us getting the Marauder or Warhammer, so I'll ask for the next best thing:

Nightstar, Thug, and Grasshopper.

As for IS omnis, I really want a Sunder.

Edited by Vanguard319, 31 May 2014 - 05:43 PM.

[ReXspec]

Escef, on 31 May 2014 - 04:29 PM, said:

Holy. S***. You're an idiot...

So you've resorted to calling names, huh? That's fine, but I will answer you.

Escef, on 31 May 2014 - 04:29 PM, said:

...By your standards the Black Knight's load out capabilities are identical to any other 75 ton mechs', and every mech EVER PRINTED has "errata ex omissionis" issues.

That is kind of oversimplifying it, but basically, yes. Especially when you start diving into the class "A" through "F" (I think they're called) re-fit rules.

Edited by ReXspec, 31 May 2014 - 08:00 PM.

[ManDaisy]

I want the 60 ton Champion... I demand to know why that isn't on the list.

[Escef]

ReXspec, on 31 May 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

That is kind of oversimplifying it, but basically, yes.

And that's why I call you a serat, your standard is useless.

EDIT: To further clarify, you set a standard for what constitutes "errata ex omissionis" that no canon mech can avoid, simply because they don't mention that you can do crazythings with optional rules. If we were to apply your standards to biology, my body commits "errata ex omissionis" by not having bleach in it. That is to say, it isn't there because IT DOESN'T BELONG THERE! You don't put campaign rules (such as repair and customization) in the non-campaign rules material. It isn't being omitted as an error, it is being omitted to maintain correctness. Tell you what, bust out the owner's manual for your car and tell me if it says you can wrap your lunch in aluminum foil and tuck it in an out of the way part of the engine compartment to cook. By your standards, NOT including that in the owner's manual is an error, and an example of "errata ex omissionis". [redacted]

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 06 June 2014 - 02:33 PM.
Language and unconstructive

[ReXspec]

Escef, on 31 May 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

And that's why I call you an idiot, your standard is useless.

I wonder when you will figure out that name-calling doesn't help anything? Ah well... in any case,

Escef, on 31 May 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

EDIT: To further clarify, you set a standard for what constitutes "errata ex omissionis" that no canon mech can avoid, simply because they don't mention that you can do crazy s*** with optional rules.

If you want further context to my statement, let me enlighten you and push this discussion back on track: In actuality, I said nothing about the supposed "standards" that P.G.I. should conform to. I simply implied what they could do with the 'mech capabilities. But when you consider that TT and M.W.O. have different mechanics in that regard, you don't have much to go off of because the rules of a 'mechs load-out capabilities (except for internal upgrades) simply are not there!

Escef, on 31 May 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

If we were to apply your standards to biology, my body commits "errata ex omissionis" by not having bleach in it. That is to say, it isn't there because IT DOESN'T BELONG THERE!

Obtuse comparison. Not to mention this is a borderline non-sequitr. Your body and mechwarrior mechanics are two completely different systems. Unless you are implying that the TT mechanics of load-out re-fits "do not belong" in M.W.O. Which is debatable.

Escef, on 31 May 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

You don't put campaign rules (such as repair and customization) in the non-campaign rules material. It isn't being omitted as an error, it is being omitted to maintain correctness.

That doesn't matter if you're trying to bring different 'mechs into M.W.O. Then you have to translate one rule-set into another. And it makes it more difficult because, again, those rules do not exist in one system, but exist in another.

Escef, on 31 May 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

Tell you what, bust out the owner's manual for your car and tell me if it says you can wrap your lunch in aluminum foil and tuck it in an out of the way part of the engine compartment to cook. By your standards, NOT including that in the owner's manual is an error, and an example of "errata ex omissionis". That's f***ing stupid.

Refer to the above statements... your lack of understanding and frequent tendency to go back to name-calling is very frustrating.

[Escef]

Aaaannd blocked.

[ManDaisy]

Escef just so you know I think you are wrong. Rexspec makes some very good points.

Edited by ManDaisy, 01 June 2014 - 08:40 PM.