675 replies to this topic

[Mister Blastman]

Almond Brown, on 15 January 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

The short sightedness of that post is brutal. In order to get what you want, something has to get Sold. The Dev team and their families cannot live on Skittles and or your hatred, although surely soul sustaining for yourself.

The last time I went to the store (which was yesterday) and I bought something, I bought it because it was a finished product that worked as advertised. I didn't buy it because I felt sorry for the company making it and needed a charitable donation to continue trying to figure out how to finish the product.

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 February 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

I don't, It wasn't D&D anymore. Neverwinter online used 4.0 for its rules and my Fighters could not have ranged weapons. I have used Long bows and crossbows with every fighter since I first made Anton Shiningstar! My thieves used Short bows or slings. Neverwinter limited me to 2 daggers instead of a long sword dagger combo.

Oh, don't confuse a computer game with D&D4. Fighters could use Bows, of course, but if you really wanted to be a dedicated archer, you picked a class like the Ranger. Ranger, Rogue, Fighter, Warlord, they are all "martial"m, in a way they are all Fighters, each with a differing focus. Just because in 2E or 3E you would have picked Fighter to make an Archer doesn't mean you have to do so in 4E. It's not like "Fighter" is an ingame job description. You're a mercenary, soldier, guard, bodyguard, hired thug or whatever.

UNless you played it that way. "Hi, I am Bob, and i am a LEvel 7 Fighter / Level 2 Ranger. I just did a bit rangering for Two-Weapon FIghting and the extra skill points." "Hi Bob, nice to see you. I am Tim, Level 8 Wizard. And this is my toad, that I picked for the extra hit points, it's mostly useless otherwise as a familiar."

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 February 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

Oh, don't confuse a computer game with D&D4. Fighters could use Bows, of course, but if you really wanted to be a dedicated archer, you picked a class like the Ranger. Ranger, Rogue, Fighter, Warlord, they are all "martial"m, in a way they are all Fighters, each with a differing focus. Just because in 2E or 3E you would have picked Fighter to make an Archer doesn't mean you have to do so in 4E. It's not like "Fighter" is an ingame job description. You're a mercenary, soldier, guard, bodyguard, hired thug or whatever. UNless you played it that way. "Hi, I am Bob, and i am a LEvel 7 Fighter / Level 2 Ranger. I just did a bit rangering for Two-Weapon FIghting and the extra skill points." "Hi Bob, nice to see you. I am Tim, Level 8 Wizard. And this is my toad, that I picked for the extra hit points, it's mostly useless otherwise as a familiar."

I knew players like that!

Cimarb, on 04 February 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

But that was the whole reason I fell in love with the Dire Wolf!!!! How dare they change it...?

A lot of TT Players felt the same way. My table voted to ignore the change, but at official events I had to enforce it, to much grumbling.

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 February 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

I knew players like that!

A lot of TT Players felt the same way. My table voted to ignore the change, but at official events I had to enforce it, to much grumbling.

I learned 99% of the worlds mythology and pantheons through my time in D&D. Well spent nerd time, IMO.

Regarding the TT rules changes, I can live with them if they are universal. I would just use something else with the targeting computer, but it should have been a lesser bonus or something, as it makes no sense to have a targeting computer not work with a laser that gets a hit bonus from having a shorter beam duration. I can't stand arbitrary rules, lol....

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 04 February 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

That makes more sense, though I still disagree. Look at it this way: a class of autocannon describes a bunch of different manufacturers that may perform slightly differently in RoF and caliber, but do roughly the same amount of armor damage in a certain time period. If we assume that is truth, then you can make 4-5 (or more) different manufacturer versions for every single autocannon, greatly diversifying the number of choices for every player using them while also giving a balancing factor across the board. If we keep with the existing autocannon balance, though, every one of the weapons will do AC20 damage, but to different ranges based upon rate of fire alone, which is actually the exact opposite of how it should be, as a quicker firing weapon should have a SHORTER range, not longer.

technically they are not all doing ac20 damage, its a range of 25-15 ish, That said all of the weapons also still are providing quite abit of versatility in rolls. It sounds like your just trying to make the weapons outright better based off of weight/size instead of making them all unique and fullfilling of different roles.

[Craig Steele]

Cimarb, on 04 February 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

That makes more sense, though I still disagree. Look at it this way: a class of autocannon describes a bunch of different manufacturers that may perform slightly differently in RoF and caliber, but do roughly the same amount of armor damage in a certain time period. If we assume that is truth, then you can make 4-5 (or more) different manufacturer versions for every single autocannon, greatly diversifying the number of choices for every player using them while also giving a balancing factor across the board. If we keep with the existing autocannon balance, though, every one of the weapons will do AC20 damage, but to different ranges based upon rate of fire alone, which is actually the exact opposite of how it should be, as a quicker firing weapon should have a SHORTER range, not longer.


Then find a sourcebook and screenshot it to prove me wrong - I welcome it! If it contradicts what Sarna said, I will be happy to adjust my stance, as I already said. Until then, you are just blowing smoke and wasting everyone's time.

Regarding the ammo amounts, you are correct that they all have roughly the same amount of damage potential out of a ton of ammo. The difference depends on how long it takes to get that much damage out of them. For instance, an AC/2 has a damage potential of 90 damage (45 ammo/ton times 2 damage per turn). The AC/20 has basically the same amount of damage potential at 100 (5 ammo/ton times 20 damage per turn). Now look at the time it would take to deliver that damage. Since in TT you can only fire an individual weapon once per turn, it would take you five turns, or 50 seconds, to deliver all of your damage potential with the AC/20, while the AC/2 would take a whopping 450 seconds (or 7.5 minutes) to deliver the same amount of damage potential with it. Do you see the difference now?

Edit: use my guff?....

stjobe, on 04 February 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

But the references to the source material listed on every Sarna page does.

For ACs being "loosely grouped according to their damage versus armor", the reference is Tech Manual, page 207.


In TT, an AC/2 did 2 damage per 10 seconds (2 DP10S), in MWO it does 38.5 DP10S.
In TT, an AC/5 did 5 DP10S, in MWO it does 33.3 DP10S.
In TT, an AC/10 did 10 DP10S, in MWO it does 40 DP10S.
In TT, an AC/20 did 20 DP10S, in MWO it does 50 DP10S.

See the difference?
TT: 2 - 5 - 10 - 20
MWO: 38.5 - 33.3 - 40 - 50

For MWO to have the same AC progression as TT, it would have to have these values:
AC/2: 5 DP10S
AC/5: 12.5 DP10S
AC/10: 25 DP10S
AC/20 50 DP10S

Or, starting from the other end:
AC/2: 38.5 DP10S
AC/5: 96.25 DP10S
AC/10: 192.5 DP10S
AC/20: 385 DP10S(!)

It's kind of easy to see that the AC/2 is seriously overpowered compared to what it was in TT, and the other values are also all over the place - but the point is, the ACs are all roughly equally powerful and does not have a good progression from AC/2 to AC/20.

You guys seem to be barking up the wrong tree.

It was submitted in one of the historical threads that this premise was in line with Canon.

I can't find a canon source providing a total definition of every autocannon.

The Sarna source (is good) but is not Canon.

If you want to base your argument of what some unnamed fan boy thought sounded OK knock yourself out. I just don't think it should be quoted as Canon to bolster the point.

I don't really understand why you guys felt the need to reiterate my point about the damage output, I clearly stated it was the same damage over a longer time (and range)

Ammunition takes up space in a mech. Given canon has mechs of similar size (within classes) we can safely assume magazines will be equally propotioned. Lets take AC20 as an example for where I am going here. Manufacturer calibres are between 150mm and 203mm. Lets take the 185mm Chemjet round. 18.5cm is the diameter of the projectile. Five physical rounds with linkages would therefore be (say) 1 meter in length and weigh one ton.

A mech is 12 meters tall, 4/5m wide and 3m deep. The magazines fit in this.

What does this all mean. Well I think the Canon sources hint that autocannons fire in bursts, single shot shells for that tonnage defy the conventional masses we know today and the cubic space available for a magazine appears to be significantly more than required for one shot per damage application.

Having said all that, this argument holds just as true for Guass Rifles which canon states "fires a slug...." To me a slug is a smaller projectile meaning the 8 shots from one ton of ammunition have much small capacity requirement than an AC. A Guass would therefore also be like a large calibre machine gun. Your much relied upon Sarna source has a picture of a Guass rifle showing a long flexible ammunition feed and what appears to be a slug of ammunition alongside which is consistent with the "small shell firing in bursts" manta.

Will you be advocating the same prinicipals for Guass weapons?

But then again, that's just my deduction.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 04 February 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

technically they are not all doing ac20 damage, its a range of 25-15 ish, That said all of the weapons also still are providing quite abit of versatility in rolls. It sounds like your just trying to make the weapons outright better based off of weight/size instead of making them all unique and fullfilling of different roles.

If you round, which is required if you are classifying different weapons into categories, The actual range is 16.65-25.00, and 16.65 (AC/5) rounds up to 20, not down to 10 (the next available category). 25 would round down to 20, since there is no higher category. That is pretty basic math, actually.

Now, you could halve those numbers, and in that case you have 8.35 (AC/5), which would round up to 10, not down to 5, and 12.5 (AC/20) would round down to 10, not 20. Again, pretty basic math, and you would then have all autocannons being AC/10 by definition. Regardless, all four autocannons are the same classification.

You can have the exact same versatility in rolls if you normalized the autocannons. You would still have a long range harasser (AC/2), a medium range pummeler (AC/5 and /10), and a short range pounder (AC/20). On top of that, you could then have different rates of fire for every class of autocannon depending on manufacturer, such as the BFG AC/20 that fires 1-2 shells at a time as well as the gatling gun version that fires 10-20 shells in the same period of time.

In regards to your "why is one outright better based off of weight/size", are you serious? First, being "better" would be dependent on purpose. An AC/20 will never be "better" than an AC/2 if you are at 1000m or more, for instance. Second, why are you ok with something that weighs only 6 tons and takes a single crit slot doing as much DPS as a weapon that weighs over twice as much and takes up TEN TIMES the space, yet has half the range??? (SIDENOTE: I will actually answer that question. You are ok with it because it doesn't seem like as much damage because it is spread over the target instead of being 20 points of FLD. That is another discussion though, and I'm sure you will just say "jump jets" anyways).

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

You guys seem to be barking up the wrong tree.

It was submitted in one of the historical threads that this premise was in line with Canon.

Link to this historical thread? What premise are you talking about, btw?

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

I can't find a canon source providing a total definition of every autocannon.

The Sarna source (is good) but is not Canon.

If you want to base your argument of what some unnamed fan boy thought sounded OK knock yourself out. I just don't think it should be quoted as Canon to bolster the point.

So, you can't find a canon source to back your own argument up, but a website resource that has TONS of documentation and references isn't good enough for my argument? That's like saying Webster's dictionary isn't "canon" for the English language because they didn't create the words themselves...

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

I don't really understand why you guys felt the need to reiterate my point about the damage output, I clearly stated it was the same damage over a longer time (and range)

Ammunition takes up space in a mech. Given canon has mechs of similar size (within classes) we can safely assume magazines will be equally propotioned. Lets take AC20 as an example for where I am going here. Manufacturer calibres are between 150mm and 203mm. Lets take the 185mm Chemjet round. 18.5cm is the diameter of the projectile. Five physical rounds with linkages would therefore be (say) 1 meter in length and weigh one ton.

A mech is 12 meters tall, 4/5m wide and 3m deep. The magazines fit in this.

What does this all mean. Well I think the Canon sources hint that autocannons fire in bursts, single shot shells for that tonnage defy the conventional masses we know today and the cubic space available for a magazine appears to be significantly more than required for one shot per damage application.

I am not about to argue that everything makes sense technologically. We have a pilot sitting on top of a fusion reactor and shooting lazer beams from 100 ton robots. It is Sci-Fi, after all.

I definitely agree that autocannons should fire in bursts - 100% with you there. A weapon should also do more damage at shorter ranges, regardless of caliber or rate of fire.

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

Having said all that, this argument holds just as true for Guass Rifles which canon states "fires a slug...." To me a slug is a smaller projectile meaning the 8 shots from one ton of ammunition have much small capacity requirement than an AC. A Guass would therefore also be like a large calibre machine gun. Your much relied upon Sarna source has a picture of a Guass rifle showing a long flexible ammunition feed and what appears to be a slug of ammunition alongside which is consistent with the "small shell firing in bursts" manta.

Will you be advocating the same prinicipals for Guass weapons?

But then again, that's just my deduction.

I'm not going to base anything on a single picture, though I will go ahead and concede that it was a picture used to describe the weapon so it should be considered. It is a really bad picture, but the reason it fires a single slug is because it is not using propellant nor explosive. Whether it is a chain of ammo or however it is loaded, the weapon fires the slug by charging up first. That is what limits its rate of fire. I have no problem with a small niche of weapons (namely Gauss) doing front loaded damage (FLD), so I think the charging mechanism balances that weapon just fine. No need to change it any further.

[Craig Steele]

Cimarb, on 04 February 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

So, you can't find a canon source to back your own argument up, but a website resource that has TONS of documentation and references isn't good enough for my argument? That's like saying Webster's dictionary isn't "canon" for the English language because they didn't create the words themselves...


I am not about to argue that everything makes sense technologically. We have a pilot sitting on top of a fusion reactor and shooting lazer beams from 100 ton robots. It is Sci-Fi, after all.

I definitely agree that autocannons should fire in bursts - 100% with you there. A weapon should also do more damage at shorter ranges, regardless of caliber or rate of fire.


I'm not going to base anything on a single picture, though I will go ahead and concede that it was a picture used to describe the weapon so it should be considered. It is a really bad picture, but the reason it fires a single slug is because it is not using propellant nor explosive. Whether it is a chain of ammo or however it is loaded, the weapon fires the slug by charging up first. That is what limits its rate of fire. I have no problem with a small niche of weapons (namely Gauss) doing front loaded damage (FLD), so I think the charging mechanism balances that weapon just fine. No need to change it any further.

LOL, you're arguing for the sake of arguing or not reading what I said is my deduction.

A) The premise of some of these posts is that Canon says the AC is a burst weapon, thus (present argument on DPS for AC). There is no canon to support that. That is my point. End, period. If you can show me the canon that does happy to reconsider. Sarna is not Canon. Sarna is fan boy fiction supported by snippets of canon.I don't have to find a canon source, my point is there isn't one. So yes, if I cannot find the word I am looking for in Websters than I tend to believe it's not an english word, but I can wait for a revised edition too.

B ) Without going back over every post, some people here are arguing the technology and physics (maybe not you personally though granted). I think the physics of shell size and cubic space of magazines suggest the "burst" theory.

C) I am not saying they should, I am saying that there is some canon to suggest they do (and in particular the HV Crusher I think it is of the Hertzer from the 3026 TR is definitive on one manufacturers product). That snippet by the way talks about a 10 shell burst of high velocity 150mm shells. The problem is the calibre utilised is way below other conventions of the day (AC class = cm, so AC was 20mm, AC20 = 200mm). Also that HV ammo is a subsequent seperate loadout. So its kinda blurry. That is the only canon thats comes close to the 'burst" theory and it reads as if this is the exception, not the norm, ie, different to other AC's.

D) This one got up my goat so to speak. I think if you're going to adopt an argument then embrace it. Guass is AC in reverse. The propellant is within the weapon not the munition but it is essentially the same theory (being projecting a solid core projectile into a target). If you are going to say that FLD is fine for some weapons regardless of the "canon source" then you are invalidating your argument on AC, as other people will simply say I choose AC to be the weapon I disregard. There is nothing to say the magnetic accelerator cannot have a rapid CD, indeed the energy travels down the barrel through several capacitators (thus imbuing it with velocity) so it's entirely plausible the "first" capacitor is recharging as the energy passes to the second and the third and so forth. Thus Guass can be theorised as a rapid fire 'burst' weapon. That the munitions depicted are small and the feed linkage lengthy in that picture suggests this is actually the case.

My original point was solely that Sarna was not canon, not that I dispute the arguments presented. And that if people quote Sarna as Canon than it's no stronger an argument than quoting Wikipedia.

Edited by Craig Steele, 04 February 2014 - 06:04 PM.

[Cimarb]

You are making little sense, so that may be the problem.

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

A) The premise of some of these posts is that Canon says the AC is a burst weapon, thus (present argument on DPS for AC). There is no canon to support that. That is my point. End, period. If you can show me the canon that does happy to reconsider. Sarna is not Canon. Sarna is fan boy fiction supported by snippets of canon.I don't have to find a canon source, my point is there isn't one. So yes, if I cannot find the word I am looking for in Websters than I tend to believe it's not an english word, but I can wait for a revised edition too.

What is canon? Are you saying that the sourcebooks are canon? How about the rulebooks? Maybe the novels? Ok, if you answered "yes" to those, and I assume you did, then Sarna is a compilation of those canon sources, and therefore the data is canon (as long as it is copied correctly, of course). Just because it is compiled by someone else does not invalidate it, unless you can point out where the compilation is inaccurate. As I said, post a screenshot of the source you have to invalidate Sarna, and I will concede the point. Don't have that proof? Then stop arguing it, because you are wrong. You DO have to find a canon source to prove another one is wrong - that is how it works. I DID find the word in Webster's, so unless you find a different definition for that word in a different dictionary, mine is truth.

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

B ) Without going back over every post, some people here are arguing the technology and physics (maybe not you personally though granted). I think the physics of shell size and cubic space of magazines suggest the "burst" theory.

I completely agree, though you argued against the burst theory in your first paragraph, didn't you? This may be where you are confusing me.

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

C) I am not saying they should, I am saying that there is some canon to suggest they do (and in particular the HV Crusher I think it is of the Hertzer from the 3026 TR is definitive on one manufacturers product). That snippet by the way talks about a 10 shell burst of high velocity 150mm shells. The problem is the calibre utilised is way below other conventions of the day (AC class = cm, so AC was 20mm, AC20 = 200mm). Also that HV ammo is a subsequent seperate loadout. So its kinda blurry. That is the only canon thats comes close to the 'burst" theory and it reads as if this is the exception, not the norm, ie, different to other AC's.

Where do you get that AC class = cm? Can you provide your source, because mine disagrees on what classifies the autocannon. Again, though, you seem to be against the burst theory in this paragraph, which confuses me again.

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

D) This one got up my goat so to speak. I think if you're going to adopt an argument then embrace it. Guass is AC in reverse. The propellant is within the weapon not the munition but it is essentially the same theory (being projecting a solid core projectile into a target). If you are going to say that FLD is fine for some weapons regardless of the "canon source" then you are invalidating your argument on AC, as other people will simply say I choose AC to be the weapon I disregard. There is nothing to say the magnetic accelerator cannot have a rapid CD, indeed the energy travels down the barrel through several capacitators (thus imbuing it with velocity) so it's entirely plausible the "first" capacitor is recharging as the energy passes to the second and the third and so forth. Thus Guass can be theorised as a rapid fire 'burst' weapon. That the munitions depicted are small and the feed linkage lengthy in that picture suggests this is actually the case.

There is no propellant in a Gauss cannon. It does not use propellant or explosive to fire the round, instead using magnets, as you mention later in your paragraph.

Second, Gauss is described every time, consistently, as a large metal slug that slams into the target and wedges in actuators, sheers off limbs, etc. The descriptions I am referring to are from the novels specifically in this case, btw. You are actually the first person, in all of the arguing that I have done over this topic in the last six or so months, that has even mentioned the Gauss firing anything other than a large metal slug.

While you could technically be correct about the weapon firing rapidly and charging the first capacitor while the last one is finishing, I am having enough trouble proposing the autocannon burst changes to even bother trying to do the same with the Gauss. I am not against it being burst as well, but I'm not going to fight for that one.

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

My original point was solely that Sarna was not canon, not that I dispute the arguments presented. And that if people quote Sarna as Canon than it's no stronger an argument than quoting Wikipedia.

As long as the data in Sarna/Wikipedia is properly referenced and documented, and the source is canon, then that makes the data in Sarna/Wikipedia canon. Likewise, if I post information on this forum that is directly from a novel or sourcebook, that information is still canon, regardless of my own "canon status". Repeating true information does not make that information any less true.

Edited by Cimarb, 04 February 2014 - 08:56 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Cimarb, on 04 February 2014 - 08:55 PM, said:

You are making little sense, so that may be the problem.


What is canon? Are you saying that the sourcebooks are canon? How about the rulebooks? Maybe the novels? Ok, if you answered "yes" to those, and I assume you did, then Sarna is a compilation of those canon sources, and therefore the data is canon (as long as it is copied correctly, of course). Just because it is compiled by someone else does not invalidate it, unless you can point out where the compilation is inaccurate. As I said, post a screenshot of the source you have to invalidate Sarna, and I will concede the point. Don't have that proof? Then stop arguing it, because you are wrong. You DO have to find a canon source to prove another one is wrong - that is how it works. I DID find the word in Webster's, so unless you find a different definition for that word in a different dictionary, mine is truth.


I completely agree, though you argued against the burst theory in your first paragraph, didn't you? This may be where you are confusing me.


Where do you get that AC class = cm? Can you provide your source, because mine disagrees on what classifies the autocannon. Again, though, you seem to be against the burst theory in this paragraph, which confuses me again.


There is no propellant in a Gauss cannon. It does not use propellant or explosive to fire the round, instead using magnets, as you mention later in your paragraph.

Second, Gauss is described every time, consistently, as a large metal slug that slams into the target and wedges in actuators, sheers off limbs, etc. The descriptions I am referring to are from the novels specifically in this case, btw. You are actually the first person, in all of the arguing that I have done over this topic in the last six or so months, that has even mentioned the Gauss firing anything other than a large metal slug.

While you could technically be correct about the weapon firing rapidly and charging the first capacitor while the last one is finishing, I am having enough trouble proposing the autocannon burst changes to even bother trying to do the same with the Gauss. I am not against it being burst as well, but I'm not going to fight for that one.


As long as the data in Sarna/Wikipedia is properly referenced and documented, and the source is canon, then that makes the data in Sarna/Wikipedia canon. Likewise, if I post information on this forum that is directly from a novel or sourcebook, that information is still canon, regardless of my own "canon status". Repeating true information does not make that information any less true.

I'm guessing English is maybe not your first language so I'll try and reduce the volume.

a) There is no Canon to support that. No Source, No Rulebook (novels are not canon, same as the cartoon Somerset Strikers is not) You might have found the word, but it wasn't in Webster. If you have a canon source I am happy to change my view 180. I don't mind growing my understanding of the BT franchise at all.

b ) I think the physics and other suggestions of canon indicate it is more likely a burst weapon. This is my deduction.

c) Throughout rule and source books where canon refers to a weapon in a calibre it is around that formula (185mm Chem Jet for AC20 as an example). As I said, it appears to be a convention of the day by the writers.

d) I think I outlined my understanding of the Guass workings. Canon describes it as a metal slug, not a "large" metal slug. pg 216 3050 TR "is a slug of nickel ferrous metal". Pretty sure 30 smaller slugs in a burst can rip an arm off too (certainly happens in modern warfare with automatic fire), but perhaps not as romantically.

You found a definition in Wikipedia, not in Websters. If people are going to quote Sarna as "proof" of canon they need to understand that it is filled with contradictions to stuff published by the owners. Most recently I found out the Timberwolf's first deployment was pushed back 80 years in Sarna because it didn't suit someone else. Comparable crime, no. Evidence of flaws to canon source, absolutely.

You seem to be arguing from the viewpoint that I think you're wrong. I am not arguing that at all.

In journalism, they are supposed to actually check the sources for accuracy before they represent it as fact. Your last paragraph suggests you have not checked the source or the duplication so I think my point still stands.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 04 February 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

In regards to your "why is one outright better based off of weight/size", are you serious? First, being "better" would be dependent on purpose. An AC/20 will never be "better" than an AC/2 if you are at 1000m or more, for instance. Second, why are you ok with something that weighs only 6 tons and takes a single crit slot doing as much DPS as a weapon that weighs over twice as much and takes up TEN TIMES the space, yet has half the range??? (SIDENOTE: I will actually answer that question. You are ok with it because it doesn't seem like as much damage because it is spread over the target instead of being 20 points of FLD. That is another discussion though, and I'm sure you will just say "jump jets" anyways).
.

because dps requires you to stay on target, hence the risk/reward of the weapon being in place. You cant block while using it and need to stay facing the target where as the other weapons you can fire then turn.

[Frankdark]

Why are you arguint so???

In my Tech Readout there is written
AC20 is a Class representing only the damage the AC can do.
Projektiles can be 120mm and fire in a 5 shot burst or a 185 singelshot.
thats canon.

Gauss is 1/2 cubic Meter of Special Metallaloi per Shot
But the Magazines not only contain the Projektile, in one story was written that they have to replace the condensator after some shots to get full power out of it.
So the Magazine contains the Gauss Slugs and Replacement Condensators.
In the Magazin they are not Chareged that´s why they don´t explode.

==========

But Forget Canon,

Let´s look at the game we have no

AC10 is well balanced
AC20 is under DPS but with great pinpoint to compensate
AC2 and 5 are Overpowerd.
AC2 has Ammo and Heat Problems.
All Pinpoint weapons are to strong agains others.
Heat Balancing is broken
DHS in the Engine are to Effectiv against Std HS

[Craig Steele]

Frankdark, on 05 February 2014 - 12:48 AM, said:

Why are you arguint so???

In my Tech Readout there is written
AC20 is a Class representing only the damage the AC can do.
Projektiles can be 120mm and fire in a 5 shot burst or a 185 singelshot.
thats canon.

Gauss is 1/2 cubic Meter of Special Metallaloi per Shot
But the Magazines not only contain the Projektile, in one story was written that they have to replace the condensator after some shots to get full power out of it.
So the Magazine contains the Gauss Slugs and Replacement Condensators.
In the Magazin they are not Chareged that´s why they don´t explode.

==========

Can you please advise your source material, thanks

[Cimarb]

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

I'm guessing English is maybe not your first language so I'll try and reduce the volume.

First and only language, but thanks for the insult.

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

a) There is no Canon to support that. No Source, No Rulebook (novels are not canon, same as the cartoon Somerset Strikers is not) You might have found the word, but it wasn't in Webster. If you have a canon source I am happy to change my view 180. I don't mind growing my understanding of the BT franchise at all.

Please refer to http://bg.battletech...php?topic=586.0 regarding what is "canon". I don't want to give too much away before you read it, but novels ARE canon unless printed in Germany (with a notable exception for Mr Bills). Tons of info, but I have been reading it for too long already and need to finish this reply before it is completely irrelevant...

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

b ) I think the physics and other suggestions of canon indicate it is more likely a burst weapon. This is my deduction.

I completely agree. Autocannons, while having single-round-per-cooldown exceptions possible, should be burst-fire by default. We are in agreement on this from the looks of it.

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

c) Throughout rule and source books where canon refers to a weapon in a calibre it is around that formula (185mm Chem Jet for AC20 as an example). As I said, it appears to be a convention of the day by the writers.

I also agree with this now that I have looked at a few other fanboy sources, though I haven't actually saw any canon source that says it specifically. I know they need people to buy the sourcebooks to make money, but it sure would be nice if they made the rules available online somewhere...

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

d) I think I outlined my understanding of the Guass workings. Canon describes it as a metal slug, not a "large" metal slug. pg 216 3050 TR "is a slug of nickel ferrous metal". Pretty sure 30 smaller slugs in a burst can rip an arm off too (certainly happens in modern warfare with automatic fire), but perhaps not as romantically.

I have read a few examples of where revisions to certain descriptions have added or omitted phrases. For example, regarding the AC/20, in TRO:3039, the description on page 86 was "With two turret-mounted 185mm guns, the Demolisher is an intimidating machine. The titanic weapons use a popular propellant system that mixes two chemicals in suspension to propel a stream of huge shells at the luckless target", while TRO:3026 instead says, "The Demolisher is an efficient battle machine. It's two turret-mounted 185mm guns use a popular propellant system that mixes two chemicals in suspension to propel the huge shells out of the barrel."

Obviously, TPTB decided in the later books to specifically describe it as a burst-fire weapon to remove any doubt.

Now, the image that is shown for the Gauss could very well be along the same lines. When the artist made the image to begin with, it could have been a stock image that someone just assigned to the Gauss for lack of anything better, it could have been described to the artist as having a belt-fed system, or many other reasons. In the novels, though, it is consistently described as a large slug of metal fired one-at-a-time and lodging in actuators and such.

Craig Steele, on 04 February 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

You found a definition in Wikipedia, not in Websters. If people are going to quote Sarna as "proof" of canon they need to understand that it is filled with contradictions to stuff published by the owners. Most recently I found out the Timberwolf's first deployment was pushed back 80 years in Sarna because it didn't suit someone else. Comparable crime, no. Evidence of flaws to canon source, absolutely.

You seem to be arguing from the viewpoint that I think you're wrong. I am not arguing that at all.

In journalism, they are supposed to actually check the sources for accuracy before they represent it as fact. Your last paragraph suggests you have not checked the source or the duplication so I think my point still stands.

Even canon has contradictions, as I detailed above. Things change over decades, and that is true for an evolving game such as Battletech as well. Disregarding sources that are well documented, though, just because you don't agree with them (or do and just don't like them, I'm not sure which is the case for you), is not the way to handle it.

I check the facts as much as I can, but I am not above admitting when I am wrong or mistaken. I will defend what I say with proof wherever possible, and I wish I still had all my TROs just for that reason, actually, but I don't. Instead, I am using the only source I have available, and that is a compilation with references like Sarna.

Edited by Cimarb, 05 February 2014 - 06:36 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Varent, on 04 February 2014 - 11:38 PM, said:

because dps requires you to stay on target, hence the risk/reward of the weapon being in place. You cant block while using it and need to stay facing the target where as the other weapons you can fire then turn.

So players can have different ways to fight with their Giant robots? Gasp The Hel you say? I can have weapons that need to be kept on target, Taunting my enemy with my Brazen disregard of their return fire, Or I can be Willow swaying in the breeze making repetitive shots less likely to converge?

And we want to take away one of these basic styles why again?

[stjobe]

So, to lay the "canon" argument to rest, here's (part of) page 207 of the Tech Manual:



Please note that canon supports the arguments both for burst-fire autocannons ("gigantic machine guns"), and autocannons being grouped by damage output ("ACs are rated, based on their relative ballistic damage").

I'd also make a note that it agrees pretty well with what sarna says - because it's where sarna got its text from, as it also clearly notes in its references.

Edited by stjobe, 05 February 2014 - 09:01 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 05 February 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

So, to lay the "canon" argument to rest, here's page 207 of the Tech Manual:



Please note that canon supports the arguments both for burst-fire autocannons ("gigantic machine guns"), and autocannons being grouped by damage output ("ACs are rated, based on their relative ballistic damage")

Meaning both 95mm and 203mm Autocannons are in the universe and doing damage to Mechs by both High rates of fire and Heavy hitting Hammer blows With large heavy single shot (yet automatically loaded) Shells.

Cimarb, on 04 February 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

I learned 99% of the worlds mythology and pantheons through my time in D&D. Well spent nerd time, IMO.

Regarding the TT rules changes, I can live with them if they are universal. I would just use something else with the targeting computer, but it should have been a lesser bonus or something, as it makes no sense to have a targeting computer not work with a laser that gets a hit bonus from having a shorter beam duration. I can't stand arbitrary rules, lol....

Which was why my players laughed and said F That!

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 05 February 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

Meaning both 95mm and 203mm Autocannons are in the universe and doing damage to Mechs by both High rates of fire and Heavy hitting Hammer blows With large heavy single shot (yet automatically loaded) Shells.

While there is explicit reference to burst-fire ACs ("high-speed streams or bursts"), there's actually nothing to back your Big Hammer up in the Tech Manual. "While caliber and firing rate can vary greatly" isn't much of an argument for single-shot ACs, and AFAIK the only one that's even in question these days (since the ChemJet was shown to be burst-fire) is the one on the Cauldron-Born.

From a canon standpoint it looks pretty bleak for your Big Hammer, Joe.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 05 February 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

From a canon standpoint it looks pretty bleak for your Big Hammer, Joe.

That's what she said!

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 05 February 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

While there is explicit reference to burst-fire ACs ("high-speed streams or bursts"), there's actually nothing to back your Big Hammer up in the Tech Manual. "While caliber and firing rate can vary greatly" isn't much of an argument for single-shot ACs, and AFAIK the only one that's even in question these days (since the ChemJet was shown to be burst-fire) is the one on the Cauldron-Born.

From a canon standpoint it looks pretty bleak for your Big Hammer, Joe.

So long as a AC20 is listed as being a 203 mm round, I have my big hammer. Even if i have to bring the Tomodzuru Autocannon Type 20, which can strip one and a quarter tons of armor off an enemy 'Mech in a single blow.

A single blow is not a burst. and since the the fluff text you quoted used words like Most so a 30-90mm AC20 would have a huge burst of shells flying all over while the 203mm AC20 would be the One hit wonder weapon AC20s have felt like for decades.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 05 February 2014 - 09:32 AM.