Why do people hate/dislike Quad mechs?
#101
Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:11 AM
#102
Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:12 AM
#103
Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:19 AM
#104
Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:24 AM
Sorry, obligatory Oingo Boingo moment.
Edited by Gallowglas, 16 July 2012 - 09:03 AM.
#105
Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:28 AM
PissdOffChuchNorrisWithChainsaw, on 22 June 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:
There also seems to have been three legged mechs as well:
http://www.sarna.net...res_(BattleMech)
Well, turrets are another matter, and are a separate piece of equipment on 'mechs, quad or no. That being said, I can see a quad mech as being a "turret" on 4 legs, but that was not how the tabletop rules had them.
My main problem with quads is way less space to mount stuff. Easy to build a laser-heavy mech on... but hard to do with ballistic weapons. You lose about 12 crit spaces IIRC.
#106
Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:56 AM
Adrienne Vorton, on 22 June 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:
no Mech:
NO MECH:
MECH!!!
dont get me wrong, i like trans formers, in transformers but battletech is battletech
THIS! It's the law of nature, mechs have two legs.
#107
Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:57 AM
#108
Posted 16 July 2012 - 12:13 PM
You are posting the worst examples of "non-mechs" - there are fracking sweet looking quad mechs.
A "Destroyer" mech (not BT, but cool looking):
\
Another I'm not sure of, Scorpion I think?
Battletech trying to do an AT-AT, the Sirocco (a favorite of my chosen Successor State):
Then there is the "Great Turtle" which doesn't look horrible.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Great_Turtle
Most of the quads were added later and the designs look more like the Voltron lions than Battlemechs; but plenty of quad designs exist that are more utilitarian or militaristic / realistic looking.
#109
Posted 16 July 2012 - 01:04 PM
Edited by Rychard Starheart, 16 July 2012 - 01:04 PM.
#110
Posted 17 July 2012 - 12:01 AM
Uhm, does anyone have a towel?
#111
Posted 17 July 2012 - 12:35 AM
He wasn't a big dog lover
Edited by Dozer, 17 July 2012 - 12:36 AM.
#112
Posted 17 July 2012 - 12:44 AM
They are so much more logical and make so much more sense than Bipedal mechs (even if the BT TT rules disagree)
Edited by Machalel, 17 July 2012 - 12:44 AM.
#113
Posted 17 July 2012 - 01:43 AM
3rdworld, on 16 July 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:
Can I play at your quad party?
WHAT the HELL is THAT?! It looks absolutely terrible...
KailKromier, on 16 July 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:
just imagine...Chromehound Quad chassis with an Atlas upper torso on a 360 degree torso twist.....*shudders*
Since in Chromehounds the quad were the most heavily armored, a quad atlas would be a pain in the bum to take out, with 360 turn and all.
Machalel, on 17 July 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:
They are so much more logical and make so much more sense than Bipedal mechs (even if the BT TT rules disagree)
^^ That. I fully agree.
In reality, who would want to make bipedal mechs with inferior stability in stead of quadrupedal mechs with their superior stability and probably better carry capacity? And it's not as if it was impossible to make them have a turning torso either.
#115
Posted 17 July 2012 - 02:53 AM
And most peaple here do not realize thet biggest quad advantage was under level 3 rules of cover, where you rolled on standart table (instead of reduced one for cover), but discarded any hits to legs. So quad mech had much highier chance do discard hits to it, and can was able to enter hull down position due to this.
#116
Posted 17 July 2012 - 03:05 AM
Machalel, on 17 July 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:
A Mandrill...
Makes you wonder what it looks like from the rear!
There's a Quad for everyone, even the BroPony fans!
I think that thing singlehandedly dismantled any argument I could make for a quad mechs existence.
Still....SCORPION
#118
Posted 17 July 2012 - 04:18 AM
#119
Posted 17 July 2012 - 04:36 PM
7 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users