Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:
Ah, so now we're straight to more fallacious reasoning, where you try to plead special cases by referncing particular gaming situations.
Hint: It's advisabe to use any available weapon system where applicable and "combined arms" actually still isn't the default table top setting. A zero heat attack is a zero heat attack and as pointed out before it actually does the same damage as an AC/2, a singular SRM and - prepare to be exicted - 1 point more than a singular LRM.
I don't think you understand what special pleading is or how it applies. This is not special pleading. I'm looking at what canon is telling me, and
canon is telling me that they are an anti-infantry weapon that just happens to be useful against armored targets like BattleMechs. They certainly weren't made explicitly to fight BattleMechs, because they canonically predate them. These are pre-spaceflight weapons being used in
BattleTech's modern day. The
Mackie, and therefore the BattleMech, was post-spaceflight.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with CGL. Take it up with WizKids. Take it up with the people who used to work for FASA at the time. I didn't make this up.
Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:
No, that's you telling yourself that it did. I can still play a good old 3025 stock mech game without any vehicles and infantry just as I could in the oiriginal game of Battle Droids and every edition ever since.
No one said you couldn't. What does this have to do with the machine gun or any other anti-infantry weapon in the game? Just because there is no infantry on your table and they are still fully usable, that doesn't mean they aren't an anti-infantry weapon in the context of the tabletop game and fictional universe as a whole. Especially since we have literally every weapon in the game hurting BattleMechs when at least some of them realistically shouldn't at all, such as those infantry rifles I keep bringing up. I'm not remotely arguing that the BattleMech Machine Gun should be among those weapons, but you're arguing a position that comes off as absolutely preposterous to me.
Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:
... your arguments don't become any less fallacious (or incorrect), so - ironically - it's you who trying to turn this into an "everything becomes a nail" situation.
There is no logical fallacy in my reasoning I can find. Maybe you'd like to demonstrate for me?
Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:
You might want to recheck the sources you yourself brought forth (Total Warfare): Small Pulse Lasers and Micro Pulse Lasers do receive the same damage modifier of 2D6 as machine guns do.
I know.
Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:
It's most definitely under dispute considering that machine guns as alleged anti-infantry weapons are often compared to real world machine guns like the M60 and similar actual infantry weapons that clock in well below 50kgs even in "heavy" versions whereas the Battletech machine guns "somehow" clock in in weights that seem to be "on par" with weapon systems like a Vulcan or the GAU-8 Avenger and "surprisingly" enough are designed to target armored vehicles including main battle tanks of the era that they were introdruced in and not surprisingly will alos devestate infantry should they end up in the kill zones of those systems. Yet noone in their right mind will call either a Vulcan or a GAU-8 an "anti-infantry" weapon ... and that's before we have left reality behind to enter suspension of disbelief for a fictional setting with stomping robots that are used to duke it out in "close quarters" on battlefields of 2 maps that represent less than 0.5km²
You will notice at no point have I personally ever made those comparisons, and in fact, actively discouraged making them, precisely because such discussions lead nowhere productive. This very conversation is evidence of that fact.
Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:
And guess what? That's because even with "combined arms" Battletech is still a game that revolves around killing Mechs. It's an abstraction specifically made for that very purpose. The problem with your ill-fated attempts concerning "machine guns" still is that those "machine guns" as sibngular weapons systems (as opposed to aggregated infantry weapons) do the same damage as other "dedicated" anti-mech weapons and did so ever since before infantry was conceived as part of the gameplay. What's even worse: Your entire argument where you plead the special case of combined arms is null and void as far as MW:O is concerned because MW:O just like the original Battletech simply doesn't have infantry (or other Non-Mech combat vehicles) under player control and the machine guns here do what they do in table top as well: They friggin' damage Battle Mechs (albeit actually in a less effective manner than their table top counterparts).
Nonetheless, it remains one reason among others that I am unconvinced that the BattleMech Machine Gun is dedicated as anti-BattleMech in the context of the
BattleTech universe today, no matter what the origins of the game were. The fact that it can damage BattleMechs is not an issue in my mind; given everything else, I would be more surprised if it didn't.
Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:
No, I'm instead going to tell you that this strawman fallacy in question form just brought you further into fallacy territory and also demonstrates that you're confusing various concepts (including damage abstraction) for the sake of retaining your "Battletech machine guns are anti-infantry weapons" fantasy.
I don't think you know what a strawman is. I did not say that was a position you held; I was asking if it was. Clearly, it isn't.
Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:
No, those other weapons share the + 2D6 modifier (or even a +4D6 bonus in case of the flamer). So you being unsure as to why I'm bringing those up: You clearly don't know what you're talking about but pretend to be an expert on how BT allegedly has "moved on". Go back to you Total Warffare book. A page somwhere around 210 to 220 should help you to get your enlightenment about "Burst Fire Weapons Versus Infantry"
The weapons I mentioned all have the modifier, yes. That was precisely why I mentioned them. They are anti-infantry weapons in the context of the
BattleTech universe. The weapons you mentioned did not. They are not anti-infantry.
Look, dude, if you're going to seriously argue that a BattleMech-scale weapon that literally has "anti-personnel" in its name (AP Gauss) is not primarily intended for that role, then please never talk to me about logical fallacies again. I will not hear it from you.
Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:
Which is entirely besides the actual point: This is about "machine guns" being "anti-mech" weapons in both table top and MW:O and not about "weapon X" not being a "good anti-infantry weapon" in table top. Now you're trying to move goal-posts. Makes me wonder which fallacy you'll employ next.
I'm not moving any goal posts. I don't know what you thought the goal posts
were, but when I entered the conversation, I kept my goal posts consistent. Again, you have me confused with someone else.
Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:
You are trying to sell them off as anti-infantry weapons in a context where infantry is not of any concern and in an attempt to counter arguments surrounding machine guns and how they always worked (and still work) in table top. So you'll have to accept that I put you in the exact same category of people that my original TL;DR: referenced ... and no, I'm not confusing you with anyone. I'm actively putting you in that very box, because
Because you have me confused with someone else. I don't agree with Whamhammer, okay? The machine gun stays, working as it always has. It's not a problem to me. What is a problem is the idea that it isn't an anti-infantry weapon in the context of
BattleTech. Bringing real life weapons into the discussion is a fallacy of its own.
BattleTech is not real. It doesn't obey real life's rules. Stop it.
And don't talk to me about strawmen when you are trying to force me to defend a position I don't hold. If anyone is erecting strawmen here, it is you.
Der Geisterbaer, on 02 November 2022 - 12:12 PM, said:
... nobody actually called them "not anti-infantry" in the sense that they don't do extra damage in certain scenarios when playing the table top but most definitely aren't "just anti-infantry" weapons but full fledged "anti-mech" weapons - that do the same and more damage as more dedicated anti-mech weapons on a per shot / per missile basis. So this isn't about saying "not anti-infantry" being "canonically false" but rather about saying "not anti-mech" is "canonically false" ... and you would have been better off with accepting that as I suggested before. I just won't expect you to embrace that now that you also demonstrated your own lack of knowledge concerning other such "anti-infantry" weapons
I don't think you have any right to tell me what I would have been "better off" accepting. Between the two of us, I think you're barking up the wrong tree to begin with.
Good day.
Edited by Akamia Terizen, 02 November 2022 - 10:12 PM.