Major Tom, on 02 May 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:
The problem is, people love those mechs not because of their brilliant design (most are not), but because of looks, and the nostalgia associated with their first battletech experience.
Sorry but a Warhammer that doesn't look like a warhammer is just mediocre heavy with 2 PPCs, same with the Maurader and Riffleman.
I've got to wholeheartedly disagree with this.
The Warhammer is a monster. It has two PPCs, yes, and enough heat sinks for effective stagger fire. What you fail to notice is the huge battery of secondary weapons. The secondary battery alone is more than many medium mechs carry total. Plus, the secondary battery is very apt to take out a wide range of adversary types. It's true that we will only be facing one type of foe for now, but who knows what the future holds?
In fact, the only real failing of the WHM, and this is pretty specific to the 6R, is the light leg armor. This adds character to the 'Mech, and chassis with character should always be welcome.
The only other design that comes close to matching the twin-PPC layout of the Warhammer is the K-series Catapults, and they lack the huge secondary armament of the WHM. Not to mention that the CPLT-Ks are almost entirely exclusive to the Combine, while the Warhammer is ubiquitous to the entire inner sphere. So, basically, nothing matches the capabilities or commonality of the Warhammer, and leaving out even the fugly reseen version leaves a big hole in the heavy 'Mech lineup.
The Marauder is much like the Warhammer in that nothing really replaces it. In fact, the only two 'Mechs that come close to matching the capabilities of a MAD is the K2 and Warhammer. Worse, neither of those do a good job replacing the MAD as the MAD has a very nice low-heat ballistic that matches the range of it's PPCs. And again, the Marauder is ubiquitous to the entire inner sphere.
The Rifleman is, in my opinion, a hard 'Mech to use. That being said, it is a very, very common design used for anti-air duty. The Jagermech performs the same duty, but is primarily a Davion 'Mech. Still, I wouldn't be too perplexed if the RFL was replaced by the JM6 or vice-versa - anti-air duty doesn't look to be a huge concern in MWO.
THge
Solis Obscuri, on 02 May 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:
To make it more simple, everything that has reseen artwork for it made, be it originally sourced from Dougram, Crusher Joe, Macross, or Studio Nue, is fully legal to use. To state again: If reseen artwork of it was made, it's legal. A good way to double check is to look at Iron Wind Metals: If they make a mini for it, and have that mini for sale, it's legal.
THAT BEING SAID:
There is no theoretical reason the Dougram 'Mechs couldn't be used in their unseen forms, as nobody owns images in the United States. That being said, it'd be better to stick to the reseen images if at all possible for both continuity between the artwork and to avoid any hidden legal issues.
Some might say "But what about the reseen Warhammer in the MW3015 trailer? Didn't IGN catch a C&D from HG for that?"
Answer: Yes they did, but there are two major factors at work from my point of view:
1: While the Warhammer was, to me, clearly based on the reseen, the trailer seemed to only showcase the parts of it that looked most unseen, with the exception of one very hard to clarify "front left looking up" shot.
2: While the Warhammer was based on the reseen, it also inched just a bit closer to the unseen than the proper reseen Warhammer.
These two taken in tandem most likely created the C&D. I claim that the 3015 asset could be used without issue if the seachlight was built into the lower torso, and the SRM-6 was flipped on its side and moulded into the shoulder instead of being mounted on a pylon. Perhaps integrate the triangle cross-sectioned PPC barrels of the Reseen, and it'd be good.
Fetladral, on 02 May 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:
That is incorrect. New products include reseen marauders and warhammers galore, and the minis are still able to be ordered. Plus, if the robotech-sourced reseen versions were now illegal, wouldn't they have mentioned the March 23rd link I posted up there?