26 replies to this topic

[Turigand]

..in the left ARM, not the torso.

The original art and text both clearly indicate it should be in the left arm, but the stats sheet mistakenly has it labelled as being in the left torso. Future books followed this typo (like the 3050).

For those who think I'm mad - here's the original text for the Orion:

"The other missile system, the Irian Weapon Works Class 4, consists of four tubes mounted around the medium class laser on the left arm. Shooting short range missiles, the system holds 25 rounds. Instead of four holes around the medium laser, the Orion sports six holes. The bottom two holes are not missile tubes. Rather, they are hookup points for coolant hoses so that excess heat can be purged by cooler trucks."

Thank you for listening to the ravings of a old table top player.

*steps off soap box*

[Gigaton]

Our concept artist has a habit of fixing things like this, so I wouldn't worry.

(Edit) Misread slightly. FD has habit of fixing designs where the concept art is different from what the record sheet says, so that the art conforms with the record sheet. So I'd say we'll see the SRM in the torso.

Edited by Gigaton, 16 May 2012 - 05:41 PM.

[Redshift2k5]

Gigaton, on 16 May 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Our concept artist has a habit of fixing things like this, so I wouldn't worry.

does the armless Cicada count as "fixed"?

[Oswin Aurelius]

Oh, you mean the arms that didn't actually have any weapons, so they've been converted to what are essentially external armor plates? Yeah, that counts as fixed.

[Deathz Jester]

Arm pods had guns

[Gigaton]

Redshift2k5, on 16 May 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

does the armless Cicada count as "fixed"?

It has got vestigal "arms". It even has the Ultra AC/5 in the right place, unlike the art in the (non-upgraded) 3050 TROs.

Iron Harlequin, on 16 May 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

Arm pods had guns

Not in the record sheet.

Edited by Gigaton, 16 May 2012 - 05:58 PM.

[Deathz Jester]

I dont think that we're playing with record sheets.

[AceTimberwolf]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ORION AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH




.thank you

[RobarGK]

I actually like this idea, it would make the orion a more interesting design, both stock and if modified.

[John Clavell]

I'd be more inclined to go with the record sheets to be honest over artwork. The artwork, TRO, or otherwise has a long history of misrepresentation.

[verybad]

John Clavell, on 16 May 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

I'd be more inclined to go with the record sheets to be honest over artwork. The artwork, TRO, or otherwise has a long history of misrepresentation.

I've always felt it was the reverse. Decent mech artwork takes some skill and effort to make. Designing a mech's stats doesn't. The stats should be changed to match the art, and a good aesthtic is far harder to reach than a mech design, especially if you've got heavy metal or another mech design software..

Nobody remembers who designes the stats for mechs, but if it's a good drawing, the artwork is remembered by a lot of fans.

[John Clavell]

verybad, on 16 May 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

I've always felt it was the reverse. Decent mech artwork takes some skill and effort to make. Designing a mech's stats doesn't. The stats should be changed to match the art, and a good aesthtic is far harder to reach than a mech design, especially if you've got heavy metal or another mech design software..

Nobody remembers who designes the stats for mechs, but if it's a good drawing, the artwork is remembered by a lot of fans.

The problem is, moving a weapon system to another location based on artwork does not always work within the Mech Construction Rules. An artist can move a weapon to another location because it might look cooler visually, but the per the game rules, it might be physically impossible to put that weapon system there. That is why I'd stick to record sheets if you want to be accurate. But aside from that point, sure make stuff look cool, you don't need to sell me on the idea, I'm an illustrator myself by trade.

[verybad]

The mech construction rules can be bent in the fluff. For instance, the original behemoth looked cooler with it's massive centerline gun than replacement aret with two small cannons representing the gauss canons.

The rules are there to help simulate a vehicle, it wouldn't need to actually be built with those restrictions, there's no good reason to not put 3 gauss cannons on a centerline turret. Yes I know you can't do that with the mech construction rules. That's mroe for balancing than any realistic reason however.

[John Clavell]

verybad, on 17 May 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

The mech construction rules can be bent in the fluff. For instance, the original behemoth looked cooler with it's massive centerline gun than replacement aret with two small cannons representing the gauss canons.

The rules are there to help simulate a vehicle, it wouldn't need to actually be built with those restrictions, there's no good reason to not put 3 gauss cannons on a centerline turret. Yes I know you can't do that with the mech construction rules. That's mroe for balancing than any realistic reason however.

Yeah, I don't disagree with you. In real life we have rules which define how we engineer things. And for me Mech Construction Rules are a game balancing system. But they also form a basis for what our understanding of what is and is not possible in a sci-fi world where anything is always seemingly possible. So in essence no one is right or wrong And I would rather see cool looking things when and were possible

[Arctic Fox]

The part about the SRMs being mounted on the arm has been dropped in TRO:3039, and newer artwork in TRO:3050U actually does show the SRMs being mounted in the left torso. So clearly that's where they canonically are, at least as of now.

Don't forget that there was very little attempt to match actual capabilities to artwork when FASA was making the game. Remember the original Behemoth?

Edited by Arctic Fox, 17 May 2012 - 01:52 AM.

[Sheilei]

The LRM's just needs a target lock so they don't need precise aiming- Put them in the torso.
You don't need the faster aim that comes with mounting it in the arm when you're aiming at a mech that's over 600 meters away and you only need to get it roughly inside the target reticule to get a lock.

The SRM's needs to be aimed with greater care so they should be in the arm since aiming with the arm is faster.
When you're in close a manueverable enemy can slip away from you if it's mounted in the chest.

Would you put the SRM's in the arm or the torso if you had a choice? i'd put it in the arm to make more certain i hit what i aim at through faster aim.
If you want to make the most out of your limited ammo supply that's how you do it.
It's just logical.

[Aethon]

Iron Harlequin, on 16 May 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

Arm pods had guns

Wrong variant. Read this.

[Eruthis]

Oh really now, I do hope this means what I think it means!!!

[Deathz Jester]

Aethon, on 17 May 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

Wrong variant. Read this.

You're assuming only 1 variant ever existed.

[Oswin Aurelius]

Iron Harlequin, on 19 May 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

You're assuming only 1 variant ever existed.

No, he's pointing out that the picture you posted is a 2A Cicada (as it says on Sarna), while the Cicada from the MWO concept art is a 3M.

Also, this:


Notes
Though most of the artwork shows that the medium lasers are mounted in the Cicada's arms, according to the official record sheets andTRO: 3039 they are installed in the side torsos. It is unclear if this is intentional or an error that never was fixed.[1]

Edited by Oswin Aurelius, 19 May 2012 - 09:25 AM.