Yeah, XL Engines make the ammo and gauss explosion very much worse than before . .
because case actually does not help anything at all in these cases(get it?) because the explosion still rips off more than enough of the engine to kill the mech . .
all it does is make the mech more salvageable by the victor of the battle . . case2 on the other hand MIGHT be better . . no idea actually, never used that stuff.
i tend to like to play zombies. fusion engine, no side torso engine crits, no ammo or gauss in the torso or legs AT ALL . . even better if i can completely ditch anything explodey completely . .
then crit stuff it with heat sinks and targeting computer and other such stuff and armor up to the maximum and call it a day . .
i killed a nightstar in an hunchback 4p, because he just could not kill it . . because there was nothing explodey, no big one weapon to destroy, no ammo, and the heat sinks and medium lasers were crit tanking anyting he could throw at me . . while he was basically all ammo and engine crits and i hit one such crit every third round or so . .

Hunchback driver here.

DEFINITELY get the gauss in place of the AC/20 for right now. AC/20 is nice and all (I DO use it), but the "Box" that houses the thing is so freaking huge that its downright EASY for it to be knocked out at range.

I carry 3 tons of AC/20 ammo, resulting in 21 shots. I often lose the cannon before I've had time to fire even half that because everybody and their mother can hit it directly if they want to, and even hit it more than 1/2 the time on accident.


Supposedly, the next patch is going to introduce some hellatious cockpit shake when you get hit with the thing, which would go a long way towards making the AC/20 as useful as it should be as a brawlers weapon.

a bit astonishing, that there are no real canon variants of the swaybacks with PPCs or Large Lasers O.o

Those weapons kind of take it out of he brawler role. A shiatload of MLs though are basically just as good as the cannon in MWO. Their shoulder is a little harder to hit and A LOT less targetted.

Those weapons kind of take it out of he brawler role. A shiatload of MLs though are basically just as good as the cannon in MWO. Their shoulder is a little harder to hit and A LOT less targetted.

Finally got to play Battletech tabletop, and I got to see first-hand just how impressive a Ammo Cook-Off can be!

"OK, ammo hit, ow... 110 Long-Range Missiles equals... ... One really blowed up mech!"

Just wait, CanRay. Soon, ammo explosions will make you feel all funny, and you will be strangely satisfied inside when it happens even to your own mechs!

hahaha, I useed to put my ammo in the ARMS, and then CASE the suckers. Everyone owudl be "dude, that's easier to HIT, you're nuts" ... until I'd have an ammo explosion, and KEEP WALKING AND FIGHTING.

Then, suddenly, I wasn't quite so nuts anymore.

Just store a ton of ammo in the head. You're fucked if they crit you there anyway.

Depends on the design, in TT. Torso-mounted Cockpit, yayy!

yeah, ultimate pimp style baby . .
torso mounted cockpit and ammo in the now empty head!

... and both shoulders as TURRETS, wooo!

IS can only CASE the torsos Pax.

Clans (aka twinks) get auto-case on everything without any crits or expenditures.

CASE II ... ^_^

When you start putting turrets on mechs, you're in make shit up mode anyway. Might as well have fun and install negative weight/crit CASE III

No, not at all.

GOL-1H Goliath, just for starters. Also, the QKD-8X Quickdraw (experimental prototype) specifically and explicitly has a Turret-adapted Head. The JR7-F Jenner also sports a turret, as does the BGS-4T Barghest, the RCL-Z1 Dig Lord, and the STO-6X Stiletto. Actually, he Stiletto has two - one in EACH side torso.

So. You were saying?

I was saying you're in make shit up mode anyway.

Look, it's a fun place to be, making TSM monsters with 120 point damage physical weapons, but you're pushing the envelope with anything recognizing actual battletech, not even mentioning balance.

They gave you those fucked up toys to play with. Im not putting you down for playing with them, but there's a line you cross when you go into that territory, and it's full of LAMs and bronys.

The Goliath was in the very, very first STARTER BOX for BattleTech. All the mechs I listed - a list you promptly ignored - are from official TROs.

Furthermore, I'm not talking about "hypercheese" nonsense, either. I posted a 20-ton "Police/SWAT" mech upthread. It's a 20-ton, 8/12/- speed quad, with the RT mounted as a Turret, carrying a Medium Laser, an SRM2, and a two-gun Heavy Machinegun Array.

Any way you look at it, it's hardly "a land full of LAMs and bronys" (sic).

Feck, man. If you play a game set at the dawn of the Fourth Succession War, even full on LAMs are canonical (if rare).

The Goliath in the starter box didn't have a turret. No level 1 or 2 mech has a turret. Ever the classic Marauder looks like it should have a turret, yet doesn't.

Plenty of things in Battletech exist in universe but don't exist in game. Some exist in game as experimental or optional additions. Mech turrets are one of those things. Shields are another. Acid head SRMs yet another.

All exist to have fun with. Most are annoying outside of the occasional goofy game.

Put it another way.

MRMs. Medium Range Missles. Dummy fire. They lack any guidance whatsoever. They're also dirt cheap to produce. Broken down, they only weigh a few pounds each.

So you attack the Draconis Combine. Originator of the MRM. You go through a lightly populated city. The partisans break out their weaponry. Each window has 2 or 3 citizens pointing their missiles out at you. A small apartment complex is going to be putting out 50 missiles a facing. Project Buildings in the area of hundreds. Worse yet, battletech lacks elevation ranges. Two out of three rulesets for air and ground interactions would allow a town to take out warships in orbit fairly accurately and repeatedly. Given that the firing tube doesn't matter, you could launch the missiles out of one-shot bamboo. Each citizen will be given 4 missiles for the glory of the Combine!

That is all canon, logical, and level 1.5/2.

There's lots of shit in Battletech. Tons of it is goofy. Turrets on mechs? Has never been legitimate in any rulebook since it's inception as Battledroids in the early eighties. It's always been treated as experimental and magical faults prevent it from achieving success, and that's the way I like it.

.... until they had specific rules for Quads. Then, yes, the Goliath DID have a turret.

And just because something isn't Level 1 / Basic Rules, doesn't mean it's "goofy". No matter how stridently you insist otherwise.

question:
why would specific quad rules mean that it has a turret?
the only thing the turret changes is that a torso mounted weapon can only fire into the front firing arc . .
with a turret you can fire it in the side and rear arc, that is all it does . .

Quad rules have nothing to do with turrets. I'm not sure why you think they do. And level 2 isn't goofy, just more complicated, and can sometimes lead to unbalanced issues. Level 3 is strictly experimental, or nearly unique. It's where the rules can swing so much that even the original team knew they couldn't balance it well.

The quad-specific rules eliminate Torso Twists from Quads, but then allow the designer to allocate a Critical space to turn one of the Side Torso sections into a Turret, which can Torso Twist. And, I think (haven't read those old rules in forever) that the turret can twist far enough to give the same firing arc of arm-mounted weapons. But obviously, only to one side or the other at a time.

IOW, to put it briefly: "torso twists work differently for Quads, and here's how: [...]".

No they don't. =/

Quads advantages are more armor, easier piloting, and skitter movement. Their disadvantages are lack of good firing arcs. I'd love to be proven wrong though, if you can find a book and page reference that says as much. (Tournament level or better, of course.)

I don't own any books that old. And I'm not going to buy one on eBay just to show you a picture of it, either.

There are no rules for turrets on quads outside of the experimental stuff. Try citing a rulebook and not some picture Pax. The Goliath never officially had a functional turret.

Quads do NOT get turrets under any of the basic rules. They only get doubled internal structure for their 'arms' which allows them to carry more armor and lose 12 crit slots since the arms are now legs with full leg actuators. And stability bonuses on their piloting checks. They also gain the ability to sideslip as they move. And the ability to go 'prone' without suffering the penalties... No PSR to stand and the like if they had all 4 legs.

Quite contrary to your assertion they have more trouble hitting things because they can't torso twist and torso weapons are front arc only!!! There were experimental rules for adding turret to a quad... however they were level 3 and required significant crit and weight expenditure on the mech... it wasn't a freebie... (going off very fuzzy memory here... can't remember if it was 1 ton and crit for every 10 or every 5 tons of weapons in it).

Your references to the jenner and such are also incorrect... outside of quirk type rules if published... the jenner is able to torso twist (and even flilparms to bring all it's lasers into the rear arc)... effectively always have 360 degree weapons coverage. (well SRM was torso mounted if memory serves... but all the lasers at least).

Yeah, i can't remember this quad ruleset you speak of either Pax O.o
Quads were never able to torso-twist under any circumstances o.O
Reason why most quads have at least one rear firing weapon is so they can keep their back free, because they don't have arms of which they simply can put one or in some cases even both into their rear firing arc . .

All mechs have turrets.

They're called waists and arms.





-k

Except quads... which can only fire into the forward (or rear arc with rear facing weapons).

And I never said they did. Go on, check - you'll never once find me saying "quads get turrets in the basic rules".

Level 3, Experimental, whatever label you apply to it, though, there are official rules for Quads with turrets.

My entire point has been, I did not make Mech Turrets up ... contrary to AN's claim that I was "in the land of make shit up".

The goliath has NEVER had even the fluff of a turret in any of it's record sheets or descriptions. Yet you assert numerous times that all these L1 and L2 IS mechs have them. And no pictures don't count... turrets take up weight and crits which the design does not have to spare in any of it's variants. There's a long history of mechs whose pictures don't 100% match their stats.

The jenner has never had anything except a 'fluff' turret with no in game impact.

The barghest had no turrets until again recent publications with experimental and units using the L3 equipment were published very recently.

We're saying you're making this junk up because it's experimental only and only a very very recent addition to the rules while you assert they're a longstanding part of the rules.

(a) Yes, the Goliath has a turret if you use the Quad-specific rules (which IIRC are L3 / Experimental).

(b) I did not say they had turrets when played by L1 or L2 rules. Just that they are described to have them.


No, just the one critical (for Quads, using Quad-specific L3 rules to designate one side-Torso location as a turret).


"Using Experimental rules" != "being in a land of make shit up, filled with LAMs and bronies".

I didn't MAKE UP BattleMech turrets. They're there, in the damned rules. Just because you or AN choose not to play with rules from that level, doesn't mean I'm making those rules up.

And, I remember having Quads, with turrets, per the goddamned rules, around twenty years ago. They're not recent. >_<

Pax... which is why I'm telling you you're clueless. You're citing fan created HOUSE RULES as canon without any sourcing. Just like when I brought up the problem with CASE you immediately revised your story to CASE II. You say turrets didn't require crit and weight expenditure when they did. That's why I'm telling you the picture isn't proof... it was fan created rules to make some mechs look and act more like their pictures. The same goes for TR fluff text... it has no effect on game play, and every instance of fluff involves a turret that was removed or gimped somehow when tried... and then it was back to the stock arms/torso twist... or which caused so many maintenance problems they were abandoned.

Turrets were never part of any official designs back then. It wasn't until the Tactical Handbook was published that there were even any advanced rules for quad turrets. They required devoting crits and tonnage for the turret which some of your named banner mechs like the Goliath never have. Goliath still doesn't have any official variants with turrets of any kind. None of the tactical handbook stuff ever had any of it's fun toys published on any official variants.

Tac Handbook was the last gasp of that rules set... very soon thereafter there was a major rules overhaul and they moved to a new edition as they published the compendium. And most of tactical handbook was forgotten with the advent of "Maximum Tech" as the new source of advanced (l2) and experimental (l3) rules and the "Master Rules" series of rulebooks. And there were a lot of arguments that things like MRM's replaced deadfire LRM's and similar prototype tech in the handbook and that it was obsolete and incompatible with the newer rules.

They're not. They're standard. *Possibly* level 1, but I'm not sure on that one. Back when I was a part of their demo team, we described the difference between level 1 and 2 as things which required modifiers. So pulse lasers were out. MRMs were out. Targeting computers were out. Incidentally, this led to an even more basic 'training' level 1, where we took out PPCs and LRMs, as they had minimum ranges.



They also describe mech sensors as being a 360 degree display with no dead zone, yet firing at targets in the rear of the mech is harder, even if the mech has rear facing weaponry. Seems like you got fluff and rules mixed up, which is understandable on something like turrets on mechs.




Well, I don't think you made up LAMs, yet I still put them in the land of shit makery. It's just my own worthless descriptor of play. Don't take it seriously, and for that matter, don't take me seriously.



I don't think anyone thinks you're making up the rules, only that the rules themselves are part and parcel with all sorts of other goofy and wonky shit. When you package those rules along with Quads, it makes us think that you think they're legitimate for most play.

Gentlemen, may I propose that we draw a line under the preceding, in the name of not having this thread locked?

No, I'm not. I'm citing non-Basic official rules, from canon.


I'm so very sorry I don't have my first and second edition Battletech rulebooks still, twenty years later. *sigh*


Has nothing to do with why I've said there were canon rules for Battlemech Turrets.


... that magically appeared in a FASA rulebook? No.


Didn't you just say there were never any rules for Quad Turrets? Which is it, Falconer? "Never" or "not until" ...? It can't be both.

Pax... cite your source material then. It did not appear unless you can give me a book cite. You keep claiming it's legit... when the ONLY references i can find to your assertions are some forum posts in which the poster clearly labels your rule as a fan created house rule.

I can give you a book cite for tac handbook... I still have mine on a bookshelf here, it's page 47. There was a bit there dealing with 4 legged mechs, additional weight and crit requirements. Hull down rules for making better use of partial cover or cratering. Also a turret required 50% more structure weight (4tons on a goliath) and 2 crits in the CT to be devoted to use of the turret (if one crit was lost the turret was locked but repairable... if both were lost it was forever fused in position).

And I said those rules never appeared as level 1 or level 2 rules. (Level 1 is the basic game... 3025 tech only... level 2 adds 3050 tech and clantech and more advanced rules), Level 3 is all experimental and completely optional rules which everyone present had to agree on to use. Turrets were level 3.

You buying? 'cause I don't OWN those old books anymore, and I'm not paying whatever-it-is on eBay just to prove a point that shouldn't matter this much to you.


.... which only means, you're admitting they WERE part of the rules, and not "completely fan rules".

Thank you. Argument ended; you lose ... by your own admission.

It's not his fault you can't cite your sources. He gives you a bit of leeway and tries to show *some* proof of where you might be getting confused, and you use this to claim yourself the victor?

Weak man. Very weak. If that's the way you're going to handle this, then I'm gonna Harry Kalas.

@almost normal:
not quite, rear arc targeting is by no means harder than front facing fire . .
it's just that any fire that does go out the front gets to be primary target no matter what and everything rear is always going to be secondary in that case and it gets the secondary target mod of +1 i think.
if you were only firing your rear weaponry at a single target, you would have the same tn as you would have for a single front arc target if i remember correctly.

If you fire at two targets in the front, One target will get a penalty of +1.

If you fire at two targets, and one is in the rear, the rear *must* be the secondary, and gets an additional +1 on top of the secondary target penalty, for an effective +2 penalty. With a 360 display, the difference between rear and side is the same as front and side, yet a penalty still exists.

I'm fine with that, it's just one of the things that separates the fiction and fact of the game.

Again, I no longer own those twenty-year-old and OBSOLETE books. It's like asking me to cite my textbooks from my sophomore (1986-87) or junior (1987-88) year in Highschool. Bloody hell, the rules wer'e talkign about nearly pre-date the entire frelling internet. when they were current, BBSes were still in business, AOL was the big thing, and the WWW was only just being born! PDFs hadn't been invented yet, even.

The burden of proof doesn't shift because your source is a few decades old.

The closest MECHWARRIOR ever got to shooting stuff in the rear arc of fire was in MW4 where you could Torso-Twist to the side and then look out of a Side-Window in the Cockpit and use the Arm on the Side to fire directly behind you . .

They changed rear firing weapons at one point... it used to be that if you were to fire them you could only use rear mounted weapons and no others. Then they changed it to you could do it, but at the +1 for secondary target i'd like to say but i'm feeling a little too lazy to look it up. In any case... generally rear firing weapons have pretty much always been a dud. The only real use I've seen out of them is 'special' custom made designs which sported rear firing weapons so they could run away faster while still firing.



No they don't Pax... they predate the WWW but not the internet (and usenet... rec.games.mecha in particular). It's sad to see NNTP wither like it has, it was a far more useful protocol than these web boards.

I was playing back then... and I was one of the internet denizons even that far back. I gave you the first official rules I could find or think of covering mech turrets. Tactical handbook in 1994 (18 years ago) They were highly experimental and not for any kind of official play. I also pointed out they directly contradicted your claims that they were effectively free (only taking a single crit and no weight).

Even looking at my limited edition master rules book... quads are mentioned only in the optional special case advanced rules section. The section even states... quads should use the normal rules for 2 legged mechs... unless all players agree to these optional rules. Then they get enhanced movement options, lose the ability to torso twist, treated as standing while prone for firing... etc. There are no provisions for turrets in the base set of rules whatsoever.

My assertion here has always been that none of the quad special stuff was ever basic rules. It's always been part of the advanced rules. And turrets in particular would have only very recently in the past 2 or 3 years been added as non-experimental if at all (probably in the Tac Ops book.. i don't know the new edition nearly as well as i know the older ones). The reason I say this is because only recently have they started publishing mechs with turrets, and those mechs would be constructed using total warfare/techmanual/tac ops/strat ops rules. Your assertion though is that it was basic level canon back then... which clearly the rule books and tactical handbook of level 3 rules disagrees with.

In non-flame-war news, I just had a great run in the trial Atlas today. Four kills in my first match, three in my second, plus a bunch of assists, and I didn't start dying until I switched to the trial Catapult. I was working that Gauss rifle for all it was worth.

Fine, great, wonderful ... I do not, nor NEVER HAVE, disagreed with you about that. Battlemech turrets, especially for Quads, is and was definitely an optional rule - L3 in later parlance, or Experimental in current terms.

I am only insisting that I did not "make shit up". I referred to perfectly legal, legitimate, official, optional rules. That is all.

Which is definitely not "the land of make shit up", nor is it as you've said more than once something that "did not appear [in the rules]", nor have I been "citing fan created HOUSE RULES".

lucky O.o

Based on my googlefu and woeful lack of understanding of battletech, I believe the book you are looking for is Technical Readout: 3025. It is suggested that the rules in question that you are debating were initially house rules which were eventually codified in TRO: 3025.

I have a copy of TRO 3025, albeit a copy of the July 1994 printing, and I can tell you it contains no rules for turrets. Such material may have been added in later printings, I don't know.