KitK
12/20/06 02:10 PM
69.11.4.215
|
Endosteel and Ferro-Fiber (and certain other structural and armor components) take up a lot of room. There seems to be no rule requiring structural or armor elements to be in fixed slots on omni-mechs. This is definately handy for diversifying an omni-mech.
But...what do you think?
Should structural and armor components be fixed? Why or why not?
Maybe just one or the other? i.e. structural fixed but armor allowed more flexability in arrangement.
Would such rules render any canon omni-mech varients (IS or Clan) illegal?
|
Fang
12/20/06 02:48 PM
65.82.104.120
|
Endo and Ferro are fixed in Omnis. Take a look at any TRO. The crit locations and allocation for ferro and endo do not change from say Timberwolf (MadCat) A to C. if it says there are 3 crits for endo ( an example only, not sure of exact allocatio) in the left torso, there will always be 3 crits for endo in the left torso. Pod space weapons and equip have to be mounted around it.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
KitK
12/21/06 12:37 AM
69.11.4.215
|
Well, if that is already a rule it would shut down my attempt to start a discussion here about the pros, cons, and impacts of a rule that did require fixed endo and ferro slots in omni-mechs.
However, it is my understanding that it is not a requirement that endo and ferro slots in omni-mechs be fixed, only that they cannot be added as new equipment in a pod. (i.e no upgrading armor or structure via a pod).
On the other hand, as you point out, the TROs do implement this as a convention. But alas, a convention is not always an unbreakable rule. And TROs don't make the rules, per se. The BMRs do.
Which brings me back to my questions. Is there an example in any of the TROs that break the convention? And what might be some of the impacts of making it an enforced rule? Would it be a good or bad rule? If its not a rule should it be?
|
Cray
12/21/06 09:03 AM
147.160.136.10
|
I'm also pretty sure Endo and Ferro are fixed in omnis, for obvious reasons. They're fixed structural components. When you sling an equipment pod under the wing of a modern fighter, you don't rearranging its wings and framework. I just can't find the errata or official ruling that confirms it.
And here's a hint: it's not spelled out in the BMR-R, but since the question has come up quite often and been often asked of the writers, it was considered and answered in the forthcoming TechManual.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Edited by Cray (12/21/06 09:08 AM)
|
Fang
12/21/06 09:21 AM
65.82.104.120
|
I think I remember reading it in my paper back Battletech Compendium from FASA. in the MEch construction area. WIll have to look tonight for exact pages/wording. I do remember from the 3050 TRO that those slots were already pre assigned.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
KitK
12/21/06 02:21 PM
204.83.49.76
|
OK, well, I am certain I have seen this discussed and the conclusion was that it was not required by rule even if it seemed logical. And I could think of some rational why it is neither necessary nor representative of actual structural placement.
However, I have found a source that says I am wrong, or at least I am going to be wrong in the future.
Page 53 of this PDF at the bottom of column one clarifies the issue. They are fixed.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/downloads/TechManual_Page50-57_Preproofing.pdf
So now that I stand corrected maybe some interesting discussion!
Is it a good or bad change?
Who out there is affected and will have to go back and change their Mechs?
Does HMP already implement this? Dare we hope for an upgrade to TDB that implements it?
Personally I think it is positive overall. It makes sense to me that they should be locked because they are pre-assigned. However, the fact that they don't have to be assigned in and orderly fashion (i.e. to each section), and that the largest section of the mech structure, the CT, can hold fewest criticals of each (i.e. not proportionally representative) calls into question the necessity and reality aspects of the rule. Provision to move criticals at least to an adjacent section might be a nice compromise.
But, I guess I'll be changing some of my Mechs. I try to follow the convention anyway, but inevitably I have moved some criticals because I could, especially in IS Mechs.
|
Cray
12/21/06 04:20 PM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Is it a good or bad change?
I like the change. I find it very logical. You have other fixed structures in a mech located in critical slots, like engines and actuators. Since the endo/ferro crits are permanent, it seems logical that you couldn't move them around on a whim, no more than you can shift the engine or cockpit.
Quote:
Who out there is affected and will have to go back and change their Mechs?
I always designed my omnis as if the endo/ferro crits were fixed.
Quote:
Does HMP already implement this?
I think so, but I rarely make HMPro omnis. It's probably achieved when you lock the core chassis. If not, then nevermind.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Fang
12/22/06 10:32 AM
65.82.104.120
|
From what i saw in the link you showed posted, nothing much has really changed. Omni crits for ferro, endo, XL, core heatsinks(not ones added in weapons pods) and jumpjets have always been fixed. Back in the day, when they first introduced the 3050 TRO, and the battletech compendium ( mine is paperback, blue, and very well worn  ) I made my fair share of omni's, and those crits were always fixed.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Fang
12/22/06 02:57 PM
65.82.104.120
|
bsides, I think they should be fixed. kinda hard to see a bunch of techs with hammers trying to bend the foamed titanium alloy frame into new shapes to accomodate a new weapons load.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
NewPharoah_Max
12/22/06 03:27 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I don't think that armor should take up critical/item slots since armor covers what's on a unit.
Greetings to you too.
|
Fang
12/22/06 05:17 PM
65.82.104.120
|
True, but Ferro armor is not quite like standard armor. It offers more protection, but the cost is that it takes up more spcae than standard armor. For game purposes, it makes sense that it would take up crits to show this. other wise, who would use standard armor any more. every one would use ferro, or blazer, or any of the other new armor types out there willy nilly with no regard to any one else! Chaos would reigh! Oh, the humanity! In order for it to fit in nicely for game purposes, there had to be a penalty to offset the advantage. I would think in the CBT universe though( as in the fiction or RPG), that the armor would simple be viewed as another form of armor with cost being the mitigating factor, instead of how many 'crits' it takes up.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Cray
12/22/06 07:44 PM
68.200.109.191
|
Quote:
I don't think that armor should take up critical/item slots since armor covers what's on a unit.
That's one argument. However, keep in mind that armor is not entirely on the surface of the unit - it also has to connect to the internal structure.
And like real world problems with shaping armor plate, sometimes the armor won't cooperate and form the shape you'd like to wrap around an item of equipment, preventing you from mounting the gear you want.
BT represents those abstractions by having ferro-fibrous armor use additional critical slots.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NewPharoah_Max
12/29/06 12:16 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Ferro armor is more vulnerable to acidic attacks than standard armor.
Greetings to you too.
|
KitK
01/06/07 03:18 PM
69.11.32.228
|
I finally got through all my omnimechs. Most variants were OK. Only a few Clan assault variants needed a piece of equipment or two reengaged. I had to redesign a 45 and 50 ton Level 2 IS mech. I had to drop ferro-fiber all together and shave off some armor, but over all they turned out the same.
|