Gargant Garrison Tank

Pages: 1
Retry
04/10/14 10:46 PM
76.7.236.208

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Gargant Garrison Tank
IS TW non-box set
80 tons
BV: 1,356
Cost: 3,865,867 C-bills
Source: Star League

Movement: 3/5 (Wheeled)
Engine: 220

Internal: 40
Armor: 295 (Ferro-Fibrous)
Internal Armor
Front 8 80
Right 8 60
Left 8 60
Rear 8 40
Turret 8 55

Weapons Loc Heat
LRM 20 TU 6
Ultra AC/5 TU 1
Medium Pulse Laser TU 4
Medium Pulse Laser TU 4
Flamer TU 3

Ammo Loc Shots
LRM 20 Artemis-capable Ammo BD 6
LRM 20 Artemis-capable Ammo BD 6
LRM 20 Artemis-capable Ammo BD 6
Ultra AC/5 Ammo BD 20
Ultra AC/5 Ammo BD 20

Equipment Loc
Artemis IV FCS TU
CASE BD
Armored Chassis BD
Guardian ECM Suite BD
ghostrider
04/10/14 11:43 PM
24.30.142.80

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Is there some rule that you don't use max tech in units you forces would be seen fighting?
I have noticed a trend pointing in that direction.
TigerShark
04/11/14 12:47 AM
68.190.197.104

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
"Armored Chassis?" If this is a Support Vehicle, you forgot to list the BAR.
ghostrider
04/11/14 03:40 AM
24.30.142.80

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
we have been trying to get retry to use a program that shows more information.

The one he is using leaves out important information about things like if the unit has ice or fusion for a vehicle. You have to look through the whole thing to find out sometimes.

But that is his choice.
CrayModerator
04/11/14 01:07 PM
97.101.96.171

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
TigerShark writes:

"Armored Chassis?" If this is a Support Vehicle, you forgot to list the BAR.



No, it's a combat vehicle. The "armored chassis" is also an option for combat vehicles in Tactical Operations that provides more resistance to critical hits.
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.
TigerShark
04/11/14 06:36 PM
68.190.197.104

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Cray writes:

Quote:
TigerShark writes:

"Armored Chassis?" If this is a Support Vehicle, you forgot to list the BAR.



No, it's a combat vehicle. The "armored chassis" is also an option for combat vehicles in Tactical Operations that provides more resistance to critical hits.



I only see references to Support Vehicles with Armored Chassis. What page(s) are you referring to?


Edited by TigerShark (04/11/14 06:40 PM)
CrayModerator
04/12/14 10:51 AM
97.101.96.171

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
TigerShark writes:

I only see references to Support Vehicles with Armored Chassis. What page(s) are you referring to?



Apparently, page 9.75 (you know: 9 and three quarters). I was confusing reinforced structure with armored motive system for a non-existent armored chassis.

Well, this is an odd design. It has a 220-rated engine as appropriate to an 80-ton, 3/5 wheeled combat vehicle. However, it has a support vehicle's armored chassis.

So, how'd you build this, Retry? Did you find an item of equipment in an obscure publication?
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.
Retry
04/12/14 11:54 AM
72.214.204.166

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It's in MM. I have no clue what it does on CVs
ghostrider
04/12/14 12:12 PM
24.30.142.80

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
oh no. Karagin is gonna have fun with that answer.

I guess I need to break down and buy the new crap.
Retry
04/12/14 12:14 PM
72.214.204.166

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think it might provide a negative crit hit mod to crit hits.
Karagin
04/12/14 12:40 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What fun would I have Retry? That you are human and make mistakes?

I think you should buy the new stuff. So there is my fun I think, really what would be fun would be on the beach with my wife and no stress from work...don't see that happening anytime soon.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Retry
04/12/14 12:45 PM
72.214.204.166

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Erm... "What fun would have Retry?"

I am not sure how to answer that.
ghostrider
04/12/14 09:24 PM
24.30.142.80

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
think about the argument you had about megamek having all the rules and no errors in it.

Now without having more information, it seems there is more to using an armored chasis then just saying it has it. This isn't the first vehicle like this, but the first one someone has questions about. If you can show the information that is required, the great.

If you can't, megamek has some flaws in it. It would be a good time to double check mm and see if this is an error on their part.
If it is, expect Karagin to start questioning anything you produce with megamek and deal with him telling you it's not official and HAS flaws in it.
I don't want to hear it so make sure it's correct.
Karagin
04/12/14 10:09 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well said Ghostrider.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
TigerShark
04/13/14 03:50 AM
68.190.197.104

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Cray writes:

Quote:
TigerShark writes:

I only see references to Support Vehicles with Armored Chassis. What page(s) are you referring to?



Apparently, page 9.75 (you know: 9 and three quarters). I was confusing reinforced structure with armored motive system for a non-existent armored chassis.

Well, this is an odd design. It has a 220-rated engine as appropriate to an 80-ton, 3/5 wheeled combat vehicle. However, it has a support vehicle's armored chassis.

So, how'd you build this, Retry? Did you find an item of equipment in an obscure publication?



Ahhhhh now that makes sense.

I knew I took my crazy pills today, Cray. I swear I did!! ;-)
TigerShark
04/13/14 03:53 AM
68.190.197.104

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

think about the argument you had about megamek having all the rules and no errors in it.

Now without having more information, it seems there is more to using an armored chasis then just saying it has it. This isn't the first vehicle like this, but the first one someone has questions about. If you can show the information that is required, the great.

If you can't, megamek has some flaws in it. It would be a good time to double check mm and see if this is an error on their part.
If it is, expect Karagin to start questioning anything you produce with megamek and deal with him telling you it's not official and HAS flaws in it.
I don't want to hear it so make sure it's correct.



MegaMek would show it as an Invalid Design. For SEVERAL reasons. Combat Vehicles don't have the Armored Chassis and it would be in the incorrect era anyhow if it had Armored Motive System.

This wasn't designed in MegaMek. Looks like he might have written it as an MTF file and imported it, then copied the report from inside the lobby. This isn't a "TRO" by any means.
ghostrider
05/01/14 10:44 PM
24.30.142.80

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
this is the thread I was talking about. The one that has questioned wiether megamek was missing a rule or some coding.
Retry
05/01/14 10:46 PM
76.7.236.208

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Either it doesn't exist, or it does and I just can't find where it says it does to save my life. Either way, Tigershark already took the initiative about three weeks ago and beat me to the explanation.
ghostrider
05/02/14 01:39 AM
24.30.142.80

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
the program megamek was called into question about wiether it was miscoded.
It is possible they have things in there that is not canon with battletech. Trying to pass it off as such was the issue a few of us purists have with the program.

Now the fact it does not list everything, and with retry's admission, he would remove some of the information if it did, makes a quick overview unavailable. There has been a few questionable entries shown and honestly, the designers of battletech have not stated straight out what the rules are.
Some of them seem to have answered it themselves.
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 126 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 5788


Contact Admins Sarna.net