Countergod
01/22/03 10:57 PM
160.39.139.144
|
Look will you two just shutup about that, you have made more than half of the posts in this thread a gigantic arguement edging on breaking cannon rule #3 of the discussion board  and frankly, I am tired of having to read it  (when I click to read respones to my posts, I have a 56K connection so Its stuck on my screen for almost a minute)
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck 
Maj. NevLord Madman |
Karagin
01/22/03 11:14 PM
68.21.150.192
|
You know...you are right it did go from a simple stating that two statements made by Bob were incorrect to him getting upset.
I am sorry that happen, I am sorry that I pointed out he was wrong. I am sorry that you have a slow 56k modem, the same speed as my own connection, and I am sorry that there folks in this world that can't get along with each other.
But I can't fix any of that and so we are where we are and while I do agree this did get heated, it was very tame in all essence. I simplily pointed out that Bob was inncorrect and he saw fit to argue about it.
So again I am sorry that you wasted your time read all of the posts after seeing that Bob and I were as you said almost coming to breaking rule 3, for that I am truely sorry and will try not to let that happen again. And I am sorry that I am even replying to this in this manner but I find it funny how once again I get told that we (bob and myself) need to stop arguing.
So let me point out something, TELL HIM DIRECTELY, tell me only get's the point across to me and the manner you have chosen to do this really doesn't make it a very good once since as has been stated by Bob in the past he will not stop acting like he does. So if I can offer some advice to you, please TELL HIM not me that he needs to stop agruing with everyone who happens to disagree with him or finds his information to be incorrect or way off target. Please tell him direcetly so as there can be no misunderstanding as to what you mean.
Thanks you though for sharing your concern and desire for all of us to get along and be rational folks talking about Battletech.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/22/03 11:16 PM
68.21.150.192
|
Same weight less crits and less and they have dual purpose ammo, one shot can be cluster the other a slug thus they have several advantages over the standard AC for the Clans.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightward
01/22/03 11:38 PM
210.50.63.144
|
We don't put "eh" on the end of all our sentances. I could have said "huh?", but it was an extra letter 
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
BA_Evans
01/23/03 10:02 AM
65.194.182.3
|
That is the same decision Inner Sphere mech designers have to make with the 7 ton PPC and the 7 ton ER PPC, the 5 ton Large Laser and the 5 ton ER Large Laser, the 1 ton Medium Laser and the 1 ton ER Medium Laser.
The extra heat build up from the ER weapons isn't always desireable.
|
BA_Evans
01/23/03 10:20 AM
65.194.182.3
|
Hear, Hear, I second that motion.
|
Karagin
01/23/03 11:20 AM
68.21.149.251
|
The I suggest you read my reply to Countergod, becasue telling me that things need to change is only dealing with HALF of the problem.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Warner_Doles
01/23/03 05:45 PM
209.107.201.212
|
The question or challenge was made about the Clans and minimum ranges to be proved if possible.
"...seeing how TPTB never changed it...so please prove it.'
So I asked Randall one question about the Inner Sphere minimum range to see if we could change it and he gives me this:
W Doles: Here's a question: How come in all the technical upgrades and changes have the LRMS (Inner Sphere) minimum ranges not been lowered or removed AFTER obtaining the Clan versions? At least change it to a minimum of 3.. on any Level 2 machine. Surely that will not unbalance them?
Randall: Because the removal of the minimum ranges for the Clans was an error plain and simply; they were not suppose to not have minimums.
W Doles: oh it was? haha
W Doles: Can I quote you on that?
Randall: I don't care.
Randall: Regardless, we have established an aesthetic that the Clans have far superior weapons, but the IS has superior selection-munitions, different variants on a weapon and so forth. Hence the answer to 'balance' IS LRMs was not a better weapon, but munitions.
So Bob is correct.
If you chose to doubt me and want to verify this you can contact the BattleTech Line Director at precentor_martial@classicbattletech.com.
As always, enjoy!
|
Karagin
01/23/03 06:27 PM
68.21.149.48
|
I am going by the published material, and if IT was a mistake as has been stated here FASA had more then enough time to correct it via the errata sheets OR in the Compendium.
So based on the ORIGINAL and CURRENT rules of the game, they NEVER had a minimum.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
01/23/03 06:37 PM
65.32.253.120
|
In reply to:
So based on the ORIGINAL and CURRENT rules of the game, they NEVER had a minimum.
Why so nasty? You asked for proof, you got it.
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.
|
Warner_Doles
01/23/03 07:40 PM
209.107.201.212
|
That is a pretty rude nasty there Eric. Nice, thank you. I guess "Speak to each other in a civil manner. (Rule)" means nothing? Anyway...
In reply to:
I am going by the published material, and if IT was a mistake as has been stated here FASA had more then enough time to correct it via the errata sheets OR in the Compendium.
So based on the ORIGINAL and CURRENT rules of the game, they NEVER had a minimum.
Be that as it may, you asked for proof. I gave it to you from the BattleTech Line Director and then you call him a liar. Nice.
Bob, Eric is not man enough to admit he was wrong. You were right. BTW Bob, I have second and third printing revised of TRO 3050 (1990) which both and they say the same thing as Eric's supposed un-revised edition.
Good catch Bob.
|
NathanKell
01/23/03 09:18 PM
67.86.63.119
|
Well I'll be darned.
That's very interesting information, and I thank you for setting us straight!
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Karagin
01/23/03 09:29 PM
68.21.149.34
|
Excuse me? You tell me that Randal says now that the lack mins on the Clan LRMs was an error, YET, never once did FASA change it...Sorry but that is like locking the barn door after the horse have run off and saying it never happen.
So again, the RULES have ALWAYS stated that they have NOT had minimums thus Bob saying there was error when FASA had more then enough time between TR3050 coming out and the printing of the first Compendium to correct this supposed error, tells me that they were NOT meant to have minimums.
But I can see that you won't see it has it and will find away to make it out that I am out to get you or what ever.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/23/03 09:32 PM
68.21.149.34
|
Not nasty or mean, pointing out that the facts state for themselves that the Clan LRMs have never had a minimum range if it was that they should have had one, then there was ample time for FASA to fix the suppose error between the time TR3050 came out and the printing of the Compendium.
As others have pointed out the Gauss Rifle got changed from 10 shots to 8 with in the scope of it's debut to the change, so if the lack minimums was an issue, they had time to fix it before it became hard set in stone.
So there was no attack or any of the such. I was pointing out that the original and current rules don't support the claim of an error.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Chas
01/23/03 10:00 PM
208.178.23.170
|
Karagin,
You asked for proof that the lack of a minimum on Clan LRMs was a typo. Warner provided it. Right from the Line Developer's mouth/keyboard/what-have-you.
It doesn't matter if it wasn't errata'ed, etc. By the time FASA would have gotten around to fixing it, the market was already well flooded with erroneous material, and the lack of minimum was firmly entrenched.
You didn't ask why they didn't correct it. You merely asked someone to prove that it was originally a mistake (even though it has now become canonical).
That has been done.
So please stop attacking people who provide you with the data you asked for because they didn't provide you with data you didn't ask for.
To everyone else: The munchkin in me is perfectly fine with min-less CLRMs. It makes whupping up on you ugly spheroids that much more fun..... At least for me.....
---
"High necked fashions just became the IN thing here on Tharkad."
-- Morgan Kell
-- Grave Covenant
|
Karagin
01/23/03 10:04 PM
68.21.149.34
|
First Chas, there was no attack. I am sorry that Warner sees an attack from anyone who disagrees with him. So there was no attack just an over active imagination by one poster.
Second, I stand by the call of it's a little late for TPTB to claim it was an error when there has been more then enough time to fix, given that they changed the ammo for Gauss rifle from 10 to 8.
So the point still stands that for the last 12 years the Clans have had NO mimimun on their LRMs, I doubt that was mistake.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Paul
01/23/03 10:23 PM
68.33.41.106
|
In reply to:
Second, I stand by the call of it's a little late for TPTB to claim it was an error when there has been more then enough time to fix, given that they changed the ammo for Gauss rifle from 10 to 8.
So the point still stands that for the last 12 years the Clans have had NO mimimun on their LRMs, I doubt that was mistake.
Randall flat out tells you it's a mistake, and that's not enough? =)
It doesn't matter that they had the oppertunity to fix it. Nor that they didn't. It matters that it originally was a mistake, and they left it be. Randall said so, plain and simple. Why do you refuse to accept this?
Paul
|
Karagin
01/23/03 10:29 PM
68.21.149.225
|
I am not refusing to except it, I am pointing out that calling it a mistake now is like when a former LD said the older material is to full of mistakes to be worried about...it falls under the idea that if it was indeed a mistake then it should have been fixed.
Randal didn't tell me squat about this, I didn't see him post and say anything about this.
The point is they (FASA) had time to fix it and they left it, thus there was no mistake. Which brings us back to the point of should the IS LRMs lose or reduce the minimums to bring them on par or close to par as their Clan counterparts.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Paul
01/23/03 10:36 PM
68.33.41.106
|
In reply to:
Randal didn't tell me squat about this, I didn't see him post and say anything about this.
?
Oh, you doubt that Warner quoted him truthfully? Well, I can't change your beliefs.
In reply to:
it falls under the idea that if it was indeed a mistake then it should have been fixed.
In reply to:
The point is they (FASA) had time to fix it and they left it, thus there was no mistake.
Coulda shoulda woulda.
Just because it's not fixed doesn't mean it's not a mistake. To assume such is illogical, but I trust that you're actually very happy with any product Microsoft makes, any government in the world, and the current world peace.
They had time to fix it. They didn't. Oh well.
As for new IS LRM's, sure, I could see how a special ammo type could have less minimum range. Then again, one could argue that the source of the lack of minimums is the launcher, not the missiles. If I would drop it, I'd drop it to 3 myself. Maybe 4.
Paul
|
Karagin
01/23/03 10:39 PM
68.21.149.225
|
I don't doubt Warner talked to him, I just don't see him (Randal) posting and thus it's not offical.
They didn't fix it, because those who where running things didn't see a need to...thus no mistake and saying so now is saying that everyone back then was wrong.
As for your comment about MS and the rest...bait someone else.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Paul
01/23/03 10:40 PM
68.33.41.106
|
Nah, no batiting.
I just think your logic is completely flawed, but I'm happy to leave you with your opinion.
Sorry if my posts caused you any amount of aggrevation.
Paul
|
Karagin
01/23/03 10:42 PM
68.21.149.225
|
Just as flawed as those who think anyone who disagree with them is attacking them...
No aggervation was incurred...just a point proven once again.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cadet
01/23/03 11:10 PM
206.102.32.40
|
It doesn't matter if it wasn't errata'ed, etc. By the time FASA would have gotten around to fixing it, the market was already well flooded with erroneous material, and the lack of minimum was firmly entrenched.
I'd buy the first printing was a typo IF it was changed in subsequent printings, but to say it was firmly entrenched doesn't make sense since it could easily have been changed in the BattleTech Compendium, the same way Gauss Rifle rounds were lowered from 10 to 8.
FASA has changed rules, it has changed rulings in the past. To say that they wouldn't couldn't do that when a first print was incorrect doesn't make sense. There wasn't that much on the market at the time.
Does not play well with others.
|
Vapor
01/24/03 03:05 AM
202.128.69.122
|
The way I always understood it (though I have been known to be wrong on occasion  ) was that it was the delayed target-lock that created the minimum range. I do agree, though, that if it were the delayed warhead arming that created the minimum range, that there should be reduced damage dealt to the target, not a higher to-hit number.
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC
"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
|
Nightmare
01/24/03 03:32 AM
80.222.92.246
|
Who knows when they noticed the error? A mistake left uncorrected is still a mistake to me, even if someone starts calling it a 'unique feature' later on.
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
Cadet
01/24/03 04:59 AM
206.102.35.37
|
Right, but if it was a mistake, it could have been corrected by FASA/FP at anytime. It could have made it into one of the many, many errata sheets we've had over the years, or into one of the rulebooks. To say "Well it's an error, but we didn't want to correct it because people already had the book" is just a cheap cop out.
Does not play well with others.
|
BigCol
01/24/03 05:17 AM
203.51.211.200
|
I think this whole things shows that FASA could of had better Proof-Readers at the time of publishing the 3050.
But hey, things slip trough the system sometimes.
I don't want the world...
I just want your half...
Ana Ng - They Might be Giants
|
Nightward
01/24/03 05:22 AM
210.50.58.175
|
Yeah, but what are you going to do about it? I don't know if you played Diablo II, but changing the LRM rule now would be like changing the way Concentration and Spiritual Hammer worked. It wasn't supposed to be like that, got put in by mistake, and then some took advantage of it.
As with D2, if they did cange it now, the vast majority of players wouldn't care, but the munchkins and vocal minority would be heard screaming on Strana Mechty. It just ain't worth it.
As an aside, I have a copy of the BMR, (Unrevised) which lists Jump Laser and SRM Troops as having 3 Jump MP. What if *THAT* mistake had been perpetuated?
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Nightward
01/24/03 05:26 AM
210.50.58.175
|
So go to CBT and ask him there. As things are, it doesn't matter. The rules are the rules. Just give it a rest, huh? The rulings have been made and given, and we've been given insights from the people who were there.
Things are what they are.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Cadet
01/24/03 06:33 AM
206.102.33.5
|
People can scream all they want, but it isn't that big of a deal for them to have an updated rule book with correct stats and rulings. And if stuff changes between editions, then it changes. I'm just saying it is a total cop out for them to claim it couldn't be fixed after the fact.
Does not play well with others.
|