Just thinking of a possible house rule

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
Karagin
04/04/16 06:12 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why would they need heat sinks for Ballistic or Missiles weapons? The idea here is that the vehicles are already in the hole, since they have some how managed to miss out on Endo Steel and DHS to start with, now the balance issue would be that if the vehicle is using DHS then they would lost critical slots, which would be a good balance, again this wouldn't be the best solution but it is better then the non-answer you get from the PTB.

And the idea that the IC engines in Battletech are TWICE the weight of the Fusion and the answer is here is a fuel cell and some other possible engine types and well these work better with our Support Vehicle Rules but well if you want them in combat vehicles well...sorry but come on let's get real. The same amount of effort that goes into mechs would be applied to vehicles as a whole since they are cheaper to make or should be. But some how that is not the case in Battletech.

My group decided to test things, so we picked four vehicles from canon setting, and revamped them with Endo and DHS, no other changes, same to hit table, which is another area that keeps vehicles as well it's a total joke, and with that still in play kept things very balanced. Lance on Lance was the setting and things ended with three dead vehicles, gee imagine that, and two dead mechs. The lone vehicle that lived, the Sherck, only did so because it stayed at range and fired at what it could hit and only that. So really nothing changed, but again some how the balance of the game is upset and folks who know or are TPTB get all upset and angry when this topic comes up. Can't wait for the counters from them as normally comes when this topic pops up...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/04/16 12:08 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I want to say the open frame work of vehicles is why they allowed the no heat, and it would seem that is why they are so vulnerable to crits.

I think the idea of using munition weapons died out no only because of limited munitions/weight, but the cost concept of reloads has also affected players choice, since most players seem to be mercs, or run a business themselves. Yet most don't seem to really deal with costs, as they are able to come up with new units and produce them without the long and expensive design process. And yes, I know that is too much of a long and boring thing to roll play. If you had access to free munitions, would you use them more?
Or stick with energy weapons?

I asked before if the limited supplies of ammo is one reason people don't use those as much. Missiles, especially lrms seem to be used the most for vehicles. Gauss rifles come in second for weapons that aren't anti infantry.

But back to the dhs and such. I would say vehicles would be on par with mechs when they can kick and punch as well as do the rest. The only physical attack I can see is a charge, or ram to make sure we are on the same page. Optional rules might be needed to enhance damage to a vehicle that was sent flying thru the air from a mechs kick. A new critical might be enabled, like flipped on top/side. Even a mech attack that allows them to flip the tank.

Vehicles are still not the cheap source they should be. I really think the construction prices needs to drop. Granted more real world applications coming in, but a car is cheaper whole then it is to buy the parts separate. And for the down sides of it, the ice should be much cheaper to encourage more use of it. Without a fusion engine, most energy tanks would be less common.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 01:11 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yeah that's what I thought. You just want to buff vehicles. Remove their disadvantages while keeping their advantages. It's not about what's logical.

If you want powerful vehicles, it's probably better to play a game which doesn't centre on Battlemechs. TPB are never going to bring vehicles up to the level of battlemechs because the majority of players don't want that. That's just the nature of playing a game which revolves around Giant Robots.

Or if you don't want to play anything else then take advantage of some of the optional rules in Tactical Operations which remove vehicle disadvantages. Or just house rule whatever into the game.


Vehicle already make battlemechs obsolete. You can buy a lance of Demolishers for every one Atlas.
Want to make vehicles worthwhile? Then play by c-bills, not tonnage. If you buy&limit forces by c-bills then battlemechs are instant fodder in 90% of situations because they'll be outnumbered big time.

Stormcrow 14.7 million
Condor 1.27 million

Buy 11 Condors for one Stormcrow. Outnumber the mech in BV 7000 to 2000

Or buy a scorpion. 327K cbills.
Get 44 Scorpion Light Tanks for every Stormcrow. 13,400 Battle Value compared to 2000 for the Stormcrow.

And ghostrider wants ICE engines to be cheaper.






ghostrider
04/04/16 05:45 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If they hadn't done things that might be considered dumb, like allowing you to drop from orbit, then it I would agree they are powerful now.

Now. You are comparing a clan omni to the condor. I would assume that is the original 3026 tro condor. Might as well suggest warships obsolete as well. They can wipe out regiments of them quickly in space and on the ground.
It is fine to use the mechs as the main punch. And with basic economics that you just mentioned, how many vehicles do you have in support of the mechs you run?
How many vehicles does your group fight?
That is other then the grand blood melee arena combats that seems to be the front runner.
The areanas are the ONLY place you would face mechs like most in the game want. Atttacking a planet, or even the defense of one is one of economics and best of what you can get.

As with every group, you will take what you want to use, and ignore the rest. To be honest, mechs were not that god like when the game came out. Only real advantage they had was being able to move into all terrains, and physical attacks.
The suspension factor is something that may have allowed the mechs to be better at this. Removed from vehicles, or give the mechs a little more speed would help push this back into the better unit. Same with the heat issues with munition weapons.
I would also think mechs should hit better since their elevated platform would give them a better view and fire lanes then something crawling on the ground. Well bipeds anyways. The pilot bonus for quads helps them.

Maybe the issue is the higher tech in itself. Now that once ample armor is crap. The game seems to have shifted from playing it to pure numbers. I can hit you 60% of the time and will kill you after 3 hits. You can hit me 35% of the time and will need 10 shots to penetrate my armor.

The end result still goes back to the group playing. You will NOT use the rules you don't like if others in the group agree to it. TPB have backed themselves into a corner, and nerfing other units is their answer. Maybe the basic ideas of some of the game need to be changed.

Want to buff vehicles?
I want them to be less of targets then they are.
Want to play a game that lasts more then 3 turns unless you move 20?
Stop using the higher tech, and maybe move into using something other then arenas. Some new map sets or maybe home made with more features in might be the idea.
If you can't stand older tech, then maybe use house rules to buff the armor of those same units. Ie, maybe go 3 times the internal structure on the mechs, instead of 2. Oh wait. That means dropping sinks and weapons to do so. How about moving away from reality and actually making mechs have some huge advantages like a fantasy game is suppose you have.
It does seem to fit the idea you project for the game.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 06:03 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The basic ideas of the game will never be changed, to do so would be suicide.

And I use vehicles all the time. But we use Tac Ops rules to make them less vulnerable. Remove motive hits from 5 & 9, ignore direction-modifiers to motives, and randomnly allocate crits if the facing side doesn't have an item.

As OpFor in a clan campaign, I will sometimes have 20 or so vehicles & infantry versus 6-7 clan omnis. Depends what force I'm fielding. But we go by BV not c-bills. I field what forces fit historically.
ghostrider
04/04/16 06:30 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So the vehicles have become unkillable monsters because 2 extra crit slots were taken out, and if the section doesn't have an item in it, they don't reroll the issue.

Ok. So critical hits not transferring from the side of the tank to the front, rear, possibly turret is a horrible thing. The fact those hits are automatic hits, unlike mech criticals is not important. The fact you kill the crew on 3 of those criticals does not over balance them away from vehicles. The fact that only a turret section gone is the only way a tank is not killed when losing a section does not help destroy tanks quicker then mech means nothing just seems odd.

And honestly bv the way battleforce figured it out, was not correct. It was set up for ease to resolve large battles, but with ammo limitations and such, as well as a few other issues I have long since forgot as I don't use that anymore, a demolisher without ammo, is still usable, while in a battle the only real damage it could do once it ran out of ammo is a charge. The ac 20 itself was not as threatening as the range of it made it horrible, though in a played out battle, could destroy a light mech without much issue. The original charger was over rated at range since it was that abstract for damage. Once in short range it became a real threat, but the range of the hexes in battleforce did not corrispond the battle tech. The fact you fit 4 mech in one hex is enough to show that.
BV is not the best measuring stick for balancing units, but until they come up with a better way, we are stuck using it. As for battle force 2, that may have fixed these issues, but I gave up on it from the first one.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 06:42 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Uh, Tanks which lose their turret are dead dude. The only difference is that they can be repaired.

Further the crew killed critical is largely irrelevant. 90% of tanks which get knocked out by criticals will get knocked out because they lose their engine on the side critical chart (or ammunition if its ICE). And crits aren't automatic either. Crtis at just 6+ instead of 8+.

ghostrider
04/04/16 07:06 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Interesting. Most of the games I have played, lose of engine has not been as prevalent as crews dieing. Might be the lack of showing side armor to a unit, or the fact they tend to die before units get into that arc. The fuel and ammo hits are the next largest issues.
This is one time I will admit the newer rules changed the survivability of tanks.
It is still an auto crit. No needing to roll a 8+ like mechs do.
The loss of turret, I will admit that was a house rule we used for years, and have not relooked it up. We found it was too much, as the turret didn't contain the drive system.

So that means all lost locations kill a vehicle. That alone makes it highly more susceptible to losing it.
A mech and lose an arm and a leg and still be working.
I do admit, they need to limit armor on tanks like they do mechs. That might be a balance to their 'advantage'.

So the critical issue I concede has allowed crews to survive longer.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 07:10 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It's not an "auto-crit" if you don't automatically receive a crit.
ghostrider
04/04/16 07:22 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
With the new tables, they did add in that layer. Granted 6 verses 8, but it does give you some hope to survive.
Does it change the fact vehicles are still more screwed up then they should be?
In my opinion, no.

Now wanting to have it transfer to another location if all the criticals are gone in that one does sound like keeping up with mechs. But honestly, if the location is destroyed, why bother? The unit is dead.
I do think you should be able to fix a unit that wasn't destroyed in an explosion, such as just losing all internals.
ghostrider
04/04/16 07:25 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
To avoid tacking on other issues for the one answer, I will post another issue in a separate post.

The number of hit locations for a vehicle is 1, possibly 2 from a single angle.
Mechs have from 5 to 8, making it more likely a vehicle will die faster. All damage goes to few locations.
So I understand why they allowed more armor on the tank, but frankly some are too much. So it may not be the crits that should be harsh, but the amount of armor that should have been the weakness.
Again, my opinion.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 07:30 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
We transfer crits when it doesn't have a corresponding item. Not when the side has been destroyed. This prevents 2nd side crits defaulting to engine hits.

If you're not getting side criticals, you're not fighting vehicles correctly. But then again if you're using BMR the rules are completely different so whatever.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 07:32 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Vehicles have THREE to FOUR locations from a single angle.
Again, your lack of knowledge regarding the current ruleset is a problem in the discussion.
ghostrider
04/04/16 07:40 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One engine critical destroys a vehicle. I believe that has not changed.

And if you are not getting side criticals you are not playing tanks correctly?
How can that statement be made without palming our head?
Maybe vehicles are not the skates for mechs in combat to other people. Played correctly, you try to avoid letting mechs on your flanks, but then I can see where that might not be played properly, since it would mean the mechs are the focus for the enemies fire, not the tanks.

I would think an lrm carrier should not be in the position to ram a mech.
Side shots do happen. I do hope you don't think the dramatic tank rolling up and moving the turret to the side is the way tanks are supposed to be played. That would make me question if the basic concept of the game is in question. All unis should be played as they are to survived the battle. Only things like mg tanks and flamers should be in a position to constantly be hit in the side.
The demolisher example is a good one. If it comes out shooting, I don't think exposing the side would be the best way to play it. Yes, more units means more chances, but we play tanks as mobile weapons platforms, not pill boxed unless they are hunkered down.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 07:45 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
"fighting vehicles" not "playing vehicles".

Engine crits don't destroy a vehicle. They immobilize it. Lock the Turret. And prevent Energy Weapons from firing.
That's the fourth rule you've got wrong at this point.

Tell me this, why do you suppose that I say most tanks should be taken out by engine crits from the side? What are the mechanics that create that?
ghostrider
04/04/16 09:32 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
They have the armor that faces the other unit, and a possible turret. You hit front side or left/right side. So some how, your single unit can hit more then one direction at a time? What rule set is being used?

Actually the engine crits does destroy some vehicles vtols, aircraft, and hover craft on the water are 3 instances where engine destruction results in vehicle destroyed. I don't deal with sea vessels or subs, so not sure if they are the same. Also, anyone that plays a tank crew would not abandon the unit that can't move, does not play intelligently. So I will say that is a assumption on my part. Now if they changed the engine hit from explosion to just loss of power, then that is a nice ploy to show what has changed. The wiki is not coming up with the critical results from such damage.

"fighting vehicles" not "playing vehicles".
That statement tells me vehicles are nothing more then targets in your game, and reaffirms the idea the entire game concept is not used in yout group. If the group does not play them smartly, you should not take that as EVERYONE does so. I would supposed they are nothing more then distractions and extra kills in the meanwhile. Having a tank that actually runs around the back side of a unit that runs up to them might be a valid tactic, but vehicles seem to be pill boxes for your group.
Or is that what is the problem? The idea a vehicle is nothing only to have it destroy an overpowered mech with a single hit to the back side, since it was not only allowed to get behind, but actually walked past because it was nothing seems like it may be a contributing factor.

Getting rules wrong seems to be another order to buy the newest books. I still have not seen anywhere in any book that says this set of rules is the only one to play by. But keep trying.
ghostrider
04/04/16 09:35 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And now this thread it deteriorating.

It seems you have a problem with vehicles being challenging. That's fine. Trying to suggest they are overpowered now, yet suggesting the mechs with pulse/comp isn't sounds off.

As for the dhs/endo issue, some feedback about taking up space to balance it would be nice.
I thought 1 space for 2 dhs, but that might be harsh, or not enough.
Well that isn't hidden by a fusion engine.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 09:48 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What rule set is being used? The current one.

I'm not telling you to buy the rulebook. I'm illustrating the fact that it's impossible to discuss the idea of "improving vehicle rules" when you don't understand what the vehicle rules are. If you want to improve or specifically discuss BMR you should probably state that in the thread. If you want to improve "Battletech" you should probably realize that Battletech is now Total Warfare.

Quote:
"fighting vehicles" not "playing vehicles".
That statement tells me vehicles are nothing more then targets in your game, and reaffirms the idea the entire game concept is not used in yout group. If the group does not play them smartly, you should not take that as EVERYONE does so.



No, that statement should tell you that we play Total Warfare. For example you still haven't told me how the most likely mission kill critical for a tank is an engine hit from the side, and I suspect you didn't give an answer because you simply don't know it. Because knowing the answer requires knowledge of the current vehicle rules.

Quote:

That's fine. Trying to suggest they are overpowered now, yet suggesting the mechs with pulse/comp isn't sounds off.



Never said either one of those things actually. But that's par for the course.
ghostrider
04/04/16 10:01 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You are more likely to roll an 11 then a 12, which the new rules give as the only real instant kill gives. The rest have been dialed back to weapons destroy, crew stunned and cargo/infantry killed.

Now explain how you have 4 hit locations when firing into a vehicle from the front. You hit front armor or possibly turret. Now it's been a while since I got out of school but math says with a turret, the limit is 2.
Did I miss something?
Akalabeth
04/04/16 10:13 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Total Warfare has new vehicle hit charts. You can hit more than the turret or the facing side.

And yes, your answer for the engine hits is wrong.

First the side facing is two hexsides, not one like the front/rear
Side Hit Tables charts allow critical chances on location 8, not just on a 2
Criticals like Engines or Crew Stunned are only hit once. If the crit has been hit it already it moves up the chart until it finds one not hit (assuming they roll at least a 6 to get a crit)
Most vehicles don't have cargo or side weapons.
This means any two criticals from the side, will often result in first crew stunned, then second engine hit. Or if the first crit roll is 9+, then engine hit right from the start.

So yeah, you missed something.
ghostrider
04/04/16 10:30 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
For example you still haven't told me how the most likely mission kill critical for a tank is an engine hit from the side.
You explained that yourself with the last post. Crew stunned is not end of mission kill. Engine hit would normally remove the unit from play. Fusion engine goes boom, while ICE has fuel cell go boom. Or the little markings on the chart don't count?
Then again, the wiki one might be out of date.

And I did miss the lunacy of the new locations table. I would love to hear how they could suggest you can hit the side armor while standing in from to the vehicle. With this new rule set, it appears they are trying to kill of vehicles out of the game. I can see maybe a third spot, depending on direction of incoming fire. But the other side would be like hitting the rear armor on a mech facing you.

As for crits, the crew stunned should be something that can be hit more then once, but not in the same round.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 10:35 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
How can you hit the side while standing at the front? Well, they probably assume that the Battletech world is 3-dimensional not orthographic.

TigerShark
04/05/16 12:23 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

For example you still haven't told me how the most likely mission kill critical for a tank is an engine hit from the side.
You explained that yourself with the last post. Crew stunned is not end of mission kill. Engine hit would normally remove the unit from play. Fusion engine goes boom, while ICE has fuel cell go boom. Or the little markings on the chart don't count?
Then again, the wiki one might be out of date.

And I did miss the lunacy of the new locations table. I would love to hear how they could suggest you can hit the side armor while standing in from to the vehicle. With this new rule set, it appears they are trying to kill of vehicles out of the game. I can see maybe a third spot, depending on direction of incoming fire. But the other side would be like hitting the rear armor on a mech facing you.

As for crits, the crew stunned should be something that can be hit more then once, but not in the same round.



"Front" doesn't mean that you're perfectly lined up with the vehicle. BattleTech abstracts the angles a bit because there is constant movement by combat units. Even those 'standing still' in a hex are not REALLY standing still. Vehicles are turning on an axis, 'Mechs are making minute shifts in either direction, infantry are scrambling about into- and out-of-cover, etc.
ghostrider
04/05/16 03:09 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As I said, I could see a third angle on it. Take a rectangular eraser and set in on the table. You could hit a side moving from straight in front of it, but not both sides.
And since the game does not really deal with top/bottom on units, I have ignored them. Not sure if that is what is being added in, but clarifying it might help get on the same page.


And the front concept is an issue with units in the same hex. Common sense says direction of travel when entered should determine facing and damage. Quick down and dirty rules has all units front at each other. This means if 3 units attack one, and all came from different directions, or flank the one unit, all damage is applied to front armor.
Akalabeth
04/05/16 03:47 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Shoot a moving target in the process of turning and you can very much see both sides during the turn
Karagin
04/05/16 05:41 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The whole top/bottom thing has always been the one area that the Battletech vehicles apart from other games, to include Battletech's sister game at FASA (at one time) Renegade Legion and how they handled the combat damage for the vehicles in that game, where Grav Tanks were the mechs and the lonely ground vehicles, well they had a lot of the same issues at the ground vehicles in Battletech, and even those had top and bottom armor. So why did they leave that out of the BT vehicle setup?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
04/05/16 06:46 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Fusion engine goes boom



Fusion engines don't go boom. See BattleTech 2nd edition, 3rd edition, 4th edition, MechWarrior: Companion, and Tech Manual for the fluff explanation.

Per the current vehicular critical hit results, p195 Total Warfare:

Engine Hit: The vehicle�s engine is severely damaged. The
vehicle may not move or change facing for the remainder of
the game and is considered an immobile target. However, its
electronics still function; any Direct-Fire Energy and Pulse
Weapons no longer work; also treat as a turret lock.


Similarly, IC engines don't explode but their fuel tanks do. A fusion-powered vehicle that takes a fuel tank hit treats it as an engine hit: no boom.

Quote:
And I did miss the lunacy of the new locations table. I would love to hear how they could suggest you can hit the side armor while standing in from to the vehicle.



Because you and your target will rarely be arranged directly face on. The broad range of perspectives covered by firing arcs necessarily expose some of other faces of a vehicle or 'Mech - note even in the original BT, an attack on the left side of a 'Mech can hit the right side.

The vehicle hit location tables of Total Warfare make sure that if you're facing the front of a vehicle, then the majority of your shots will hit the front or turret. If you're facing the side, the majority will hit the side or turret, with a chance of hitting the front.

After all, the following image of an Abrams would be considered to be facing the front arc of tank. Note the tank's left side is exposed to a badly-aimed shot. Most will hit the front, but not all.
http://www.hobbylinc.com/gr/tam/tam35269.jpg

Quote:
With this new rule set, it appears they are trying to kill of vehicles out of the game.



The information presented to you on teh interwebs might give that impression, but Total Warfare significantly toughened up vehicles just as it extended the life of infantry. One of the important features was the reduction in insta-kill attacks, like Infernos. Infernos no longer wreck vehicles on a roll of 8+ when they hit but instead count as modest SRMs with a chance for a crit. Dangerous, but a light 'Mech with an SRM 2 is no longer a weapon of mass vehicle destruction.
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.
ghostrider
04/07/16 12:37 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The ammo/plant hit critical is what threw me off. Plant makes it sound like the power plant. To my knowledge that is the engine.
That has changed now.

As for the dual side possible damage when in front of the tank, for example sound off.
If I hit with a streak 2 pack, the way it sounds is I can hit the left side of the tank with one missile and the right side of the tank with the second missile. Maybe the idea that front armor covers the front, including in front of drive train, weapons and such might be why I thought you would not be able to hit more then front armor.
I do find it interesting that they would add in something like hitting a different location for more realism, but leave out things that would close up more holes.
I did notice there is no heat sink hit critical for vehicles. Now why would they leave that out? It is a very important aspect if the units uses energy weapons. It would be an easy way to shut down main energy weapons on ICE's and even fusion engines that don't hide all the sinks. Maybe put it under the cargo/infantry position. That would help those that consider vehicles overly dangerous.

I did say I could see the third side as you move off to one side, but that seems to have been ignored. I do not see being able to hit the other side of the tank, but then I may be settling for the idea of stop and go motion, verses the fluid motion of what a battle would be.
ghostrider
04/08/16 11:37 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Since engines of the same size are supposed to put out the same power, changing the minimum engine weight in a hover, to an actual engine rating might be a quick way around the issue of fusion, light and xl engines used in hovers.

Haven't really looked into a quick and dirty was to do this, though maybe figuring out the ice one can do that rated engine in the rest would be best.

Not sure where the wiki got the upgraded condor and the kanga-x from, but both tanks use the fusion versions of the engine. Would like to know if the source is canon or not.
If it is canon, then the people violated their own rules to put them out.

As was discussed, it seems odd to suggest the weight, and not power output dictate the minimum engine required. Yes they can up with the quick and easy rules years ago, but this should have been given some thought when xl engines came out. Even trying to use a normal fusion engine ran into issues. Going up to the next engine that fit went from from too light, to won't fit. So some home made designs didn't get used until we did a house rule. On such issue was a half ton to light, and the next engine that could be used was so heavy, nothing else would fit on the vehicle.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/08/16 03:00 PM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It all comes down to how one wished to interpretate the 20% rule.

My interpretation of the rule is that that applies to ICE engines. As long as you go with an engine that is equal or greater to the ICE rating your good the actual weight in not relevant.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
Extra information
1 registered and 34 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 enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 31627


Contact Admins Sarna.net