Talk:Elemental (Battle Armor)

This article is within the scope of the Ground Units WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of non-BattleMech ground units. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been flagged for review by the Project: Ground Units team. If you have reviewed this article, please remove the tr parameter from this template.

September 2009[edit]

Should it be mentioned that in various magical traditions, a Slyph is an Air Elemental, a Gnome is an Earth Elemental, an Undine is a Water Elemental, and a Salamander is a Fire Elemental? --Cameron 16:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is about the "original" Toad battlesuit. That information can be noted in the article for each of those battlesuits. I'm pretty sure that I did it for at least one. --Scaletail 01:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it correct in stating that one of the modular weapons for the Elemental is a standard Small Laser? Since the Elemental is a Clan battle armor, wouldn't it use an ER Small Laser instead? Or is it that battle armor is an exception to the Clans general lack of standard-class energy weapony? — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by DragonoftheRust (talkcontribs) on 20 October 2009.
Yes, it is a standard small laser. --Scaletail 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Newest source with stats, Technical Readout: 3058 Upgrade, reconfirms its a standard. Cyc 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
weapon is actually something similar to IIRC Infantry scale (Clan) Support Laser ramped up to do the damage of an IS Small Laser...looks like they will do more for RPG stats in AToW--Cameron 01:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

News story from October 5th, 2017: Russia develops Elemental-like Battle Armor: --

Elemental II[edit]

I believe the Elemental II suit has enough info to warrant a separate page for itself. Thoughts? LittleWolf (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2018 (EDT)

It's a different enough design that I want to agree. However, it is also a failed/cancelled prototype that appears unlikely to be revisited future products. As a standalone design, that is enough to start a new page, but as a (very) different variant, I don't think it is.--Cache (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2018 (EDT)