Talk:Hypervelocity Autocannon

This article is within the scope of the Project Technology, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of Technology. 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 Technology WikiProject team. If you have reviewed this article, please remove the tr parameter from this template.

Canon

Are these still canon, or should we put a note here? ClanWolverine101 22:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

These are still canon. They appear in the Tactical Operations book. I've added that reference to the "references" section. --Mbear 12:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm nit-picky about references, and I didn't have those books myself. ClanWolverine101 15:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"I'm nit-picky about references." That's a positive feature. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Well, I was one of the people who wasted money on the old "Tactical Handbook" back in the day, only to watch as most of the new toys were later dropped or revised. (Did you know that originally, the IS Ultra AC/10 would have a longer range than its Clan equivalent? And don't get me started about the Laser Anti-Missle system.) ClanWolverine101 19:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And that's why I'm always pushing the citing of resources, for each and every statement added. Provide the reader with the original source and let them decide and/or improve the article. No reference, less chance of research. I -for one- have spun around in my chair to reach for a title, if an Editor mentions it in conversation, just to weigh in with my perspective. The citations are some of the strongest benefits that BTW provides to the reader. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Useless?

Is it just me or are these kind of pointless in 3059? In 3050, they would make a little sense as an answer to Clan autocannons, but why bother in 3059 when you have I.S. Ultra and LB-X models coming into service?

Range is barely any better than an LB-X, but with a significant weight and heat penalty, less ammo per ton, and no advanced ammo types. They don't even do anything interesting to give them a flavor aspect. Have I missed something in the rules, or are HV-Autocannons pretty much obsolete as soon as they're introduced?--— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by 98.211.26.94 (talk • contribs) .

Rename over redirect

This page needs renamed to Hyper-Velocity Autocannon, as that's the spelling used in rulebooks. I moved the redirect page for Hyper-Velocity Autocannon to Hyper-Velocity Autocannon X in preparation but apparently what works on Wikipedia for circular moves doesn't work here. Could somebody please fix my mess? Madness Divine (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2022 (EDT)

Looks like somebody fixed the redirect move but there's still the issue of renaming this page over a redirect. Madness Divine (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2022 (EDT)