Toontje
09/22/06 04:06 AM
84.24.178.225
|
The specs are there, it's called a LL... No need to make something very similar, only needlessly complicates things..
Rather to blow up, then.
|
JackGarrity
09/22/06 07:56 AM
71.207.230.120
|
but eets FUN yeah. heh. dunno just, pondering tech is all. protomechs have poential, and lighter mechs always can benifit from hardware.
Greetings Mechwarrior.
|
Greyslayer
09/24/06 06:17 PM
216.14.198.52
|
Historically in one of the older books kicking about (Perhaps a old Snords book or something) I seem to remember a Star League PPC that did more damage as was perhaps slightly lighter than the stock standard PPC but was only in experimental levels of testing on mechs before the Star League collapsed. They may have referred to it at the Light PPC.
|
JackGarrity
09/25/06 02:15 AM
71.207.230.120
|
*nods* therein is the problem, a lot of the old books have one or two refs, or they change the information in small ways via new publications adn things get lostin the mix. its probably something that is best suited for protomechs anways; I like the PPC but the mass and heat, cause me to use it rarely, I use clan tech elements becuase they are better in conjunction with IS tech as a hybrid, i rarely use omnimechs of any sort, just wish some of the equipment was a bit more compact or at least not require so much HS.. then again, everyone would possibly be in a Awsome with 6 PPCs if that was the case.
Greetings Mechwarrior.
|
Dragonstar
10/01/06 01:06 AM
68.127.119.29
|
The light PPC is a Kurtian invention first debuted on (I think) their Panther light mech. I don't recall the book it is in, unfortunately. I'll have to dig through my books. It is a real weapon (or at least it was-it must have been dropped). It did less damage and had less range than a standard PPC but was lighter. Along the lines of the light Gauss. If I recall, it did 8 points of damage. I wasn't impressed. It was in one of the Kurita source books a few years ago, before FASA closed. I'll go through my books and let you know.
|
JackGarrity
10/01/06 01:19 AM
71.207.230.120
|
ooh.. thanks ^^ and if its kurtia then even better ;D long live the Combine, regardless of the Coordinator heh. yeah now, just need a way to insert data into the drawing board. heh.. and woot its Vash.
Greetings Mechwarrior.
|
strife
01/08/07 04:58 AM
216.40.89.182
|
Guass rifles do make more sense on vehicles, but, reguardless, a guass is for blowing of arms and legs and heads. The concentrated damage and long range make it better then a PPC. Although, PPCs are nice if you got dbl heat sinks, You can stick one on a fusion powered vehicle, but thats about it.
For an assault mech, I'd say the PPC takes a back seat to a guass rifle as a primary weapon.
Guasses cost less then a UAC/10 and the ammo is cheap too, (its just a metal football) About them exploding, well, put the ammo in a a CASE. Anyways, they're cool because a guass and annilate just about any light mech with one good shot to the CT. Light mechs deserve to be annilated.
"caliber fifty JUSTICE!"
|
Karagin
01/08/07 06:24 AM
70.123.166.36
|
Gauss Ammo doesn't explode, the gun does.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Fang
07/30/08 04:45 PM
151.193.203.12
|
Question. Guass ammo does not explode, true. Would placing case in the location the rifle is located actually divert any damage in the same way as ammo in the event of an explosion? Lets say, a mech has less than 15int in the right torso where the Guass is located. Would case actually divert damage from the exploding rifle away in the same way as a typical ammo blow out? or would that only work with exploding ammo?
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Lafeel
07/30/08 05:19 PM
157.157.83.10
|
I think case works on exploding gauss rifles too, although I would have to check to be sure. *more than willing to do just that if asked*
|
Fang
07/31/08 01:05 AM
75.181.136.63
|
I'm askin'! I'm askin'!
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Lafeel
07/31/08 01:12 AM
157.157.83.10
|
From: Total Warfare, Catalyst games edition (ie the latest version of the Battletech rules), page 133, direct quote
Quote:
If ammo (or any other explosive component such as a gauss rifle) in a CASE equipped location explodes, it damages the internal structure. Any excess damage simply dissipates
Not the entire entry for CASE, but it says it all, and in the first two sentences, no less.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/31/08 01:38 PM
70.0.47.68
|
So CASE explosions no longer destroys the rear armor?
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!!!
|
Lafeel
07/31/08 01:45 PM
157.157.83.10
|
Quote:
So CASE explosions no longer destroys the rear armor?
Nope, apparently not, as there's nothing said about that happening.
edit: that is how vehicles went out their case explosions instead. Through the rear armor..And here's the real kicker: while for 'mechs only one slot cooks off, they all do on vehicles, so even if you survive thanks to case, you now have a serious headache (crew gets stunned) but also all of your ammo is gone.
Edited by Lafeel (07/31/08 01:53 PM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/31/08 03:31 PM
70.0.47.68
|
In my book everything in that location is destroyed except the engine, cockpit and front armor.
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!!!
|
Lafeel
07/31/08 05:40 PM
157.157.83.10
|
That makes no sense what so ever..
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/31/08 06:00 PM
70.0.22.79
|
In the third printing 1995 book of Battletech compendium
quote If ammo in a CASE-equipped location explodes it damages the weapons, internal structure, and equipment mounted in that location. Apply excess damage to the armor of the location (the rear armor, for torso locations) any remaining damage not absorbed by armor simply dissipates. end quote
Elsewhere it said vital components such as engine and cockpit will not take damage.
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!!!
|
Lafeel
07/31/08 06:11 PM
157.157.83.10
|
Quote:
In the third printing 1995 book of Battletech compendium
quote If ammo in a CASE-equipped location explodes it damages the weapons, internal structure, and equipment mounted in that location. Apply excess damage to the armor of the location (the rear armor, for torso locations) any remaining damage not absorbed by armor simply dissipates. end quote
Elsewhere it said vital components such as engine and cockpit will not take damage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rules back then also had it so that you could not put case on vehicles, period, iirc.
also if all the internal structure of a location is gone, that location is destroyed, so if you had a xl engine in there, it just had it's fusion reactor opened up like a coke can. (one of the main reasons why xl engines are so vunerable)
Edited by Lafeel (07/31/08 06:14 PM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/31/08 07:49 PM
70.0.22.79
|
Yes your wrong. It destroys all ammo the IS and rear armor of all vehicles. Its dead in the water but from what it says nothing else is destroyed. It implies that all damage is reparable.
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!!!
|
Lafeel
07/31/08 07:57 PM
157.157.83.10
|
Quote:
Yes your wrong. It destroys all ammo the IS and rear armor of all vehicles. Its dead in the water but from what it says nothing else is destroyed. It implies that all damage is reparable.
As long as the reactor doesn't explode, sure. However that does not mean that said repair is going to be either easy, cheap, or fast.
I think you just don't realize what the is is to a mech. It's the skeleton, so if you lose such a large portion of it (equalient to a large chunk of your rib cage (about half of it)), including everything along with it, do you think that repairing you is easy? It works pretty much the same for a mech, so you can figure it out.
Edited by Lafeel (07/31/08 08:00 PM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/31/08 08:14 PM
70.0.22.79
|
There is a big difference between a living thing and a machine. You can take parts from a lot of machines and make one working machine. You cant take hamburger and make a living cow.
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!!!
|
Lafeel
07/31/08 08:18 PM
157.157.83.10
|
Sure you could take parts from fifteen different 'mechs and make a new one, but the end result will almost invariably be a frankenstein's monster, namely a mechanic's (and often a pilot's) night mare.
Plus, if the fusion engine goes up (explodes), which can happen when it loses it's shielding (represented by the three possible engine crits), you will be lucky to get few usefull pieces of armor as salvage, as a uncontrolled nuclear fusion reaction destroys pretty much anything it comes close to.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/31/08 08:24 PM
70.0.22.79
|
I think we got off subject some time ago.
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!!!
|
Lafeel
07/31/08 08:26 PM
157.157.83.10
|
Now you say that when I've done such a good job of proving your statements in accurate..
|
Fang
07/31/08 10:58 PM
75.181.136.63
|
sooo...vehicles can now have CASE?
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Lafeel
07/31/08 11:53 PM
157.157.83.10
|
Quote:
sooo...vehicles can now have CASE?
Sure can, but ammo explosions are still nothing to scoff at for the reasons I stated above.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/01/08 09:50 AM
70.6.213.25
|
Quote:
sooo...vehicles can now have CASE?
They always could. Unless they could then they could not then could again. I don't have a copy of each printing of all the books. I don't know if at one point that vehicles could not have CASE.
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!!!
|
Fang
08/01/08 04:44 PM
151.193.203.13
|
1994 Battle Tech Compendium. I cold have sworn that it stated vehicles coudl not have case. But now that I think about it, I think that was actually DBL Heatsinks that were forbidden on vees. CASE is used, but blows out all the rear armor as stated before.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/01/08 10:40 PM
68.26.156.30
|
The DHS are not aloud in vehicles at least as far as my book goes
Thats another rule that tries to make mechs more powerful than vehicles. But since vehicles don't need heat sinks for anything other than energy weapons its no loss.
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!!!
Edited by His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey (08/01/08 10:43 PM)
|
Lafeel
08/01/08 10:41 PM
157.157.83.10
|
Quote:
The DHS are not aloud in vehicles at least as far as my book goes
Still aren't, as far as I know.
|