/btg/ is dead, long live /btg/!
Old Thread: >>48249088 → #
================================================
Combat Manuals Kurita
http://www.mediafire.com/download/l317qcmc9i81744/E-CAT35261_BattleTech_Combat_Manual_Kurita.pdf
Campaign Operations
http://www.mediafire.com/download/b7e9bgevanjxf3y/E-CAT35007_Campaign_Operations.pdf
TtS McEvedy's Folly
http://www.mediafire.com/download/0i6ldp6u1qxbfh5/E-CAT35SN209_BattleTech_Touring_the_Stars_McEvedys_Folly.pdf
================================================
>/btg/ does a TRO:
http://builtforwar.blog(not spam)spot.com/
>How do I do this Against the Bot thing?
http://pastebin.com/pE2f7TR5
>Overview of the major factions?
http://bg.battletech.com/universe/great-houses/
http://bg.battletech.com/universe/the-clans/
http://bg.battletech.com/universe/other-powers/
>How do I find out what BattleMechs a faction has?
http://masterunitlist.info/
>Map of /btg/ players (WIP):
https://www.zeemaps.com/map?group=1116217&add=1
>BattleTech Introductory Info and PDFs
http://bg.battletech.com/?page_id=400
>Rookie guides
http://pastebin.com/HZvGKuGx
>Sarna.net - BattleTech Wiki
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page
>Megamek - computer version of BattleTech. Play with AI or other players
http://megamek.info/
Unit Designing Softwares
>SSW Mech Designer
http://www.solarisskunkwerks.com/
>MegaMek Lab
http://megameklab.sourceforge.net/
>BattleTech IRC
#battletech on irc.rizon.net
>PDF Folders
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/9q792hobnbpw3/Battletech
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/sdckg6j645z4j/Battletech
How do I introduce people who haven't played Mechwarrior or Mechassault to Battletech?
Discussion topic:
What campaign ruleset are you currently playing under? Is there anything you like or dislike about it? Are there any parts you'd like to see in a real CGL* rulebook someday?
*Insert a different, competent, company here, if you feel it's necessary
>>48293503
Currently using a slightly tweaked version of the Total Chaos rules. Just little homebrew additions like cheaper infantry and other such things. It gives us an easy framework to expand off of. It has the right level of crunch for our varied group. Most of us could go deeper on the detail but for the off and on nature of our group its good.
Haven't sat down to really pour over the revised rules they put out in Campaign Ops yet but I have a feeling it'll get used. Probably not till after summer though when the weather will force people back inside. As it is I haven't run a game in three months and have only played two teaching games.
Question, I have looked through the Battletech when playing battletech 'A Time of War' corebook and was wondering where the mech rules are.
Is the Battletech tabletop wargame used to play out the mech parts if/when they do occur?
Thanks
>>48293713
>>48293713
>>48293809
>>48293503
I'm currently using FMM(r) with a few little bits borrowed from MHB 3055 and the original MHB. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for general use, but it works perfectly for my particular way of doing things.
I've downloaded CampOps, and I have to say, it suffers a little from CGL's desire to make it completely scalable and universal, but I think that it's a good idea.
Very much liking the solar system and colony generation stuff, too
>>48293503
We've been playing under a custom-built Warchest-based ruleset for the last 6 months; campaign's slated to go at least another 18 months. Ruleset is attached.
It's a War of Reaving-era campaign (the PCs are playing members of a more militarized Clan Watch who are basically troubleshooters who find trouble and shoot it), where the players are paired off and bid their personal trinaries against each other to achieve the mission with the lowest bid. The losing player then plays the OPFOR for that mission. Each game also has a victory point score; the player with the highest victory point score will determine the next Warchest track (so there's an incentive to do well).
We had a huge problem with people not showing up to play OPFOR when we had a traditional campaign, and the GM can't reasonably play battalions of OPFOR on his own. So breaking this down essentially to a series of 1-on-1 games ensures that the campaign can continue every week if there's 20 people playing, or if there's only 2 people. It also reduces GM headache; planning a battalion-scale game every month (or 10 1-on-1 games) is really tough after 6 or 7 straight months. This way, each player brings their persistent Clan force, and they build and bring an OPFOR (given guidelines to build it each month). They can't use their own OPFOR list.
I really like the bidding system; we've actually gotten a system that makes people play like Clanners. I don't like having to break everything up into 1v1 games, but with 14-20 people in attendance every week (all of whom don't want to play OPFOR and won't show if they know in advance they're playing OFOR), I don't see another really good solution.
>>48293772
Basically yes. ToW is for everything outside the cockpit.
>>48294070
That is pretty neat. Might show it to some of my group; I think the only thing that likely wouldn't pass muster is the SPA allotment (we generally give SPAs a miss).
>>48294070
>(the PCs are playing members of a more militarized Clan Watch who are basically troubleshooters who find trouble and shoot it)
That almost sounds like Paranoia with giant robots.
...And now I WANT to play Paranoia with giant robots...
>>48294070
>>48293503
Tried using CampOps for creating and running a Clan force. I don't think it works well.
The system works fine for mercenaries, it's detailed and logical. When it comes to a Clan unit though (and to a lesser extent, a House unit) it gets really weird because suddenly all that detail has to be taken as abstract. Generally I'm fine with abstract rules, but when the abstract rules for something take the form of highly detailed rules for something else, that's not an easy sell. Using CO just doesn't feel like running a Clan force at all.
What feels goofy:
- being given so much choice in missions and equipment, rather than having to follow orders passed down the chain of command and make do with what I'm assigned
- having no sense of a military procurement system that combines a planned economy with Trials of Possession
- working out how much my Warriors get paid (answer should be zilch; Clan Warriors get given work credits which have little or nothing to do with the military resources allocated to their parent unit)
- Political favour, which ought to be something quite apart from a force's reputation for combat effectiveness (e.g Jade Falcon Guards, Clan Wolf's Omega Galaxy circa 3067)
Honestly I think House and Clan units each need a detailed set of rules for themselves. Campaign Ops doesn't do them justice. Why was it focussed on mercs anyway? They don't seem that popular with players.
>>48294070
I appreciate the OPFOR system. I can understand being invested in one's particular little mans, but me personally, I think it'd be fun to take a break and play with some different units on occasion. I can see where it would be a problem with others though.
>>48295787
>They don't seem that popular with players.
They're popular as all hell where I am; it's probably just different in your area.
I agree though that the rules as written work especially poorly for Clan forces. Until something better comes along I would recommend using the optional rules on page 30, with the "in debt or not" roll used instead as a credit or debit to the unit's Reputation score. Ignore salaries and monetary mission rewards; everything is Reputation. You may however want to keep track of wartime operating costs otherwise, however; Clanners abhor waste and a unit running up what would be a high C-Bill cost in an Inner Sphere unit could plausibly come under charges of wastefulness.
>>48295787
>Why was it focussed on mercs anyway? They don't seem that popular with players.
I think it's the idea that both House units and Clan forces can basicly make, ship and deliver all the mechs you'd want.
However, a merc unit typically doesn't have it's own mech/equipment factory, so you have to be very careful with what you have. It's a unique challenge to see how far you can get with limited resourses, having to manage a merc company and all the economical pain that follows.
>>48295968
Depending on the era of play it may also not necessarily be true that a House unit is immune to financial woes or withering supply shortages. Especially if it's a game in the height of the Dark Age or Succession Wars.
>>48295968
>>48296004
Depends on the type of House/Clan unit too. If I'm playing as a lowly second-line unit like a Provisional Garrison Cluster or a Lyran Militia regiment, it ought to be hard as hell for me to get kitted out with the latest cutting-edge omnimechs.
>>48296171
That's true, but in the case of the Clan unit, you're still warriors and you shouldn't still be worried overmuch about actual money. It's just that the stuff you're assigned by fiat is going to be outdated models and lower-grade tech.
I do some similar houserules for wealth and equipment in my ATOW games where Clanner PCs are involved.
>>48296171
You know, I'd honestly not feel bad about getting some of the second-line Clan battlemechs over an omni.
>>48296367
lol Rifleman IIC
>>48293442
>How do I introduce people who haven't played Mechwarrior or Mechassault to Battletech?
"Have you ever wanted to play a giant robot game where you can beat your opponent to death with his own severed arm?"
>>48296835
>"Have you ever wanted to play a giant robot game where you can beat your opponent to death with his own severed arm?"
"There he is, folks... Achilles' robot, the new Matsumoto XIV, facing off against the Confederation's Kobalevsky XLII!"
On second though, maybe watching Robot Jox might be a *bad* idea.
>>48296904
>On second though, maybe watching Robot Jox might be a *bad* idea.
Well, if all else fails, you could start with a Solaris game.
>>48293823
What mech is this? Also wasn't there just some new comissioned plog Uziel art? Or did I dream that? Either way, I forgot to save it.
>>48296904
>On second though, maybe watching Robot Jox might be a *bad* idea.
It is the best idea. Delivers the proper BT mindset.
>>48297361
Hell, it even has trueborn warriors.
>>48297361
>On second thought, maybe watching Robot Jox might be a *bad* idea.
>It is the best idea.
Yeah, I have to admit, despite it's flaws, it's one of those movies I could watch any time it comes on.
>Delivers the proper BT mindset.
I also favour the beginning (although the entire thing is a delight to watch) of the first Patlabor movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a54cINonA3U
>>48297756
... and also the beginning of the first episode of Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket, even if the mechs in Gundam move a lot faster than the ones in Battletech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6GTdyWTrQ
>>48297894
... and "A Tale of Two Robots" from Robot Carnival (quality is dodgy here):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HqvAFd4gVE
>>48297058
Less derpy Shadow Cat
>>48297058
Black Lanner, as the file name says. 3058U. Jade Falcon Medium Omni. 7/11, and relatively few weapons and light armor. Not a bad design though.
>>48297894
There is a distinct lack of the Kampfer in that episode, so it loses out. Damn my preference for MG scale.
>>48298792
>There is a distinct lack of the Kampfer in that episode, so it loses out. Damn my preference for MG scale.
Misha pilots the Kampfer later in ... maybe it's the third episode? This OVA series was a little heavier on plot rather than action - the effects of war on everybody, and an interesting twist on the love story - very different from the half-hour episodes they spew out for kids these days.
>>48298896
>Misha pilots the Kampfer later in ... maybe it's the third episode?
Oh I'm well aware, I'm just not a huge fan of the Gogg/Hygogg series.
>This OVA series was a little heavier on plot rather than action - the effects of war on everybody, and an interesting twist on the love story - very different from the half-hour episodes they spew out for kids these days.
Yeah it was a decent OVA. I preferred 08th MS for the Gouf fight and overall feel, though 0083 gets a spot too because of muh Top Gun.
>>48297058
The Warthog Battlemech. According to Sarna it was in MWIV or something.
>>48299646
No, the MW 4 mech is named Pitbull, that's a custom Mr . balk conversion
>>48299804
Delivered, and thank you everyone else that thought I couldn't read a file name that I typed myself.
Don't kick vedettes kids
>>48301511
I thought it would be a good idea
how was I supposed to know it was gonna blow me back to kingdom come
>>48301610
next time remember to uncheck the option to have ammo explosions damage nearby units, senpai
>>48298896
>Sexiest MS coming through folks.
>>48301701
I'm not hosting but good to know
>>48301511
Are we shittalking Greg again?
Hey /teej/
I just saw Reapers next mech KS and I felt like playing some large scale mech mini hijinks, but I've never even looked at BT before.
The sort of game I'm aiming for is like the old turn based Front Mission 3 on PSX. Mechs have facings, attacks from behind or the side are more dangerous so where you face is a tactical decision. I'd also like to include squads of infantry and smaller vehicles.
Is BT the game for me? If not, what might be?
>>48302035
Battletech is a lot like Front Mission in those regards, yeah. Hit locations that are influenced by what direction you attack from, rear armor being a weak point, conventional forces as well as 'Mechs are a thing, etc...
>>48302035
>Mechs have facings, attacks from behind or the side are more dangerous so where you face is a tactical decision. I'd also like to include squads of infantry and smaller vehicles.
well that's all in battletech.
>>48302113
>>48302114
Thanks fäm(s) I'll get the book and give it a look.
How complicated is BT? I don't want to be poring over charts and tables, I'm after something kind of light, easy to pick up.
>>48302035
Battletech is exactly what you want. It has every last one of those things
>>48302134
>How complicated is BT? I don't want to be poring over charts and tables, I'm after something kind of light, easy to pick up.
well that it isn't, the IRL game is fairly rules heavy, especially once you get past the tournament rules.
But megamek automating all the dice and tables can make it pretty damn quick, if you wanna play it online.
>>48302178
This. Battletech is still at its core one of them old 80s tabletop games with plenty of tables and such. Though exactly how many rules you want to apply to the game is something you can choose for yourself. And as was said, MegaMek is a good way to do it online without needing to do the table checking yourself.
>>48302134
It isn't simple, but it's not hard, either.
You won't have to pour over tables, just consult them regularly; a single cheat sheet will hold everything that matters, and with just a little bit of experience, battletech can be pretty fast and smooth.
Of course, megamek on PC automates all this for EZmode
>>48302145
>>48302178
>>48302201
>>48302234
Thanks guys.
>>48302134
I'll just point out that almost all the books are in the links in the OP. So loot and see if it's interesting before buying. Some of the regulars here say get the BattleTech Master Rules once you get through the introductory rules, it's the prior edition of the rules but it's a few orders of magnitude better laid out than the flaming mess that are the current core books, and it's still 95% accurate.
>>48297894
>the only time a GM scored a kill
>>48302270
Building on that cheat sheet idea from >>48302234
, here's a record sheet for one of the three most standard trooper mechs. That column on the right side is all you'd need for an introtech game.
>>48302356
Holy shit that looks terrifyingly complex.
>>48302514
Welcome to battletech
>>48302514
Honestly, not really. You're making at the absolute limit 3 rolls on well-defined charts, right there I'm front of you, and doing simple fill-in-the-spot damage.
It looks way the hell harder than it is
>>48302356
I didnt know i needed this
>>48302514
Details are the spice of life.
Anywho, just recently got into BT after seeing the kickstarter get funded.
Been playing and loving the mechwarrior series since i was a little shit in the 90's, and after being horribly disgusted with MWO, im loving BT in every form.
Stupid question im sure, but anyone have a good idea on some house rules to not make machineguns utter garbage and a 400damage explosion waiting to happen?
>>48302582
Machine guns are great for two things.
A) Killing the fuck out of conventional infantry. Flamers are better, but a few MGs will do just fine for it.
B) An extra zero-heat weapon you can fling at enemies who are real close up in an attempt to fish for critical hits.
The 400 damage explosion thing is harder to mitigate (though if you take half-ton MG ammo bins, it's only 200!). If you're not doing pure introtech, just make sure you've got CASE looking after your internals. If possible, CASE II is even better.
>>48302645
The investment followed by the risk of an ammo explosion even with case just seems like too much for an "okay" AI weapon when flamers exist.
I dont have as many rulebooks as i should but machineguns are never ended up rapidfire did they?
Im just trying to come up with a way to mitigate that and bring the weapon out of the fighting in a volcano niche it currently has.
Maybe bumping up the amoo costs per shot, or even reducing ammo per ton in generall. Idk.
>>48302764
No rapid fire option. That could be a good one for them, perhaps. There are MG Arrays which basically gather together multiples as one weapon.
>>48302764
For what it's worth, machine guns are an excellent AI weapon if you have vested interest in not starting fires.
>>48302800
To be fair though, not everybody uses those rules.
>>48302764
I'm gonna recommend the fix I've used for possibly 25 years, which is all mechs effectively have CASE for free, regardless of era (plus a bonus bit: if CT ammo explodes, it reduces the mech to exactly one CT IS and destroys the rear armor, rather than killing it outright). If a mech actually has CASE, it only looses the rear armor and half the remaining IS in that location if the ammo blows. If it has CASE II, it works normally, but the pilot doesn't take any damage
>>48302582
Load 20 rounds of MG ammo. Most things with MGs pack two, that much covers you for 10 rounds, which is generally more than you'll need. Still blows up for 40 if you get crit early, but you're no longer looking at nuclear damage yields.
>>48302764
>machineguns are never ended up rapidfire did they?
TacOps, p102. Rapid-Fire Mode. Roll 1d6, do that much damage, take that much heat, burn 3 times that much ammo.
>>48302582
RAPID
FIRE
MACHINE GUNS
I forget how the rules work off hand, but i think they are somewhere in the Maximum Tech revised edition rule book.
Also a fun house rule me and my friends sometimes use, is that for every full 5 tons a mech is under its maximum chassis wight, you recalculate its movement in hexes as if it were 5 tons lighter rounding up to the nearest full hex, with the formula ENGINE RATING/MASS = WALK MP. For example, the speed of an atlas can be calculated as 300/100=3 hexes. If you managed to strip 30 tons off of the atlas for some reason, that would drop its overall wight down to 70 tons meaning its new speed in hexes can be calculated as 300/70=4~, so the Atlas new movement profile would be 4/6/0
Its not a really going to be a useful house rule most of the time but I've had some fun with it in campaigns when equipment was scarce and the situation was desperate. I bet you've never seen an Atlas take down another mech with a 9 hex charge
>>48302800
So are small pulse lasers. With no ammo bomb.
>show /btg/ my first lance
"youll never survive 3 missions with the crusader"
>still alive today
>manages to take 3 ct crits despite still having ammo in the CT.
he's gonna go far kid.
im starting to debate letting the GM have AoE ammo crits on
>>48303062
speaking of ye olde lance (i dont even think i have the wyvern anymore)does anyone have the finished crusader art that /btg/ did?
>>48303062
>all the mechs I had lost their weapons that phase
why my arms
>>48302966
But with some extra heat, whereas you can have several MGs and get no heat.
>>48302939
>TacOps, p102. Rapid-Fire Mode. Roll 1d6, do that much damage, take that much heat, burn 3 times that much ammo.
Huh, how the fuck did I miss that?
>>48302035
For additional reference, Alpha Strike increases damage on shots from the rear, while Robotech Tactics gives bonuses to hit if you're a) flanking and/or b) shooting through the rear arc,
RRPGT has no official rules for infantry or conventional forces as yet, while the infantry rules for Alpha Strike are a little arbitrary but improved by the new conversion rules. Vehicles work well in AS, infantry basically evaporate unless you're using random damage.
>>48302134
>How complicated is BT? I don't want to be poring over charts and tables, I'm after something kind of light, easy to pick up.
Less-complex than Squad Leader, more-so than Warmachine. The tables are mostly simple, but BT doesn't handle games with more than ~10-12 units very well, and that's for experienced players. It's great for a quick 4-unit skirmish, but even that can take a couple hours for newbies. Still, the charts are simple and well-laid out, and once you play a few games shit gets a lot faster. You can also ditch the hex-maps if you want and play with regular terrain, which removes a whole hell of a lot of the complexity from the game.
>>48303198
I always found that image a little silly, considering the difference in power between a gundam and a battlemech
>>48303198
Also, Da Chart.
>>48303071
Hey, here's your concept.
>>48303166
Because the core rulebooks are organized like legos.
But thanks for the information and suggestions.
1d6 damage and triple ammo cost per mg sounds solid Too.
>>48303290
It's the option I always check in megamek for my machines, just to actually burn through some ammo. Especially on vehicles since they don't give a shit about the heat and most old common tanks mount at least 1 front MG.
The only negative is fire against infantry is resolved the same way whether you are using rapid fire or not. Which still means it rapes them, just you don't get anything extra for the extra ammo and heat.
It is also interesting in a merc campaign where you though ten tons of MG ammo would last the life of the campaign but you find yourself switching back to standard mode on a bunch of your stuff the fifth mission out because you've got one ton of ammo left to divvy up among your whole company.
>>48303476
They're pretty nice on conventional fighters too, since in addition to the same ignoring heat like vehicles, aerospace ranges mean MGs and HMGs are way more usable.
>>48304057
This suddenly makes me wonder if anybody here has tried to make use of XTRO 1945.
>>48304099
A number of grogs did on the OF, and went as far as to create other units to use as well.
>>48304057
>They're pretty nice on conventional fighters too, since in addition to the same ignoring heat like vehicles, aerospace ranges mean MGs and HMGs are way more usable.
Conventional fighters use ground ranges, not space ranges when fighting.
MGs all have Point-Defence range any way which means they can only fire into the adjacent hex. They don't get Short range.
>>48304158
>Conventional fighters use ground ranges, not space ranges when fighting.
If I remember correctly, that's only true when they're flying over a ground mapsheet rather than on the low-altitude map, and even then I think you're supposed to multiply the range by 16.
>MGs all have Point-Defence range any way which means they can only fire into the adjacent hex. They don't get Short range.
Only if you're using those rules; the default rules give machine guns an aerospace range of Short.
>>48304267
They actually still use the standard ASF brackets, and those are what you multiply by 16. So a short bracket becomes 96 hexes, for example.
As for point defense, not only is it a matter of using those rules, but it's a mode that can be switched on and off.
>>48304267
>>48304332
A space hex is equivalent to 7 ground hexes for thrust and weapons, guys. And you use the aero hex ranges for hexes so multiplied by seven. Still makes a bird-mounted AC20 a complete terror.
Given what is said on this thread, i decided to download megamek for the first time.
Decided to play a simple game just to trial it out, me as a centurion 9a vs a cataphract 4x.
Seemed pretty neat, my centurion running around the cataphract taking armour hits. Managed to take out his left arm through sustained consistent rolls
When suddenly! Cataphract tries to run&turn on pavement, falls on its Right side, takes 5 damage to its right side and 2 damage to its left torso.
Left torso damage sets of its AC/5 ammo. Ammo blows for 70 damage, destroying everything. Pilot ejects to safety, but then wounds themselves landing in the open.
Glorious Victory!
>>48304746
wat
ASF fire at the ground counting range to target and adding 1 hex per 2 Altitude levels they're flying at. Ground units fire back the same way.
Things like the MechBuster aren't "scary," they don't get artillery ranges for their 3/6/9 weapons.
The rest of your scale stuff is wrong too.
>>48304834
Play in megamek. I guarantee that's how it works.
You have to be at 5 altitude or lower for a normal air to ground strike attack. You have a flat +2 for the strike attack and you drop a level. You can't fire at a ground target in front of you. It had to of been flown over in your flight path that round. You can shoot at other air targets the normal way though. You judge distance and divide by seven to convert to aero hexes for either. Altitude is multiplied by 2 to convert it to ground type hexes for distance purposes.
An AC20 mounted on an aerospace fighter is a short bracket weapon with a range of 6 aero hexes. That works out to 42 with no range modifier. It means you can fly over, park your ass 38 hexes in his six and fire with Pilot skill+2+TMM. That can be pretty darn brutal when he's looking at 42 with mech brackets to fire back
And for a mech to fire back at you, it calculates distance from it to where you ended your turn, even if it's thirty hexes away and has to calculate distance to you in normal ground hexes. Plus facing is determined from where movement ends, so a lot of times you're stuck shooting back with one arm-mounted weapon if they flew directly behind you and stopped a good distance off.
If I'm wrong about that, then I am. But I played a megamek match where I had two lances of Aerospace fighters destroy an armored train and its escort just two weeks ago with version .40 and that's how it was. Hell, before that I blew a Sparrowhawk to smithereens half a map away with a rear-mounted ML in the bird I was flying.
I don't know if any of that applies to conventional fighters. I know it doesn't to VTOL's. It sure does to Aeros on a ground map.
Usually what offsets all this is having to fly fairly low and have all the lawndart rolls. Aerospace on mechscale ground maps like that are complete glass canons no matter what armor they got. Kinda like a real fighter jet. But scary is a good way to describe them.
>>48305134
You're semi-wrong. You're just using the least-used version of aerospace rules, and not applying them entirely correctly. Aerospace Units on Ground Mapsheets is what you're using, and yes, it multiplies your aerospace movement and your weapon ranges. However, those weapon ranges are against *other aerospace units*. To make an air-to-ground attack, you can only attack a unit you overfly, so your AC/20 example is what's wrong. You can't shoot at him from 38 hexes away. The reason you could blow up the Sparrowhawk is because it was another Aerospace unit.
And, for reference, I'm pretty sure MegaMek is not handling ASFs correctly at this time. For example, if you're the target of an air-to-ground attack (strike/strafe), the Range you fire back at is *always* Range 0 (with no minimum range mods). If you're shooting at an ASF which is making that attack, and you aren't the target, you draw range to the closest point of the ASF's flight path, not its endpoint (plus 2 hexes of range per level of Altitude). If MegaMek is forcing people to fire at a Striking ASF only at the ASFs movement endpoint, then MegaMek is wrong.
Probably because this is a result of TW errata, and MM hasn't updated to take that into account. But still.
>>48305134
>That can be pretty darn brutal when he's looking at 42 with mech brackets to fire back
Except he's not. Ground units determine base range to an ASF from the distance between them and closest point to its flight/attack path. And if the ground unit is in that path, range is 1. You then add the 2 hexes of range per altitude.
>If I'm wrong about that, then I am. But I played a megamek match where I had two lances of Aerospace fighters destroy an armored train and its escort just two weeks ago with version .40 and that's how it was.
You are wrong, because megamek .40 is old, and probably predates the errata whcih makes this work as I've described, though it still had the optional StratOps rules which do the same, but also add a modifier to the ground unit's attack based on the ASF's velocity, said modifier now all those rules add.
And yes, conventional fighters are considered aerospace units.
>>48305217
>To make an air-to-ground attack, you can only attack a unit you overfly, so your AC/20 example is what's wrong. You can't shoot at him from 38 hexes away. The reason you could blow up the Sparrowhawk is because it was another Aerospace unit.
He gets that part:
>You can't fire at a ground target in front of you. It had to of been flown over in your flight path that round.
> It means you can fly over, park your ass 38 hexes in his six and fire with Pilot skill+2+TMM.
Key words in the second line, "fly over". Phrasing was bit poor though, I thought he was talking about shooting from 38 hexes away for second too.
And as said, he's just using an old version of MM, probably the stable build. Current builds handle surface to air attacks per the errata.
>>48305277
>>48305338
Looks like it's time to upgrade. Thanks for the clarification guys.
>>48305460
There's rarely never a time not to use the latest developmental build of MM. In part because the stables can get very old, .40.1 is about a year and half old, at one point I remember the stable release was literally years out of date with the developmental ones.
Occasionally some new major bugs pop up, but that's why you hang on to the prior dev release just in case.
>>48303230
Awesome. When are you going to finish the turnaround?
>>48303230
Somehow I got a higher res version with the cockpit glass colored in.
>>48297894
speaking of Gundam
why does everyone on /m/ get so salty whenever BT is mentioned?
>>48307775
Small penises
>>48307775
BattleTech has gone interstellar, while most other mecha series are barely interplanetary. Their souls are weighed down by the Sun's gravity, y'see...
>>48307775
Because we used to take over the board a couple days every week. /tg/ is as much a containment board to keep us out of /m/ as it was to get Warhammer Wednesdays off of /b/
>>48307818
>that pic
Oh Alex, you stomp furries good.
>>48307437
I like
>>48307775
Because it takes their emo angst filled world where how strong you feel determines how hard you punch and trashes all that rubbish for a binding set of rules where being Awesome requires more than proclaiming your undying devotion to your waifu.
In short, Battletech makes them all look like idiotic man-children.
>>48307818
So basically, faggot weeaboo bitch tears.
Have any of you ever made a campaign or played one out? My favorite part of BT is designing the mechs and building stories, the creative part of it all is so much fun. What about you guys?
>>48308578
Of course. I probably spend more time accounting than I do fighting. And that's the best part!
>tfw you realize the Pittban 240 in the Spider you just legged is the same engine as the one you need to bring that salvaged Awesome back to life that you've been dragging around the Periphery for six months of game time
God bless Tematagi and God bless the Free Worlds League.
>>48307775
>>48307818
>>48308035
>>48308532
As an /m/ regular, I've never really seen that PoV from the majority of posters.
One thing to remember is that while all of /m/ likes giant robots (or spandex-clad bugmen) there's always a few people disliking any specific flavour.
I haven't seen this comic before
>>48309215
Post decent art of goofy mechs
>>48309718
I'm in
>>48309718
What the fuck did you do to the Nightstar
>>48309783
>>48309794
they fixed it?
>>48309799
>>48309828
>>48309718
That's actually worse than the regular nightstar
>>48309954
>citation needed
Show me a single non-shitty depiction of it first.
>>48309857
>>48309969
I'm not too sure about the massive crotch vent on that one.
>>48309990
It needs it to vent heat when it's teabagging a destroyed mechs carcass.
The opposing pilot can then feel the heat wafting from it's crotch and blush in shame of humiliation and defeat.
>>48309969
I like the shape of the design, but standing the Linebacker that tall kind of misses the point.
>>48310021
"ooh senpai..."
>>48309969
>>48308801
Doesn't work that way any more, because CGL hates continuity and logic but loves doing things their way. Has to be the same rating and from the same unit mass now.
>>48309990
It's symbolic. Shows the Wolves are giant pussies and gives the Falcons a place to fuck them.
>>48310053
>>48309857
I love the new Huntsman.
>>48310100
>FLASH!
>Ahahhhhhhh!
>He's a miracle!
>>48310100
>>48310208
This guy kinda sucks at anything outside of the light category.
>>48310094
>Doesn't work that way any more, because CGL hates continuity and logic but loves doing things their way. Has to be the same rating and from the same unit mass now.
I'm the GM, and CGL can suck an entire barrel of cocks.
>>48308578
>Have any of you ever made a campaign or played one out?
Oh yeah. Played, run, and generally amused myself during same. Various highlights:
• Solaris campaign with much skullduggery and a deck of random event cards that let the players bid CB to fuck with each other, buy techs, etc. Ended with a Solaris Battle Royale breaking up as pirates (by which I mean Blakists) dropped on the outskirts of Solaris City and began attacking, hoping to use the stables' rivalries against them.
• Multi-Regimental merc campaign where one of the PC companies sold out the other three to the FedCom and dropped on us with elements from the Saucy Sixth (IIRC). That's the one where my CO's Vulture Prime took out an entire lance of Assaults on its own.
• Fairly standard Accountantech game set in the Elsie Periphery. Played a bait-and-switch on my players, told them it was an AU without the 'Goons and then had mysteriously well-equipped pirates start showing up in the 30-teens. They shit themselves thinking it was the Clans, turned out to just be ComStar being dicks and going full Blakist to hide a secret facility in the former RWR. Guest appearance by Redjack Ryan and the poor fuckers from Wilson's Hussars.
• SL Royals lance in the Secret Wars.
>My favorite part of BT is designing mechs and building stories. What about you guys?
The sim aspect is a huge part - I love the immersion I get from playing. Analyzing the history and statistical elements and playing around extrapolating them (being a Mil-Int analyst, basically) is also a lot of fun. I prefer doing creative work within constraints, so Design Challenges make me happy, and almost all of my designs are based in the fluff and my current historical understanding of the era.
>>48310483
>• SL Royals lance in the Secret Wars.
Explain? What are the Secret Wars?
>>48310527
A secret.http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Hidden_Wars
>>48308578
>Have any of you ever made a campaign or played one out?
Made? No. Played in? Yes. We're finishing it in a week actually, I've mentioned it here before. A friend of mine ran a Tukayyid campaign for his brother and myself. Lasted about 12 sessions or so, we played as ComStar facing off against Clan Nova Cat. We mostly rolled them, due to using aToW rules for our pilots and me getting to spend a ton of XP on rides so I could get some great mechs (I had a Clanbuster King Crab, a custom Hunchback with a Gauss Rifle, and a Victor-9B; the other player had a Royal P-Hawk, a Marauder of some flavor, and his third mech varied a bit).
Our last session is in a week, we're crashing about 3 L3s into a depleted Alpha Galaxy Trinary. We've been doing so well that Alpha is basically out of ammo, has no repairs, and is routed. This Trinary has the Nova Cat Khan. We're gonna Gauss him till he cries uncle.
>>48310483
Oh, and one more amusing game: PCs were mercs in the Chaos March, and decided to go AMC. One of their missions was to convince the Blakists that the Goons had successfully developed a Super-heavy Clan 'Mech. The PCs dropped with Greenburg's Godzillas support, using "micro" versions of other 'Mechs alongside a Marauder II dressed up like a Matar. The Maraudacat was one, let me dig up the faked-up Whammy and Enforcer.
Basic idea was that the "micro" designs used available tech to mimic the performance profile of lower-tech versions of larger designs, and the PCs had to put on a good show hitting a listening post without tipping their hat to the Blakies by getting caught in CC or letting them scan them too closely. Made for some really tense firefights in the middle of the match when a wandering Level 2 of infantry, vees, and a couple cheap Scout 'Mechs showed up while they were turret popping. PCs successfully managed to gank the one with the BAP before it could scan the "Matar" and lifted off with a hefty bonus and some very confused Blakists behind them.
>>48310566
Ah. were you Gunslingers then? That'd be pretty slick.
>>48310453
>posts 1 heavy 1 assault
>both clearly superior than the original art
>LOL he can't draw lights
How does it feel to have shit taste?
>>48310654
His Hussar and his Urbanmech are pretty good, bu these two kinda suck.
>>48310527
>Explain? What are the Secret Wars?
Technically the Hidden Wars. Basically, inter-house tensions continued during the Star League era. Various commands would disappear and really well-equipped "pirates" would suddenly attack other houses, or abruptly disavowed MechWarriors would hit Star League sites in reprisal for SL economic actions, and constant low-level raiding and espionage was going on all over the place while being downplayed by the media.
PCs were a Royal Hussar lance tasked with troubleshooting and false-flag ops to keep the situation under control. They didn't, and wound up getting Bad Ended after starting a war between the Elsies and Dracs over their actions in Rasalhague.
>>48310595
Here's the Riflehammer. There's a less-legal version that involves fractional accounting and literally just slapping the Warhammer's arms on, but fucked if I'm doing that in SSW.
Send help.
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/BattleTech
>>48310893
And the Baby Enforcer. This was by far the most dangerous one to pilot, but also the easiest mod to make; the PCs almost had to drag one off the field. The pilot also had to remember to shoot like he had 12 sinks, not 20..
>>48310920
Oh God, like half the stuff I wrote for that is still up. ><
>>48311055
>>48310920
I expect you wrote that at least 6 years ago, right? Most of the text is so cringe-worthy
>>48311073
Yeah, right when 1d4ch was getting started I did a pocket summary that's been expanded quite a lot. Should work on the grammar a bit and carve down some of the BS, but not sure having like six of us editing it at the same time is the best idea. Also I have no idea why people think rewriting shit in the passive voice makes it "academic" but I sincerely wish they would curl up and die.
>>48311136
>Also I have no idea why people think rewriting shit in the passive voice makes it "academic" but I sincerely wish they would curl up and die.
Holy shit. If you actually have to do formal writing- like, you know, for academic purposes- the only faster way to get your ass raked over hot coals than writing in passive voice is to fail to reference.
>>48311136
>>48311167
What's "passive voice?"
>>48311136
Is this image from Robotech?
>>48311136
>I have no idea why people think rewriting shit in the passive voice makes it "academic"
because that's true in many languages
>>48311167
even in english? I remember I had to write a paper in english, rewriting passive voice with first person plural instead
>>48311231
This post was written using passive voice
>>48311231
Active Voice:
> Pick up the leaves/Someone is picking up the leaves.
Passive Voice:
> The leaves were picked up.
>>48311301
I am writing this post using active voice.
>>48311349
You're killing me.
>>48311301
I'm killed.
>>48311376
>I'm killed
*I was killed
>>48311167
You're required to use it when describing experimental methodology in scientific papers. Although that's more common in lab reports than proper full on papers.
>>48311281
It's a relabelled, translated image from one of the Macross Factbooks. So, technically kinda-sorta.
>>48311423
Experimental methodology, yes. But even in an experimental paper you don't use the passive for describing a pre-existing situation (X and Y verified Z using methodology 2, while methodology 4 was attempted in this experiment). Yay for voice-mixing.
>>48311231
If you can add "by the person" or some variant to the sentence and it makes sense, it's passive.
>>48308578
I've played and ran quite a few campaigns over the years, including a rerun of the official Coventry campaign (which included saving the Waco Rangers and vast overuse of artillery), and a good number of mercenary campaigns. One of my favorites was a campaign where we were periphery mercenaries in the chaos march, up against the WoB and CapCon, and as a side job, we were also traveling salesman for a group of periphery-based manufacturers, which made for a lot of fun roleplaying and out-of-cockpit adventures. I've also played in a couple of short-lived but fun Solaris campaigns. You should give it a go sometime, it's a great change of pace from regular accountanttech merc stuf
>>48298450
Shut your whore mouth. The original wasn't derpy to begin with.
>>48311581
Does the UN even exist in the pre-Battletech universe? What?
>>48311136
Doesn't it make more sense to use the passive voice when you're going over the history of something?
>>48312401
That's a Macross picture, specifically of the Destroid Defender, the design of which was taken for Battletech's Rifleman.
>>48312642
No, because people actually did that stuff. Even if you don't know specifically, you know the company (if OOC) or faction (IC) for most. Things that are ambiguous are different but for the most part active voice is more appropriate.
>>48312817
So you would be saying stuff like
>The Federated Suns are conquering the Capellan Confederation
in an article about the Fourth War? Instead of
>The Federated Suns conquered parts of the Capellan Confederation
>>48312893
Nah, the latter bit in your post is also active voice I think. Passive voice would be, I believe: "Parts of the Capellan Confederation were conquered by the Federated Suns".
>>48312893
anon, I don't think you understand the concept of passive voice. The first phrase is active voice present tense, the second is active voice past tense
>>48312956
In passive voice stuff has things happen to it.
In active voice, things happen to stuff.
>>48312956
I really don't. I don't understand the difference between passive and active.
>>48313041
check this link, anon
the lessons will be more helpful than a bunch of anons on 4chan:
http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/exercises_list/passiv.htmby the way, what's your main language? I can't think of a western language without passive voice
>>48313107
>I can't think of a western language without passive voice
Don't some of the Slavic languages construct the passive voice in a way that's quite a bit unlike how it's done in english?
>>48313107
>>48313157
There are also ergative/absolutive languages, which have a similar construction to passive voice. They contrast between things that >are< and things >to which things are done<.
As far as the languages you're thinking of, I suspect it's the Georgio-Caucasian tree, though Basque and most of the Arayan-branch of Indo-European (along with Kurdish) are also Ergo-Absolutive.
>>48312401
>Does the UN even exist in the pre-Battletech universe? What?
It did, but after the Second Soviet Civil War it was one of the entities folded into the united Earth government that established the Terran Hegemony
BattleTech General: Linguistics and Giant Robot Violence Edition
>>48310208
the flashman resculpt is so cash.
>>48315156
Dude, I'm a historical linguist working toward a doctorate with a side in translating military drill manuals from the middle ages. I'm far from the only military historian and/or linguist in here - almost every male linguist I've ever met (it's a massively female-dominated field) has also been a historian, and it's not an uncommon minor even among the technical linguists. Although for some reason the socio-linguists prefer to blinker themselves from historical influence..
Anyway. Battletech attracts historians to begin with, and there's a non-zero number of historians who study linguistics as a hobby or a vocation. It's like being bewildered that there are otaku in here.
>Giant Robot Violence
Well duh.
>>48315427
>It's like being bewildered that there are otaku in here.
Shit! They're onto us!
>>48297756
hey doees one of these exist for the Ingram?
>>48315539
You know, I've always kinda wanted to put together a 28mm scale version of my merc unit as a display thing using 1:72 macross and dougram models, 3D printed MWO designs and some kitbashed 28MM moderns tanks and infantry.
The only problem is that there aren't models of the Merlin, Marshal, Bandersnatch or emperor in that scale, obviously, or even 3D models for printing (that I know of)
So until I find a way to get those, I guess it'll stay a pipe dream
>>48316294
There's a couple different versions floating around.
>>48316294
>hey doees one of these exist for the Ingram?
Yes.
>>48316451
>There's a couple different versions floating around.
Here's the version created by the same guy from >>48297756.
>>48316451
>>48316668
Thanks, boyos
>>48307775
/m/ fag here, came here specifically to see if this was mentioned.
For me it's just my autism. I can't let go of it.
When I was younger I saw Battletech and never understood it. It didn't look good to me. When I got older, I saw other people who liked it, and said to myself "oh, I guess if folks think it's good it must be good, right?". I never really liked the look of the robots but I figured it couldn't be bad.
Time passes, eventually I watch Dougram. I think to myself, "oh man, this is great", and then a little while later I learn that it, along with other properties, became BT in the USA, and since then I've never been able to shake my dislike for it. It feels like a bootleg being more popular than the original. I don't mind western mecha but BT alone leaves me bitter. People have a right to enjoy it but I get triggered.
>>48308532
I'd be tempted to say yes but I agree with >>48308859. I don't like it but that doesn't mean people can't, and similarly /m/ doesn't think much about it at all, at least not negatively. Personally I'd say it feels kinda like the idea of being a SW fan who doesn't like the prequels.
Tear into me as you wish.
Wow, look at all the manly American anime-hating he-men who love Battletech. Nobody had better tell them that Battletech was directly inspired by anime and that all of the original Battlemechs were literally stolen from anime.
>>48316972
Please don't be a fag. None of that's even happening here.
I posted that wall of text, but I don't want to cause trouble. Can't we all just love robots?
>>48316972
... where did anyone say anything about that?
>>48316987
>>48317004
Referring to >>faggot weeaboo bitch tears
>>48316932
Are you >>>/m/14505786?
Because the whole of your logic and reasoning is just.... nonsense.
>>48316932
None of the properties that the "unseens" came from became Battletech, just the mech designs were used, though there is a lot of similarities to Dougram's setting and the periphery.
Then a huge fiasco happened and there's a reason we call those mechs "unseens" now. But otherwise BT is far and away completely different from those properties other than superficial similarities to some parts of Dougram's setting.
>>48317028
It really is. I came to admit this, because it's shameful.
It's autism through and through. It just riles me on this fundamental level and I can't explain why. Like, I was thoroughly shown I didn't know shit, which I'm alright with, but I still feel it. It's an awful feeling and it'll probably never leave me, not anytime soon. I need to try to leave less shit where I eat.
>>48317134
Reads like a mixure of
>Reeee: Wrong bad Fun!!!!111one
and
>Stop liking that thing that I don't like!
>>48317171
I don't mind people having fun with what they like, that's fine. It's more like
>Man, how do you stand for this?
>>48317171
I think he's saying his own irrational dislike of Battletech is autism, not Battletech itself.
Which is really weird to me that he knows he dislikes BT for reasons that are complete nonsense, made up, and aren't actually things that exist... but continues to dislike it for those reasons?
>>48317201
>Man, how do you stand for this?
Stand for what, though? You're not making a single bit of sense.
The anime designs are either gone completely or redesigned, Battletech's creators and fans have no illusions about where those designs came from and why they're gone now. Everyone knows the game's origins came from a silly robot battle board game and it exploded from there into something far beyond it's roots.
I don't understand your logic at all.
>>48317242
>>Battletech is no longer a silly robot battle board game
>>48317261
Never said that. It's just a different kind of silly robot battle board game.
You tried though, and that's what matters.
>>48317202
Yeah that's what I was trying to say.
I wouldn't say it's wholly unjustified, (e.g. redesigns) but I'm too bitter over it to completely forget it.
I actually asked some questions about this some time ago, without trying to raise a shitstorm. "Why is it now whenever I see Battletech I feel my blood boiling", and an anon said something like "If you're a /m/an you're not going to forget it easy, that's just how those guys are". I didn't want to believe him.
>>48317242
I forefit logic for piss. I really don't want to hold onto the piss.
I do wish I could make it up somehow, even on an anonymous imageboard.
>>48317279
Who's the other guy?
>>48317279
Nah, you said it was "something more".
You tried though. And that's why you're a failure.
Anyways, thanks for listening to my dumb shit /btg/. You guys are real troopers.
Also fuck you >>48317316, I'm trying to get some dumb shit off my chest here and I could do well without a faggot of your caliber pulling some dumb shit.
>>48317288
Hating BT for the Unseens at this point is just stupid. It's like hating MOSPEADA because of Armo-Fighters.
>>48317316
You've reached a new level of stupid, anon. Grats.
>>48317361
>MOSPEADA
Thanks for reminding me about that show.
Now I want transformable BA
>>48317361
Yeah, that's why I came here. It's some dumb shit and now it's done shit, and it was done shit decades ago. I'm seeing myself out.
I'd ask that /btg/ anons not take my dumb shit to heart. /m/ has problems but I'm just one guy.
>>48317428
Check out some Battletech novels or something, anon. Some of them are just the right level of Giant Robots n' Cheese goodness that you might grow to at least not dislike it.
>>48316346
I'm currently doing a 28mm-scaled Thud and a Locust (not an Ostall, there are some major leg geometry differences) as practice before I try to tackle something more complex. Maybe a Koto or an Ostroc next, then something funky. I'm using my old 40k beret-and-pack British Commando Stormtroopers as infantry, and the heavy weapon gunners/sentinel monkeys as the pilots. I've also got a shitload of post-apoc skirmish troops, a couple technicals, and some Escher gangers to do irregular troops with.
Worst comes to worst, you could always try working with Pepakura Maker or one of the 3D design programs to make your own Bandie/Merlin/Emperor/Marshall. Personally I think even Plog's version of the Bandie needs an extensive redesign (no matter how much I love her), but with a little reinforcement it ought to hold up to display use in paper.
>>48318069
>Locust
I was just gonna use the MWO model for mine, but that makes me wonder: are there Crusher Joe model kits of the 'locust' in 1:72?
>Worst comes to worst, you could always try working with Pepakura Maker or one of the 3D design programs to make your own Bandie/Merlin/Emperor/Marshall.
I've been considering trying to get back into learning 3D modeling (I tried to get into it a few years back for FNV modding but never really got anywhere) or else maybe trying to commission someone to do the required models. Saving that for a last resort, though, especially with the (admittedly very slim) chance of MWO models, or the slightly more likely chance of either finding an obscure mod for MW4 or something with the requisite models, or them showing up in a mod for HBS's battletech.
Also, good luck with the thud and locust, hope that goes easy.
As for a next project, what about kitbashing a Galug into a Marauder II? That might b cool
Are there rules for a mordheim-like campaign/league system where you start with a small merc lance and you build up your squad using the c-bills gathered based on how you did in missions? Where your mechwarriors/vehicle crews gather xp as they fight and can be injured, captured, loose limbs or die if they fall on the field? Where you can upgrade your mechs/vehicles and buy new equipment and chassis at the market with a rarity check?
>>48318151
Yeah, there are Ostall models in 1:72, although they're moderately rare these days; saw two on eBay for about $60 each last month. There's also a Locust .pdo for pepakura maker running around out there.
>>48318201
Various ones. The latest of which was Campaign Operations.
>>48318201
Yeah. Strategic Operations and Campaign Operations have the most current rulesets for that, although I recommend tweaking the maintenance intervals for 'Mechs unless you like making shit-tons of rolls during your downtime and constantly breaking shit. The popular nickname for that kind of campaign around here is "accountanttech". I've run a few myself; if you can stay on top of the paperwork they can add an amazing amount of tension to the game. Not to mention role-playing opportunities galore when working with multiple PCs.
The AtB (Against the Bot) referenced in the OP is an automated one-player campaign in that style. It has some issues, but it's still a lot of fun.
>>48318201
There are at least six. Whatever your taste in such systems, battletech probably has it
>>48307775
Because, Battletech is kind of lame compared to most mecha anime and really, really low-tech. It just doesn't appeal and whenever it comes on /m/ it devolves into
>Clan stronk!
>Realistic war machines
>Muh PPCs
>>48318886
What about PPCs?
>>48319353
MAN MADE LIGHTNING
>>48319416
Bitches don't know about my electron flux whip
>>48319353
>>48319353
CLAN MADE TEARS
L
A
N
>>48318886
>and really, really low-tech
I actually really like the "future according to the 80s" vibe, like Alien, but with giant robots.
>>48318886
>>48319956
>tfw Shadowrun's technology is more advanced than Battletech's
>>48318886
>Because, Battletech is kind of lame compared to most mecha anime and really, really low-tech
Just like some of the best mech series.
>>48320333
Indeed
>>48319956
To a degree, it's not even that the setting is low tech, just that the fanciest stuff is non military, and thus gets mostly ignored.
And the military side is compounded by odd progression, like how the SL sits on stuff for sometimes centuries and doesn't even develop it further, like having only the LBX 10 and such, then the exodus fleet makes the jump to Clantech in less than 50 years after hitting the Pentagon Worlds.
>>48320784
I've never seen Xabungle and feel like I should. How does it hold up compared to Dougram and the like? Is it as batshit insane as the synopses make it sound?
>>48320880
I dunno about batshit insane, but despite being overall a serious premise, the show is generally played out in a silly and fun way. Even the villains tend to be goofballs. This also extends to the combat, like a scene I love where Xabungle is unarmed, so Jiron just rips the gun turret off another Walker Machine, hops out of the cockpit and jumps down into the gun turret held in Xabungle's hand and starts shooting shit.
>>48321065
>Xabungle is unarmed, so Jiron just rips the gun turret off another Walker Machine, hops out of the cockpit and jumps down into the gun turret held in Xabungle's hand and starts shooting shit.
That just sounds awesome.
I'm going to run a one shot Time of War game soon and want the 3-4 players to face a vehicle at the end as the boss. What would be a good one to pit against them? Assume time period and faction don't matter
>>48302961
Rapid fire MG's are now you roll 1d6, do that much damage, generate that much heat, and use 3x the ammo.
>>48321580
Why would you trade 2 damage 0 heat for an average 3.5 damage & heat?
Not too many mechs have machine guns and tons of unused heat capacity.
>>48321635
Try it with a Piranha some time, anon.
Just get into someone's rear arc and fuck their shit up.
You'll probably shut down from the heat but it is so totally worth it.
>>48321635
With a Juggernaut you can full rapid fire the mech's 12 MGs and possibly overload the insane dissipation it has.
Rapid Fire: for when you need MGs to make more heat than x-pulse large lasers.
>>48322221
Pfft. Dl means delay. MGs fire so fast, you just end up burning through ammo in Solaris.
Mediafire guy here. I have noticed the Clan Wolf Sourcebook and Invading Clans Sourcebook are corrupt and incomplete. Does anyone have good scans of those? Thanks in advance
Do the "-UK" variants of mechs come from any particular sourcebook? I'm building a company for a campaign and I keep coming across mechs with the -UK suffix and they seem to have more purpose-driven loadouts.
>>48323238
They come from a British fanzine - MechForce UK. It had a bunch of fan-made variants. Some of them even got minis, although RPE destroyed/hid the molds a few years ago since several had Unseen components
>>48320816
Pretty much this. It's also not like 40k style full-on Stone Age backsliding is all that common; the worst off planets in any given era tend towards more 19th-20th century tech.
>>48322411
Here is Invading Clans Sourcebook. Quality is not that good, but it is not corrupted :
http://www.mediafire.com/download/bb3lbk62yrzykbk/01645+-+Invading+Clans.pdf
Clan Wolf. I am not sure about this one. But it seems OK. I didnt notice any problems:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/zasa1rinnyqsir6/01642+-+Wolf+Clan.pdf
Maybe you could also add Rolling Thunder, I uploaded it few days ago and it is throw away account so I am not sure how long it will be available:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/x8f2xyq7plxm1ee/01651+-+Rolling+Thunder.pdf
>>48324097
Many thanks, anon. I'll update them soon
>>48316932
>and since then I've never been able to shake my dislike for it. It feels like a bootleg being more popular than the original
I'm not sure what the fuck your problem is, because BT's reasonably different from all of the japanese source shows and certainly pretty different from Gundam.The closest equivalent in terms of scope and general feel is Five Star Stories rather than Gundam or Macross and the closest equivalent in terms of the overall tech level, strategy, tactics and politics is Dougram.
Dougram's story's influence also is probably nonexistant, but as a show that drew inspiration from The Battle for Algiers movie, it happened to include elements BT got as part of its US wargaming and scifi heritage. So paralells do exist in terms of both of them being future history series quoting non-japanese political issues.
>>48321553
>>48323379
Huh, didn't know that battletech was so popular over in the UK. Neat
>>48324757
There's German-specific and Japanese-only material as well.
What's more, the rules were shoddily translated into Japanese, so SRMs are apparently a lot more powerful in their version.
>>48325063
>use designs originally from Japanese TV
>bring it back TO Japan
That is...interesting.
So is "A Time of War" supposed to be stupidly complex and impossible to figure out? Because it is.
>>48325145
They commissioned a completely new set of art for the Japanese release. Some of it was reused here in the west as IIC and Solaris art, but a lot of it is still completely unique to japan
>>48325548
>>48325145
Yeah, that's another thing. The japanese BT line of fanart follows a completely different aestetics as a result of that.
No blocks and clown shoes, basically.
>>48325626
Funnily enough, the art on them tends to be a few levels ahead of anything present in BT-made designs but no one becomes a great artist in a day and these people had to work from absolute zero (well, Studio Nue designs) in the west.
The legs do look goofy (maybe they wanted more realism with the premise of BT?) but the rest is pure sex.
>>48325747
Compare this with the TRO art where you can hardly make out where the cockpit is.
>>48325747
To be honest they look utterly generic. Even (western?) BT's ugly ducklings at least have character.
>>48324142
>>48324097
The Wolf pdf is corrupted
>>48325777
Generic?
Show me designs from the 80s which look anything like that, anon.
>>48325472
It's pretty bullshit the first few times, but after a bit of practice it's pretty much clicked for me.
>>48325849
80s mecha in Japan all look like that. That red one wouldn't be out of ordinary fighting beside the Kämpfer in Gundam 0080.
>>48325849
Different anon, but these designs look indeed generic. Impractical and oversized parts everywhere, they could pass as a robot from many Japanese video game or anime. The art quality is good, but the robot designs aren't.
To each their own, but I'll stick with modern Battletech art
>>48326007
Posting the other two because why not
>>48325900
Not really besides maybe the most superficial of comparisons (something like round shapes).
>>48326040
Source is MWO
>>48326041
That thing's feet look almost exactly like the feet of the JP Rifleman posted above.
