| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Knightrunner
Clan Snow Raven
Star Commander
Joined: 20-Jul-2005 00:00
Posts: 123
|
 Posted: 26-Oct-2005 11:29 Post subject: Question about quads |
  |
|
The post on rear-mounted weapons on quads got me to thinking. I never use the things because I like to torso twist so I'm not very familiar with them.
But, if a biped loses a side torso, the corresponding arm goes as well. Does a quad lose a front leg if a torso section goes?
Do level one quads still act as quads, or do they follow the same rules as bipeds? My 3025 TRO lists the Scorpion and Goliath as having arms- with different armor and internal structure values than the legs. Has that changed?
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8072
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 26-Oct-2005 13:00 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-26 11:29, Knightrunner wrote:
The post on rear-mounted weapons on quads got me to thinking. I never use the things because I like to torso twist so I'm not very familiar with them.
But, if a biped loses a side torso, the corresponding arm goes as well. Does a quad lose a front leg if a torso section goes?
Do level one quads still act as quads, or do they follow the same rules as bipeds? My 3025 TRO lists the Scorpion and Goliath as having arms- with different armor and internal structure values than the legs. Has that changed?
|
|
Quads now have 4 legs, and have for awhile...if a quad loses a side torso it loses the corresponding front leg.
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
Knightrunner
Clan Snow Raven
Star Commander
Joined: 20-Jul-2005 00:00
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: 26-Oct-2005 18:49 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
Thanks.
That's what I thought, but losing the leg when you lose the torso seems like a pretty big drawback. Although, if you have an IS XL engine it wouldn't matter one way or the other.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8072
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 26-Oct-2005 19:01 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-26 18:49, Knightrunner wrote:
Thanks.
That's what I thought, but losing the leg when you lose the torso seems like a pretty big drawback. Although, if you have an IS XL engine it wouldn't matter one way or the other.
|
|
You lose an arm when you lose a torso in a biped, so it's about the same...
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rudel Gurken
Allisters Light Thunder
Major
Joined: 15-Jun-2005 00:00
Posts: 1456
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: 27-Oct-2005 01:27 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
I remember a section of BMR that says Quad frontlegs are treated as normal legs in all aspects including that you don´t loose a frontleg if the corresponding sidetorso is destroyed!
I´ve to look it up when I´m back home!
_________________
Reality is where the Pizza-man comes from!'Gucken, petzen, verpissen!' (Look at it, squeal it, get the hell away from it!) – Motto of the recon troops'Artillery doesn´t know friend or foe! They only know worthwhile targets!‘ – Kuritan Infantrist
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8072
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 27-Oct-2005 06:05 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-27 01:27, Rudel Gurken wrote:
I remember a section of BMR that says Quad frontlegs are treated as normal legs in all aspects including that you don´t loose a frontleg if the corresponding sidetorso is destroyed!
I´ve to look it up when I´m back home!
|
|
Go ahead and look it up, but the front legs are connected to the side torsos so when you lose the torso you lose the leg.
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rudel Gurken
Allisters Light Thunder
Major
Joined: 15-Jun-2005 00:00
Posts: 1456
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: 28-Oct-2005 01:08 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
I´ve searched through the BMR and didn´t find a clear rule! (I was so shure about that!  )
Quote:
|
page 34 BMR:
If a BattleMech´s right or left torso has all of its internal structure destroyed, the corresponding arm is blown off immediately ... the corresponding leg is not damaged. ...
|
|
The four-legged BattleMechs rules p. 75-77 doesn´t say anything about this.
We think of a front leg as a leg and not as another sort of arm and we thought (until now!) that that´s the official rule.
But I think we don´t change our way of play because Quads will be very vulnerable.
Loosing an arm isn´t a problem but loosing a leg is the beginning of the end!
The BMR Quad BattleMech Record Sheet shows all four legs connected to the corresponding side torso anyway!
_________________
Reality is where the Pizza-man comes from!'Gucken, petzen, verpissen!' (Look at it, squeal it, get the hell away from it!) – Motto of the recon troops'Artillery doesn´t know friend or foe! They only know worthwhile targets!‘ – Kuritan Infantrist
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Knightrunner
Clan Snow Raven
Star Commander
Joined: 20-Jul-2005 00:00
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: 28-Oct-2005 13:45 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
| That's one of the reasons I never want to use them. They have a lot of drawbacks, but don't seem to have corresponding major advantages.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mordel
Mordel.Net
Administrator
Joined: 03-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 6061
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 28-Oct-2005 14:05 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
Losing 1 leg on a quad makes the quad function like a bipedal mech. Meaning you don't get the -2 on piloting skills for being a quad. Losing a second leg makes the quad function like a biped losing a leg. So losing the first leg isn't the problem. Losing the second leg is.
And I can think of advantages:
1) Quad movement (saves you a movement point or two on occassion)
2) More armor
3) Better piloting skill checks
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-28 01:08, Rudel Gurken wrote:
I´ve searched through the BMR and didn´t find a clear rule! (I was so shure about that! )
Quote:
|
page 34 BMR:
If a BattleMech´s right or left torso has all of its internal structure destroyed, the corresponding arm is blown off immediately ... the corresponding leg is not damaged. ...
|
|
The four-legged BattleMechs rules p. 75-77 doesn´t say anything about this.
We think of a front leg as a leg and not as another sort of arm and we thought (until now!) that that´s the official rule.
But I think we don´t change our way of play because Quads will be very vulnerable.
Loosing an arm isn´t a problem but loosing a leg is the beginning of the end!
The BMR Quad BattleMech Record Sheet shows all four legs connected to the corresponding side torso anyway!
|
|
_________________
Mordel Blacknight - Site Administrator
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8072
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 28-Oct-2005 16:41 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-28 13:45, Knightrunner wrote:
That's one of the reasons I never want to use them. They have a lot of drawbacks, but don't seem to have corresponding major advantages.
|
|
They have one draw back...they can't torso twist. One is hardly "a lot"
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Kalo Osis
Clan Ice Hellions
Star Colonel
Joined: 07-Jul-2005 00:00
Posts: 446
|
| Posted: 28-Oct-2005 17:10 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-28 13:45, Knightrunner wrote:
That's one of the reasons I never want to use them. They have a lot of drawbacks, but don't seem to have corresponding major advantages.
|
|
I disagree. I prefer quad mechs to biped mechs.
_________________
"I prefer to fight for a meaningful purpose, rather than to provide a spectacle for the ignorant masses."
-Kalo on the Solaris 7 Battlemech Arenas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Knightrunner
Clan Snow Raven
Star Commander
Joined: 20-Jul-2005 00:00
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: 28-Oct-2005 19:30 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
Quads have more than one drawback. They can't punch or use physical attack weapons. They can't use the larger arc of fire for arms. They can't pick thing up. They have at least 12 less critical spaces than bipeds.
Some of these problems are pretty minor, but the inability to torso twist isn't their only drawback. Whether or not the advantages of quads outweigh these problems probably depends on style of play as much as anything else.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Nightmare
Lyran Alliance
Kommandant-General
Joined: 03-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 2214
|
| Posted: 29-Oct-2005 01:27 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
Quads make fine support units and specialized scouts. Just do what you do with ordinary mechs: use their advantages and try to cover for their disadvantages.
_________________
A tree fall in the forest, and no one is around, and it hits a mime. Does anyone care?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8072
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 29-Oct-2005 09:42 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-28 19:30, Knightrunner wrote:
Quads have more than one drawback. They can't punch or use physical attack weapons.
|
|
Smart players always kick anyway...
Quote:
|
They can't use the larger arc of fire for arms.
|
|
Well, seeing as they don't have arms...
Quote:
|
They can't pick thing up.
|
|
In my 20+ years of playing Battletech I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a mech pick something up.
Quote:
|
They have at least 12 less critical spaces than bipeds.
|
|
Just means you have to be smarter when creating one. Heaven forbid someone needs to use their brain in this game...
Quote:
|
Some of these problems are pretty minor, but the inability to torso twist isn't their only drawback.
|
|
I stand by my statement as all this other stuff is just personal preference.
Quote:
|
Whether or not the advantages of quads outweigh these problems probably depends on style of play as much as anything else.
|
|
Or knowing how to use them correctly, which in my years of playing I can say that most don't.
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Knightrunner
Clan Snow Raven
Star Commander
Joined: 20-Jul-2005 00:00
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: 30-Oct-2005 19:09 Post subject: RE: Question about quads |
|
|
A drawback is a drawback, where minor or major. Quads have several advantages, some of which haven’t even been mentioned here yet. I know some people prefer them and I’m glad of it; the game would quickly get boring if everyone had the same style.
Just because a disadvantage is extremely minor, easy to overcome, or balanced by advantages in other areas does not mean it does not exist or that it’s entirely subjective. If your mech has a targeting penalty at long range due to sensor damage (just an example), it has a drawback. You might compensate by only fighting at close range in restricted terrain, but that’s adapting to the disadvantage not eliminating it. The penalty may never come into play, but it’s always there- limiting your options.
Quads cannot punch, etc. That is not ‘personal preference’. Smart players do not always kick; they use the most effective physical attack based on the situation. That is often a kick, but certainly not always. If you’re next to an enemy mech that just took a PPC bolt to the head, but has full leg armor, is a kick smarter than a punch? What if the enemy is one level higher than you? What if it’s an elemental point that has swarmed you? Also, risking a fall may not be a wise choice, punching is always safer (yes, I do know quads are less likely to fall). Not being able to punch is a disadvantage.
They can’t use the larger arc of fire for arms. Obviously this is because they don’t have arms; this is not ‘personal preference’. Combined with the lack of ability to torso twist (and they are two different factors) quads have a much more limited fire arc. Having a limited firing arc is a disadvantage.
Quads cannot pick things up. This is, again, because they don’t have arms; it is not ‘personal preference’. I know that a lot of bipeds don’t have hands either, but they do have the option. Picking things up may vary in utility (I used to do it a lot while raiding; it’s more useful in role-playing than elsewhere), but not having the option at all limits the design (however slightly that may be). Not being able to pick things up is a disadvantage.
Quads have fewer critical spaces than bipeds. This is a simple design fact; it is not ‘personal preference’. It is not insurmountable; it may not even hamper a given design at all. It does, however, mean that quads cannot mount as much equipment as bipeds and what they do mount is more limited in location. I am quite capable of using my brain to overcome design limitations (as is any competent mech designer), but these are limitations that are unique to quads. A good designer emphasizes advantages and minimizes disadvantages- less internal space is a disadvantage that must be overcome in quads; biped mechs have different problems that need to be minimized. A good mech can be made despite all sorts of design drawbacks; that’s part of the fun, but it does place limits on what a quad can mount. That all of this is already figured into mechs by the time they see battle doesn’t change the fact that the designers had to work around a more cramped interior. These design limits are disadvantages.
They’re also far more likely to lose a leg or take leg actuator criticals. Sure, front legs can mount more armor than arms, but a biped can lose two limbs and still move at full speed; a quad cannot. A biped can take a couple of actuator hits and still move at full speed; a quad cannot. These are disadvantages.
All of these are explicit in the rules. Do quads have many (or ‘several’, or ‘a lot’, or whatever word you like except ‘one’) advantages? Yes, or they wouldn’t be used. I certainly haven’t disputed that in this post (or anywhere else). Disadvantages, although certainly ‘bad’ in the sense that they limit you, are part of what makes the game fun. I love the Ostscout and Excalibur, even though they have some terrible drawbacks, because I think they’re fun to play. Some people prefer quads, presumably for the same reason. Since I like to torso twist, I usually do not design or choose quads.
In this context, ‘style of play’ and ‘knowing how to use them correctly’ mean the same thing. This is where subjectivity comes in, but any halfway decent player will quickly learn the good and bad points of his mech and adjust accordingly.
If I were assigned a Scorpion, I’d just make do and take full advantage of what I had. I have my favorite designs and design features, and stick with them much of the time. Just like any other player.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
