Preserving Mech Identity (or why does the CN9-A mount an AC20?)

[KhazadDhum]

This is why you can't win with hardpoints. Some people want them to be locked in place, and inviolate. Others complain when they add a few extra hardpoints to mechs so that we're not too penalized in the early game with having to build some frankenmechs.

There is no way to justify hardpoints with the TT game, and 30+ years of fluff and lore.
*shrugs* what you gonna do?

 

[Delta Assault]

Hi Crl1981 and Delta Assault,

That's not fair exactly, he mentioned Yen Lo Wang, I believe it was more confusion because in MWO you can't modify actuators, which is a mechanic exclusive to that games mechlab, not to the IP.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-a-mount-an-ac20.1085846/page-3#post-24037128

Let's lift a brother mechwarrior up with us when possible.

I'll lift him up if he seems willing to listen to reason. But insisting on MWO being some sort of magical grail of canon and repository of all that is good and right with the IP... well, who is the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who continues to debate him?

 

[Havamal]

I'll lift him up if he seems willing to listen to reason. But insisting on MWO being some sort of magical grail of canon and repository of all that is good and right with the IP... well, who is the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who continues to debate him?

We are all fools in life at one time or another. Asking questions is the beginning of wisdom.

 

[shadojak]

ZEN BABY!

 

[Timaeus]

There is no way to justify hardpoints with the TT game, and 30+ years of fluff and lore.
*shrugs* what you gonna do?

Strat. Ops refit kit system (pp.188). It's there, please stop acting like something like hardpoints don't exist when hardpoints are abstraction of this system in tabletop.

 

[Adam Steiner]

To elaborate, I'm not aware of any AH record sheet. ( I'd be curious to see one though. )
I had been under the impression that the variant existed to allow a non-YenloWang AC 20 Cent to exist in MWO since MWO is hard point based and the A in that game cannot fit the AC 20 because of the mechanics of its mechlab necessitating a variant that allowed this in demand build.

Such a variant was not required to field an AC 20 build in TT because the TT build rules are not Hard point based. Though we can now call all such customisations an AH now that the designation exists

Such a variant does not exist in Hbs game to our current knowledge either because the mechlab does not have the MWO actuator restriction, so this classic TT customization can occur. Any such modified can be headcanoned as an AH if one so chooses. It is a standard change which is denoted by the AH designation , A for base model +H for the addition .


Profit. I hope that helps.

OK, well then does the CN9-A have enough critical slots in its arm to fit an AC20 in TT?

 

[Adam Steiner]

I'll add this, to phrase it another way.

The AC 20 upgrade is what creates the AH or the Yen Lo Wang. It is common upgrade by TT players in the games long history.

I figured as much. Yet the "identity" comes from MWO, there is no "identity" in TT as you just fit whatever you want and apparently there are enough crit slots in the CN9-A in TT to fit the AC20.

 

[Adam Steiner]

Absolutely Not.
The hardpoints and models come from MWO, for monetary reasons (art assets and animations are EXPENSIVE). MWO is just the latest in a string of derivative computer games of varying quality.

The identity comes from Battletech.

I don't even know what kind of stuff you're talking here. The "identity" of the mechs is the hardpoint restrictions. That's what everyone is always going on about preserving. Call it monetary reasons if you like, it doesn't change the fact.

 

[Havamal]

OK, well then does the CN9-A have enough critical slots in its arm to fit an AC20 in TT?

Yes it can. Removing actuators in TT is not a problem. https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52991.0

That's the difference between the three games. MWO you cant, TT you can, and in HBS actuators are not really part of the build consequence.

 

[Adam Steiner]

This is the craziest thread I've ever read. Somehow we've lost the identity of the Centurion because it can mount an AC20 in its arm? Even though the most famous Centurion of all time, Yen-Lo-Wang, is a custom that carries an AC20?

Wow. I wasn't going to respond to this, but you really need to actually try to understand what I'm saying here. The identity of the mech isn't lost, it's the variants. The variants have their identities from MWO because the hardpoints are from MWO (I don't care why) and the hardpoints give the mech their "identity."

A CN9-A mech is a Centurion that cannot mount an AC20
The CN9-AH can mount an AC20 but drops the two energy hardpoints
The Yen-Lo-Wang is a Solaris VII gladiator that has had heavy modifications performed, one of which was removing the lower actuator to fit the AC20.

 

[Havamal]

A CN9-A mech is a Centurion that cannot mount an AC20

But not in any other version of the game but MWO. Thats the part thats not canon.

"


The CN9-AH can mount an AC20 but drops the two energy hardpoints
The Yen-Lo-Wang is a Solaris VII gladiator that has had heavy modifications performed, one of which was removing the lower actuator to fit the AC20.

Correct.

 

[Timaeus]

I figured as much. Yet the "identity" comes from MWO, there is no "identity" in TT as you just fit whatever you want and apparently there are enough crit slots in the CN9-A in TT to fit the AC20.

No. Identity comes from tabletop through both equipment choice and intended combat role. MWO did not set this standard of what the identity is. Tabletop did, and always has.

 

[Adam Steiner]

Yes it can. Removing actuators in TT is not a problem. https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52991.0

That's the difference between the three games. MWO you cant, TT you can, and in HBS actuators are not really part of the build consequence.

I'm willing to put it down to a difference in representations, I'm sure MW5 will add some changes too.

 

[Havamal]

I'm willing to put it down to a difference in representations, I'm sure MW5 will add some changes too.

It actually does make perfect sense for MWO considering the way the builds work for that game, It just doesnt fit for the IP as a whole due to existing rules.

 

[Adam Steiner]

No. Identity comes from tabletop through both equipment choice and intended combat role. MWO did not set this standard of what the identity is. Tabletop did, and always has.

If you say so. I don't see why TT gets primacy, but I guess I'm just biased to MWO.

 

[Delta Assault]

Wow. I wasn't going to respond to this, but you really need to actually try to understand what I'm saying here. The identity of the mech isn't lost, it's the variants. The variants have their identities from MWO because the hardpoints are from MWO (I don't care why) and the hardpoints give the mech their "identity."

A CN9-A mech is a Centurion that cannot mount an AC20
The CN9-AH can mount an AC20 but drops the two energy hardpoints
The Yen-Lo-Wang is a Solaris VII gladiator that has had heavy modifications performed, one of which was removing the lower actuator to fit the AC20.

No, the variants have their identities from the tabletop. That's where they came from.

A CN9-A is a Centurion that doesn't mount an AC20. There's nothing that says it can't be customized to mount an AC20.

And hardpoints have never been a thing. If they were, we wouldn't have "Swaybacks" with six MLs in place of an AC20. Or a Catapult with twin PPCs in place of LRM15s.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

[Adam Steiner]

No, the variants have their identities from the tabletop. That's where they came from.

A CN9-A is a Centurion that doesn't mount an AC20. There's nothing that says it can't be customized to mount an AC20.

And hardpoints have never been a thing. If they were, we wouldn't have "Swaybacks" with six MLs in place of an AC20. Or a Catapult with twin PPCs in place of LRM15s.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

We've already covered this. You say TT is prime, I think MWO is prime.

ETA: Clarification - when it comes to game design on PC.. not the lore. I understand there are many campaigns with a lot of stories from TT.

 

[Havamal]

We've already covered this. You say TT is prime, I think MWO is prime.

Canon has a specified order of prevalence; http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Canon

Its ok to have a personal preference, but that becomes house rules territory, not official rules.

 

[Timaeus]

If you say so. I don't see why TT gets primacy, but I guess I'm just biased to MWO.

Table top gets primacy because table top (along with novels) is both A )the originator of the game and universe, and B ) the place that defines the canon. Almost no video game defines canon for BatteTech, and even when a video game adds to canon it is typically done so in a "broad strokes" format. MWO will never be viewed as primary source except for gameplay mechanics in MWO.

 

[Adam Steiner]

Table top gets primacy because table top (along with novels) is both A )the originator of the game and universe, and B ) the place that defines the canon. Almost no video game defines canon for BatteTech, and even when a video game adds to canon it is typically done so in a "broad strokes" format. MWO will never be viewed as primary source except for gameplay mechanics in MWO.

I think I'm using the word canon loosely. I'm trying to get at gameplay mechanics on PC.

I understand there is much lore with the TT, the novels are the novels I don't see them as tied to TT unless they come with game sets.