Catapult Art Changes

[Liam's Ghost]

Since presumably they aren't planning on invalidating prior art, I assume they'll go with the idea that both sets of art are accurate and represent changes during centuries of production.

Heck, based on that I'd feel obligated to buy even more of them (along with older versions from iron wind metals) so that I can chop them up and make hybrids. You took what you could get during the succession wars. Not like kids today with their endo-pulse-XL-LB nonsense.

[Adrian Gideon]

My response:
 ::)

Or if you're not into the whole brevity thing,

"This is a Catapult."
"But-"
"It's a Catapult."
"But-"
"Catapult."

If it helps you sleep at night to imagine Mr. Spock went through a wormhole 150 years into the past and that's why this miniature doesn't look like the previous one, then good on you. But there is absolutely no requirement for such an explanation.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Those were Chevrolet Catapults.  These are Ford Catapults.

It's not as if the stats are any different between them, and it's not like there haven't already been a lot of variation in proportions for the minis anyway.  What's one more?  Especially when it's at the quality and detail we're getting with these new plastics.

[Weirdo]

We're talking about mechs that were often built on different worlds hundreds of light years AND temporal years apart, and sometimes survived centuries of being blasted apart, modified, refitted, and repaired with whatever was available.

I have no issues whatsoever with the idea that two mechs might be completely identical in terms of stats while still looking radically different.

Those were Chevrolet Catapults.  These are Ford Catapults.

You grok things. :)

[Sartris]

Battlemechs remain in a state of quantum superpositions and do not take shape until observed.

[Adrian Gideon]

Those were Chevrolet Catapults.  These are Ford Catapults.

if that explanation helps you, then great. But there will be no such official stance. Because then the followup question is "who makes the Chevrolet and who makes the Fords," when we  all know these are just necessary aesthetic decisions.

[pheonixstorm]

But YOU of all people should no EVERYTHING is made in the Free Worlds League and assembled elsewhere  :P

[Liam's Ghost]

if that explanation helps you, then great. But there will be no such official stance. Because then the followup question is "who makes the Chevrolet and who makes the Fords," when we  all know these are just necessary aesthetic decisions.

You well know that not giving an official answer won't stop that nonsense.  :P

[Sartris]

You well know that not giving an official answer won't stop that nonsense.  :P

And giving an official answer creates at least two new kinds of nonsense to have to tolerate. It's basic fan fizzicks.

[Liam's Ghost]

And giving an official answer creates at least two new kinds of nonsense to have to tolerate. It's basic fan fizzicks.

Nonsense is self spawning.

[Sartris]

that sounds like an excellent business opportunity with low overhead. put it on the coming releases.

[Liam's Ghost]

I should clarify that I don't actually think we should have a detailed explanation for the different look. Much like Klingons, I'm actually happier without an explanation.

[Adrian Gideon]

 ;)

[pheonixstorm]

but but but... #P

[Lorcan Nagle]

I should clarify that I don't actually think we should have a detailed explanation for the different look. Much like Klingons, I'm actually happier without an explanation.

Well now I'm totally using Worf's line the next time someone asks me about art changes when I'm running demos.

[Corrinald]

I'm just happy to see such a cool looking new Catapult !

[ColBosch]

"The used to look like this, but the art and minis were looking dated by 2017, so they were redesigned into this."

Easy-peasy. People aren't dumb, they'll get it.

[JadeHellbringer]

"The used to look like this, but the art and minis were looking dated by 2017, so they were redesigned into this."

Easy-peasy. People aren't dumb, they'll get it.

Your faith in fans is commendable. I should try that sometime.  ::)

[Weirdo]

"The used to look like this, but the art and minis were looking dated by 2017, so they were redesigned into this."

Easy-peasy. People aren't dumb, they'll get it.

You say this with a straight face in a Battletech New Releases thread. By any chance are you involved in the professional poker circuit?

[ColBosch]

You say this with a straight face in a Battletech New Releases thread. By any chance are you involved in the professional poker circuit?

I'm talking about new players, not those of us whose brains calcified decades ago. ;) The grognards will do whatever they want to do anyway, so why bother arguing with them?

[Jaim Magnus]

I'm talking about new players, not those of us whose brains calcified decades ago. ;) The grognards will do whatever they want to do anyway, so why bother arguing with them?

Because some of us like arguing? I know I do. One of many characters flaws, or so I'm told.

[NeonKnight]

This is a Corvette Stingray (1969)



This is also a Corvette Stingray (1985)



And oddly enough, so is this (2017):



As a thinking person, I have no problems thinking, Hmmmm....over the 500+ years a Catapult has been in production, I'm quite certain things will change in how it is designed.

[Jaim Magnus]

As a thinking person, I have no problems thinking, Hmmmm....over the 500+ years a Catapult has been in production, I'm quite certain things will change in how it is designed.

Very much this.

[Paul]

over the 500+ years a Catapult has been in production, I'm quite certain things will change in how it is designed.

And I think there's a 0% chance of it. What you say holds true for commercial vehicles, where brand recognition is very powerful. Those Corvette's are drastically different under their exterior as well, so the changes are far from just cosmetic.
Meanwhile, an M1 Abrams never changes how it looks. Even the subsequent variants have only very minor cosmetic changes. That's true for 100% of the military equipment I'm aware of.
Because military equipment is a tool, and their looks are irrelevant. Meanwhile, changing those looks isn't cheap or non-disruptive.

Paul

[Sartris]

Then again they didn't start manfacturing the Abrams during the late Reconquista so who's to say it's impossible

[Scotty]

Paul please compare the M16 (ca. 1965) to the M16A4 and tell me that the look hasn't changed at all.

[JadeHellbringer]

Could we take this into a new thread, guys? Gencon is wrapping up, there's all kinds of new stuff to discuss, and this thread is taken over by a discussion about the evolution of the Catapult- it's an interesting topic, I'm intrigued by both sides of it, but it really needs to be elsewhere.

Thank you.

[Weirdo]

Locked pending moderator review.

[NeonKnight]

And I think there's a 0% chance of it. What you say holds true for commercial vehicles, where brand recognition is very powerful. Those Corvette's are drastically different under their exterior as well, so the changes are far from just cosmetic.
Meanwhile, an M1 Abrams never changes how it looks. Even the subsequent variants have only very minor cosmetic changes. That's true for 100% of the military equipment I'm aware of.
Because military equipment is a tool, and their looks are irrelevant. Meanwhile, changing those looks isn't cheap or non-disruptive.

Paul

No I agree, comparing commercial vehicles to war vehicles is very much different, but then we only have 37 years of the M1 Abrams tank.

I'm just saying, as a player, I am not gong bemoan the fact my catapults, locusts, etc, now look different than their past models, as frankly, I think that is a poor choice in today's gaming market.

[DarkSpade]

Battlemechs remain in a state of quantum superpositions and do not take shape until observed.

Schrödinger's Catapult

[glitterboy2098]

don't forget this one