Author Topic: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread  (Read 90342 times)

theothersarah

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 781
  • Girls just wanna have fun
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #30 on: 06 November 2015, 09:57:25 »
I realize now that I misunderstood force building a bit and I thought that you had the ability to use neutral faction units at a point cost in between friend and enemy. Since you can only use out-of-faction units from common friends (from rewards or purchases) or common enemies (from salvage) then it wouldn't make sense for Waco Rangers to have Dragoons as an enemy because aside from only fighting them on a few occasions they'd probably sell or let any salvaged Dragoon-specific rot out of spite instead of using it.

Some typos:

Page 46, 48 - Earl Clan Invasion should be Early Clan Invasion

I know this might be skirting dangerously close to “don’t like it that way” but can we please have the Faction lists broken up and sorted by BattleMech role?

The "eyestrain edition" is rather difficult to use when picking out units when trying to put together lances.

Also, if each sub-category (Brawler, Sniper, Missile Boat, etc) could be sorted by Unit Size, this would help loads.

Basically, something like:

Sniper
Blackjack BJ-2 Sniper BM 2
Griffin GRF-3M Sniper BM 2
Hoplite HOP-4D Sniper BM 2
JagerMech JM6-DD Sniper BM 3
Cyclops CP-11-A Sniper BM 4
Cyclops CP-11-A-DC Sniper BM 4
Goliath GOL-3M Sniper BM 4
Marauder II MAD-5C Sniper BM 4
Zeus ZEU-9S Sniper BM 4

That's not a bad idea but I expect that the MUL is supposed to be the sorted version of this. If they let us sort by the simplified Availability as seen in this book, then it should be perfect for finding the right 'mech for the job.

Gordon

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Jeffrey D. Gordon
    • Some BattleTech Posts
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #31 on: 06 November 2015, 10:38:40 »
Table of contents, index and page numbers should be clickable to their respective pages in the PDF. :)

I've tried it in Adobe Reader and Preview (Mac), no PDF hyperlink were available.
« Last Edit: 06 November 2015, 10:40:47 by Gauthic »
Demo Team Agent #784

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #32 on: 06 November 2015, 10:44:05 »
I have what amounts to a rules question about infantry formations... asking it here rather than the formal Alpha Strike rules forum.

Alpha Strike Companion force composition rules (pre-Combat Manuals at least) takes a bit of liberty with the established lore of the BTU and treats infantry platoons as units of organizational equivalency to battlemechs, rather than entire lances of battlemechs.  I.E. 4 platoons of infantry are a "lance", despite that in-universe a platoon already is equivalent to a lance.

Page 80 of the Combat Manual explains the in-universe way of doing things... 3 platoons equals a company.

Lance construction rules remain untangled for battle armor.. 4 squads = 1 lance still works.  But unarmored infantry just became a problem.  Does one platoon become its own lance?  It seems that it must.  You can't have 1 and 1/3 company being a lance, after all...

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6820
  • BattleTech Line Developer
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #33 on: 06 November 2015, 10:54:15 »
Infantry-I thought I took care of that but it may have reverted in editing (or it was adjusted in the text but not the table, or vice versa). Noted.
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #34 on: 06 November 2015, 11:19:24 »
Infantry-I thought I took care of that but it may have reverted in editing (or it was adjusted in the text but not the table, or vice versa). Noted.

I don't suppose we get to be teased with what the intended rule is? :)

Another infantry suggestion:  This is definitely in the realm of "what I'd like to see" but it stems directly from what is a very counter-intuitive example given on page 80.

Quote from: Force Building, pg 80
For example, a lance of Goblin Medium Tanks each have IT1.
Sniper infantry have CAR1. The lance may include the four Goblin
Medium Tanks and four Sniper infantry.

I presume this is the sniper infantry that sparked the example.  Unfortunately, it's got some lostech that precludes its use in SW era games and worse still, it is limited to use only by House Liao, which is not appropriate to the Merc book.  I was hoping to see a SW era sniper squad squeezed into the late SW infantry table on page 113, but alas there is none.

Maybe add one?  Don't even need to add it to the MUL... the statline would all be right there.  IT1 transports that are common to the SW era are so disappointing in Alpha Strike b/c CAR1 infantry in the SW era are nonexistent (outside the Clan Homeworlds..)  A SW era translation of the sniper squad would go a long way towards making IT1 not being a waste of a special.



wolfspider

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 747
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #35 on: 06 November 2015, 12:12:11 »
On page 107 it shows 3 Wolf's Dragoon mechs but the letters should be Gamma, Delta, Epsilon and not Gamma, Epsilon Zeta.
I may have a low amount of posts but I have a PHD in Battletech and mechs older then most people on this board!

Pat Payne

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1434
  • 352nd Combat Group -- Ex cinis ad astra
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #36 on: 06 November 2015, 12:31:19 »
In the rules governing rare units, the Grasshopper-5N is specifically mentioned as a rare unit in the text. However, it does not appear in the faction list. Instead the -5H is there, and it doesn't have an asterisk marking it out as a rare unit. Was this a typo (was the -5N in the example meant to be a -5H) or an oversight in compiling the list? I ask because the 21st Centauri Lancers specifically also mentions this rule as they have a explicit exception to it (that the Grasshopper [no variant called out] is not considered a rare unit for terms of building a 21CL force -- in fact a player building a canon force is obligated to break the rule).

Never mind, I think I answered my own question by looking at the Clan Invasion list AS WELL AS the Succession Wars List  [face palm]
« Last Edit: 06 November 2015, 20:06:01 by Pat Payne »

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #37 on: 06 November 2015, 13:54:35 »
More of a question than a suggestion (but maybe a suggestion too): Since the Demi-Company costs 4 FP, but both parts of a company must be a Demi-Company if one is, does that mean that fielding a Company of two Demi-Companies actually costs 8 FP, or if it merely costs 4 FP to convert from Lances to Demi-Companies for the whole force?
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

trboturtle

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4043
  • Erraturi te salutant!
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #38 on: 06 November 2015, 14:54:04 »
Up until Coventry, weren't the Rangers commanded by Col. Waco's son, not the old man? One wonders if for most of the Clan Invasion period the Dragoons cared about the Rangers, given the Rangers were in Marik service.

A thought ...

Colonel Wayne Rogers was the Ranger's CO in 3050 through Coventry. As for Col. Waco's son, his death is the reason why the Rangers hated the Dragoons. AFAIK, Waco only had the one son....

Craig
Author of 32 Battletech short stories including "The Lance Killer," "Hikagemono," "Negotiation," "The Clawing," "Salvage," "The Promise," "Reap What You Sow," "Family Ties," "The Blood of Man," "End of Message," "Heroes' Bridge," "Kurodenkou," "Thirteen," "My Father's Sword," "Evacuation," "Operation Red Lion," "A Matter of Honor," "State of Grace," "Operation Blue Tiger," "A Warrior's Fear," "Shadow Angels," "Murphy's Method," "End of the Road," (IAMTW 2019 Scribe Award nominee!), "Tales of the Cracked Canopy: Blind Arrogance," "Laws Are Silent," "No Tears," "Tales of the Cracked Canopy: Shadows of the Past," and "Three White Roses."
Novels -- Icons of War, Elements of Treason series, "Vengence Games." Upcoming: "In the Shadow of Dragons" and "Poisoned Honor" (WoR #1)

My Blogs!
Battletech:  http://thebattletechstate.blogspot.com/
Other writings: http://trboturtleswritings.blogspot.com/

Jewelfox

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Inari no kitsune
    • Jewelfox's den
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #39 on: 06 November 2015, 14:57:42 »
I know this might be skirting dangerously close to “don’t like it that way” but can we please have the Faction lists broken up and sorted by BattleMech role?

The "eyestrain edition" is rather difficult to use when picking out units when trying to put together lances.

Also, if each sub-category (Brawler, Sniper, Missile Boat, etc) could be sorted by Unit Size, this would help loads.

Basically, something like:

Sniper
Blackjack BJ-2 Sniper BM 2
Griffin GRF-3M Sniper BM 2
Hoplite HOP-4D Sniper BM 2
JagerMech JM6-DD Sniper BM 3
Cyclops CP-11-A Sniper BM 4
Cyclops CP-11-A-DC Sniper BM 4
Goliath GOL-3M Sniper BM 4
Marauder II MAD-5C Sniper BM 4
Zeus ZEU-9S Sniper BM 4

Seconded!

Von Ether

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 906
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #40 on: 06 November 2015, 15:15:56 »
Quote
Page 82, last paragraph, lines 2-3
Each Unit costs from 0 to 5 or more FPs to add to a Force.

Suggested edit:
Each Unit costs 0 or more FPs when added to a Force.
"New players, regardless of age, need to know two things about a wargame. How to blow stuff up and what faction is painted in his favorite color. All the rest can come later when they are hooked." -- A.G.
"But the problem is that it seems to have been made by someone who equates complication with complexity, and that just ain't so." -- iamfanboy

HodgePodge

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #41 on: 06 November 2015, 15:32:39 »
P. 29 21st Centauri Lancers

Lancers Command force composition is listed as  1 heavy BattleMech regiment

Am I confused by the page layout, or should it be a company, rather than a regiment?

Not that I'd necessarily complain, mind you....
Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

Jewelfox

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Inari no kitsune
    • Jewelfox's den
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #42 on: 06 November 2015, 15:49:03 »
1. (BUG) ALPHABET ISSUES

In the table of contents, the last four mercenary companies are listed as follows:

  • Waco's Rangers
  • 12th Vegan Rangers
  • Wylie's Coyotes
  • Wolf's Dragoons

The correct order should be:

  • 12th Vegan Rangers
  • Waco's Rangers
  • Wolf's Dragoons
  • Wylie's Coyotes

2. (OPINION) ARTWORK COMPLAINTS

p. 55: Not sure if "racist," "sexist," or just "tacky."

p. 75: Pale skin, leather straps, bare midriff, and tights. Is Natasha Kerensky a Twilight (TM) vampire?

I like that there are a lot of named female characters in this book, but I really feel like BT should be putting its best foot forward art-wise when it comes to female representation. Natasha Kerensky is the most iconic MechWarrior the distaff set gets to look up to, what with being featured in the quick-start's fiction and all. So I strongly suggest getting the perspective of a BattleTech fan who identifies as female, on what her idea of a badass looks like. Or, failing that, the perspective of a female sci-fi fan.

4. (CONCERN) COPYRIGHT STUFF

Among the paint schemes in the miniatures gallery are ones for the "Fighting Urukhai" and "Greenburg's Godzillas." I refer you to the scene in one of the Austin Powers films (don't ask me which one, I haven't watched them) where one character exclaims "It's Godzilla!" and another says "No, it is not, due to international copyright law!"

5. (COMPLAINT) WASTE OF DEAD TREES

There are eight pages of advertisements in the back. Isn't that a little ... excessive?

6. (COMPLAINT) ALPHA STRIKE COMPANION REQUIRED

The sheer number of "ASC" references throughout the book, along with basic things like pilot and command abilities only being found in the Companion, de facto elevates it to the status of a required purchase for people who want to use Combat Manual: Mercenaries.

In order to preserve customer goodwill, Catalyst should indicate that the ASC is a required purchase on the back of the book, using its logo in the same place and at the same size as Alpha Strike proper's. Catalyst should also stop selling the CM:M plus Alpha Strike PDF bundle, as this will leave people disappointed when they realize they should have sprung for the bundle that includes the Alpha Strike Companion and now have to forego the discount.

I'm personally in the situation of having bought Alpha Strike but not the Companion, and thus being left out of not only this, but also the last RPGNow bundle they did of AS + ASC. (As well as AToW plus AToWC.) So this is really something that irks me.

7. (CONCERN) "TECHNICAL READOUT" REFERENCE UNCLEAR

In all of BattleTech up to this date, a "Technical Readout" is a book supplement that gives original BattleTech stats for an era or faction's selection of units. Saying that this book includes "a mini Technical Readout" could create the impression that original BattleTech players will find new stats relevant to their system of choice in this book.

Suggested alternatives: "an Alpha Strike Technical Readout," "a unit list".

8. (CONCERN) "CREATE YOUR OWN" REFERENCE MISLEADING

The back cover also says you can create your own mercenary command. The only support this book has for doing so is a paragraph on page 79:

Quote from: Combat Manual: Mercenaries
A Force may also be fielded from an unlisted Mercenary Combat Command. Doing so not provide access to non-mercenary Availability Lists or Unique Characters, and any Special Command Abilities must be rolled randomly (see p. 85).

That kind of feels like a rip-off.

Suggested resolution: Remove the back cover text which lists this as a feature, or add some kind of system for creating more balanced and personalized MCCs.

9. (CONCERN) JARGON-Y RULES

The chapter on Force Building introduces terms like "company," "lance," and "regiment" in its rules text, before explaining what all of those mean. It forces players to wade through a section on "Unit Organizations" before reading the relevant part which explains how to "Build a Company," and asks newbies and casual players to worry about what their in-universe subcommand's composition is like before telling them how to make their own force derived from it.

(There is a sidebar called "What if I just want to start playing?", but it is on page 83, when it should be right at the start of the Force Building section.)

Suggested resolution: Put the "just ... start playing" sidebar at or near the start of the Force Building chapter, and explain the process of building your own force more clearly. Here are some suggestions:

  • Lead with the "Regimental Table of Organization," with graphics modified to make it clear that there are typically four units in a lance (the three dots above each one make that unclear).
  • Go straight into "Build a Company." Cut out the first two paragraphs, which explain extraneous stuff and caveats. Just tell people to take these lances in this combination. Don't use "Formation" as a synonym for "company;" either assume that players will be building a company by default, or use "Formation" as the default and offer more types of Formations than companies.
  • Treat Special Command Abilities as an extra. Tell players that they can either roll on the table, or limit their company to the units available to the Command and Sub-Command they want their company to be a part of.

So basically, it explains things out-of-order and it was really confusing to me on the first read-through. I'm also still disappointed that I have to buy a separate book in order to actually use this one, especially this part of CM:M, and that I've been left out of the past couple of bundles which included it.

Jewelfox

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Inari no kitsune
    • Jewelfox's den
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #43 on: 06 November 2015, 15:52:14 »
Did that as a compromise. The logo was always supposed to be (and described in text as) the buffalo nickel, but always shown as the eagle quarter. So thought this would give the proper log some exposure.

That isn't a good excuse for confusing new players. This explanation should be present in the book itself. Perhaps the two logos could be shown together, with captions like "(c. 3039)" and "(c. 3050)", if you'd like to make up a fluff reason for why they've been depicted as having two logos.

wolfspider

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 747
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #44 on: 06 November 2015, 16:28:55 »
On page 46 it mentions that the Kell Hounds enemis are House Kurita and Smoke Jaguars should that be House Kurita and the Jade Falcons? I didn't think they had contact with Smoke Jaguars till operation Bull Dog?
I may have a low amount of posts but I have a PHD in Battletech and mechs older then most people on this board!

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #45 on: 06 November 2015, 16:31:21 »
On page 46 it mentions that the Kell Hounds enemis are House Kurita and Smoke Jaguars should that be House Kurita and the Jade Falcons? I didn't think they had contact with Smoke Jaguars till operation Bull Dog?

Luthien.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #46 on: 06 November 2015, 16:33:21 »
On page 46 it mentions that the Kell Hounds enemis are House Kurita and Smoke Jaguars should that be House Kurita and the Jade Falcons? I didn't think they had contact with Smoke Jaguars till operation Bull Dog?

They did fight in the Battle of Luthien, but I think you may have a point about Jade Falcons being a better candidate for their recurring enemies.

wolfspider

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 747
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #47 on: 06 November 2015, 16:41:32 »
After writing that I forgot about Luthien LOL  :P
I may have a low amount of posts but I have a PHD in Battletech and mechs older then most people on this board!

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #48 on: 06 November 2015, 16:43:59 »
They did fight in the Battle of Luthien, but I think you may have a point about Jade Falcons being a better candidate for their recurring enemies.

The Combat Manuals only cover up to about 3054. And Luthien was 3052.  Hmm, but I had forgotten about the Kell Hounds on Twycross. 
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Jewelfox

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Inari no kitsune
    • Jewelfox's den
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #49 on: 06 November 2015, 17:43:56 »
The Combat Manuals only cover up to about 3054. And Luthien was 3052.  Hmm, but I had forgotten about the Kell Hounds on Twycross.

Speaking of the era they cover, it has a table for combat command special abilities for the "Late Succession Wars" era but not the "Early Clan War" era that I could find.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #50 on: 06 November 2015, 17:51:00 »
Speaking of the era they cover, it has a table for combat command special abilities for the "Late Succession Wars" era but not the "Early Clan War" era that I could find.

Where?  Command special abilities are not tied to an era.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Jewelfox

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Inari no kitsune
    • Jewelfox's den
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #51 on: 06 November 2015, 18:02:49 »
Where?  Command special abilities are not tied to an era.

Page 85, sidebar: "Special Command Ability Assignment Table."

Column 1 is titled "2d6 Roll," and column 2 is titled "Late Succession Wars."

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #52 on: 06 November 2015, 18:15:10 »
Page 85, sidebar: "Special Command Ability Assignment Table."

Column 1 is titled "2d6 Roll," and column 2 is titled "Late Succession Wars."

Thanks, yes, that needs to be removed.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Jewelfox

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Inari no kitsune
    • Jewelfox's den
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #53 on: 06 November 2015, 18:17:07 »
Thanks, yes, that needs to be removed.

YW!

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #54 on: 06 November 2015, 18:42:50 »
2. (OPINION) ARTWORK COMPLAINTS

p. 55: Not sure if "racist," "sexist," or just "tacky."

That's the same line-art from the House Liao SB.  Granted the 80s wasn't an exemplary period for inclusive artwork in RPGs, but in contrast to your complaint I, for example, found it fun to have my nostalgia bone tickled.

Quote
p. 75: Pale skin, leather straps, bare midriff, and tights. Is Natasha Kerensky a Twilight (TM) vampire?

Much of Natasha Kerensky's in-universe fame comes from her posing for cheesecake posters.  Sex appeal has always been a part of her persona (meta and otherwise).  At least she's got a shirt on this time under that tiny vest.

« Last Edit: 06 November 2015, 18:46:13 by Tai Dai Cultist »

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6820
  • BattleTech Line Developer
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #55 on: 06 November 2015, 19:01:26 »
We appreciate all the errata, feedback and opinions, but please no debating here.
Everyone's feedback is welcome.
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

Hussar2

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 295
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #56 on: 06 November 2015, 19:07:11 »
A possible continuity error.
According to field Manual mercenaries page 60 the Filthy Lucre were destroyed in 3031 by Hell's Black Aces. IIRC the Filthy Lucre does not appear in 20 year update nor in any other publication hence.

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6820
  • BattleTech Line Developer
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #57 on: 06 November 2015, 19:20:14 »
That's correct, consider that old information to be in error.
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

Bren

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 629
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #58 on: 06 November 2015, 20:14:59 »
Under 'Common Enemies' I would have thought the 12th Star Guards would have Clan Jade Falcon and/or Clan Wolf listed.

Pa Weasley

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5523
  • I am not this cute
Re: Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread
« Reply #59 on: 06 November 2015, 20:49:06 »
HT1 Special should be changed to HT1/-/- for the following units:
p.92 ECI Standard Mercenary Pursuit Lance Firestarter FS9-S
p.92 LSW Standard Mercenary Recon Lance Firestarter FS9-H
p.92 ECI Standard Mercenary Recon Lance Firestarter RS9-S
p.92 LSW Standard Mercenary Striker Lance Firestarter FS9-H
p.92 ECI Standard Mercenary Striker Lance Firestarter RS9-S
p.93 LSW Stanard Mercenary Support Lance Firestarter FS9-H
p.93 ECI Stanard Mercenary Support Lance Firestarter FS9-S
p.93 LSW Stanard Mercenary Security Lance Firestarter FS9-H
p.93 ECI Stanard Mercenary Secutrity Lance Firestarter FS9-S
p.108 Late Succession Wars: BattleMechs Table Firestarer FS9-H
p.111 Late Succession Wars: Vehicles Table J.Edgar Light Hover Tank (Flamer)
p.115 Early Clan Invasion: BattleMechs Table Firestarter FS9-S