TRO:3150 Art/Fluff/Stats not matching

[FedComGirl]

Hi,

I know a lot of care went into this TRO and it does show. The fluff and the art are great!. But there are still some things that don't add up. For example, the Winterhawk APC's fluff says it has poor acceleration but it doesn't have the Poor Performance Quirk. Another example would be the Shillelagh Missile Tank. Among it's fluff weaknesses is horrendous fuel economy but Gas Hog isn't listed in the stats. I guess Sensor Ghosts works for older targeting systems. I don't know where the accurate weapon (MML) comes from. But that's okay, I guess. Although reading the fluff the Platoon Commander wasn't worried about accurate fire but concentrating fire from the tanks. I know those are minor things and I could simply add the quirks in myself but then they'd come under House Rules.

Then there's the Gun Trailer, Hadur Fast Support Vehicle, Testudo Siege Tank and ARROW IV Assault Vehicle. They each have 1 Arrow IV but the art shows multiple missiles ready to launch. I suppose I'm just being picky but when I look at the art I don't see Arrow IV Launchers. I see paired Thunderbolts-20a, ATM-5, SRM-4, and I'm not sure really. 8 Thunderbolt-5s? I don't know but they don't look like a single big missile launcher.

I'm still reading. I've only half way through the Quadvees - Which are way cool. - so I don't know what else I'll find. I also don't mean this as a complaint but constructive criticism. The fluff does make me want to get into the rest of the currant story line more and the art is great. I just like for things to add up. And yes I know Rules trump art and fluff but by now everything should match so there shouldn't be any questions.

[beachhead1985]

Well stats always trump fluff and art...but yeah 3150 was especially bad in terms of directly fluffing quirks that were then not reflected in the stats.

[nckestrel]

RE: Arrow IV.
Chaparral shows multiple tubes for Arrow IV, in TR2750.
Catapult from TR3050, multiple tubes for Arrow IV.
Padilla, TR3058, multiple tubes.
Schiltron, TR3060, multiple tubes.

[FedComGirl]

I can think of others from other TROs too. That doesn't make the launchers any less odd. Arrow IV is supposed to be one big missile launcher. Like a supersized Thunderbolt. If there's multiple warheads/ammo sticking out can I get some sort of fluff explanation for it? And is the ammo going to blow up if hit like how Searchlights get killed when the torso's hit?

[The_Caveman]

Hey, something has to justify those 15 tons and 15 crits. The missile itself is only 20 times the mass of an SRM so the tube should be like 2.5x the diameter of a single SRM tube. Having multiple launch tubes, even if they can't all be used at once, at least makes the launcher look like it should be as insanely heavy as it is. Obviously much of that 15 tons is an armored launch door that keeps the missiles from detonating ;)

[FedComGirl]

Hey, something has to justify those 15 tons and 15 crits. The missile itself is only 20 times the mass of an SRM so the tube should be like 2.5x the diameter of a single SRM tube. Having multiple launch tubes, even if they can't all be used at once, at least makes the launcher look like it should be as insanely heavy as it is. Obviously much of that 15 tons is an armored launch door that keeps the missiles from detonating ;)

Except that I expect to see them all launch within seconds like multiple missile launcher. And the Armored door works for all launchers. Arrow IV ammo can also be a ton each. Hi Davy! :) Like I said before, I'm probably just being picky. But when I look for art I look for the number of tubes to match the launcher unless the fluff gives me another reason.

[DarkISI]

They are speed holes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whnms4CLJys

[nckestrel]

That doesn't make the launchers any less odd. Arrow IV is supposed to be one big missile launcher. Like a supersized Thunderbolt.

Yet canon clearly shows arrow is always has multiple tubes.  You can argue what you think it should be, but your opinion doesn't make canon wrong.
The Kalki shows a single, large missile.  It also only has one shot.
There's no arrow Iv with a single shot.  And they always have multiple tubes.  That's Arrow IV in BattleTech.

[The_Caveman]

Also has multiple tubes and fires a single missile at a time.

The question you should be asking isn't "Why does an Arrow launcher have multiple holes?" but rather "Why does that first ton of ammo take up an extra critical slot?" ;)

[FedComGirl]

Yet canon clearly shows arrow is always has multiple tubes.  You can argue what you think it should be, but your opinion doesn't make canon wrong.
The Kalki shows a single, large missile.  It also only has one shot.
There's no arrow Iv with a single shot.  And they always have multiple tubes.  That's Arrow IV in BattleTech.

The Kalki would be another where art doesn't match fluff. And I know my opinion doesn't make canon wrong. I never even said it was right. I just said what I expected to see.

Also has multiple tubes and fires a single missile at a time.

The question you should be asking isn't "Why does an Arrow launcher have multiple holes?" but rather "Why does that first ton of ammo take up an extra critical slot?" ;)

Cool pick but is it one single launcher with 8 tubes? 2 launchers with 4 tubes, or 8 individual launchers arranged in groups of 4?

That would be a very good question.

[nckestrel]

And I know my opinion doesn't make canon wrong. I never even said it was right. I just said what I expected to see.

The original post was that 3150 was wrong.  You supported that statement.  Your only evidence has been that, in your head, it should look different.  I gave evidence that Arrow IV has always, since its inception through every example I listed, has been multiple tubes.
3150 isn't wrong for showing Arrow IV with multiple tubes.
You are for ignoring all evidence of Arrow IV art ever.

[FedComGirl]

The original post was that 3150 was wrong.  You supported that statement.  Your only evidence has been that, in your head, it should look different.  I gave evidence that Arrow IV has always, since its inception through every example I listed, has been multiple tubes.
3150 isn't wrong for showing Arrow IV with multiple tubes.
You are for ignoring all evidence of Arrow IV art ever.

My post was that the Art, Fluff, and Stats didn't match. Not that they were wrong. In fact you're the first person to say "wrong" in this thread. I also said, several times now, that I could just be picky about the art. The fact that older pictures for Arrow IV also show multiple barrels doesn't change that there is a disconnect between the art and the stats. In fact it proves that this disconnect has existed for a very long time. It's the why of the "Rules Trump Art" Rule. It's also part of why I posted because it would be nice if Art, Fluff, Stats/Rules all matched. If something doesn't match put the reason why in the fluff. If we can have an Atlas with an LRM-20 with only 5 tubes be explained in the fluff, why can't we get multiple missiles for the Arrow IV explained?

[beachhead1985]

Well actually guys, given how the damage gets spread; the A4 works alright conceptually as a closely-packed barrage of artillery missiles.

This totally contradicts the fluff of the A4 as a single huge missile, but it works conceptually.

I might also make it up as the ammunition handling equipment taking a long time to reload the missiles and the A4 system only being able to handle the guidance of a single missile at a time (or vent the heat). So you could have an Arrow-5 that can launch up to five missiles per turn as a more advanced custom version.

[The_Caveman]

Actually given that some Arrow IV rounds can weight as much as a ton apiece, the idea that the auto-loader is too slow to keep up with a single tube makes a lot of sense. Say it takes 12 seconds to load and arm a new missile, but the system is capable of a rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute. Five tubes then guarantees that by the time missile #5 is expended, four new missiles are ready to go.

[beachhead1985]

Actually given that some Arrow IV rounds can weight as much as a ton apiece, the idea that the auto-loader is too slow to keep up with a single tube makes a lot of sense. Say it takes 12 seconds to load and arm a new missile, but the system is capable of a rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute. Five tubes then guarantees that by the time missile #5 is expended, four new missiles are ready to go.

Well...yes...

Sorry, I just kinda grimace on the point of 1 round/ton ammo for some types of ammo. Like...I get it, but I don't at the same time. We're talking about nukes, right?

[The_Caveman]

Well...yes...

Sorry, I just kinda grimace on the point of 1 round/ton ammo for some types of ammo. Like...I get it, but I don't at the same time. We're talking about nukes, right?

Yeah. Personally I think it was a bit odd, since the rules section for nukes in Jihad Hotspots 3070 comes right out and says it's pointless to try and balance a game that includes nukes. I mean, on the one hand, I can see why they don't want it to be possible to spam nuclear missiles. But on the other hand, if you've got nukes at the table at all, there's probably going to be some kind of gentleman's agreement as to how many each side gets in total.

But hey, I didn't write the damn thing.

[Scotty]

My post was that the Art, Fluff, and Stats didn't match. Not that they were wrong. In fact you're the first person to say "wrong" in this thread. I also said, several times now, that I could just be picky about the art. The fact that older pictures for Arrow IV also show multiple barrels doesn't change that there is a disconnect between the art and the stats. In fact it proves that this disconnect has existed for a very long time. It's the why of the "Rules Trump Art" Rule. It's also part of why I posted because it would be nice if Art, Fluff, Stats/Rules all matched. If something doesn't match put the reason why in the fluff. If we can have an Atlas with an LRM-20 with only 5 tubes be explained in the fluff, why can't we get multiple missiles for the Arrow IV explained?

Because it doesn't need to be explained.  One missile fires at a time.  Just because you can see multiple tubes doesn't mean they all fire at the same time.  This has been explained no fewer than three times in this thread (with pictures of real life equipment that operates the same way!).  You're allowed to not like it, but stop saying it hasn't been explained, because it has.

[FedComGirl]

When was it explained? When has more missiles being shown than there's tubes to launch ever been explained? Less tubes per missiles has been explained but when has more? There's been a couple suggestions but where's the canon explanation? Please tell me where so I can go read it. As for the picture, my question concerning it was never answered either. So it remains unexplained to me. And if I have a question about it wouldn't a new player? If every other launcher fires the number of missiles/tubes shown or has fluff explaining why not, why doesn't the Arrow IV?

I also never said I didn't like it. I just said that the art fluff and stats/rules didn't always match. Of course that's been going on since forever. That they don't now isn't new. I just think that it would be nice if it did someday.

[nckestrel]

When has it been explained?
Every picture of Arrow IV ever.  Every single one shows multiple tubes.
There is no other definition of what Arrow IV looks like.

It doesn't match what you think it looks like?  Try almost every multiple shot, large missile launcher in reality. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System
Fire two missiles in 10 seconds, more than two tubes showing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
Fires one missile at a time, more than one tube.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
Fires one missile at a time, multiple tubes.

So BattleTech canon has always had Arrow IV as multiple tubes, and there are plenty of real world examples of missile launchers with more tubes than they launch at one time.

[pensiveswetness]

are you all arguing over fiction? LoL. how about this to explain discrepancies: engineering decisions? is a 'mech seemingly missing gun ports for those ML's (hidden panels because company A is famous for that). does that TRO 3025/3039 Atlas have a LRM-FIVE on it's hip? (nope, its a LRM 20 designed to fire in groups of 5 because they could not fit a larger set of tubes in the chassis). Why do later Atlas's have LRM-Tens on both sides of its torso (because the TRO artists were Robes and even in the TRO's the Robes like to troll their Suit brothers).

see? silly topic.

[FedComGirl]

When has it been explained?
Every picture of Arrow IV ever.  Every single one shows multiple tubes.
There is no other definition of what Arrow IV looks like.

So your explanation is, because the art has never matched the fluff, or rules and since it never has it never matched it should be defined why and should continue to never match? That's the explanation you're going with?  ???

It doesn't match what you think it looks like?  Try almost every multiple shot, large missile launcher in reality. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System
Fire two missiles in 10 seconds, more than two tubes showing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
Fires one missile at a time, more than one tube.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
Fires one missile at a time, multiple tubes.

So BattleTech canon has always had Arrow IV as multiple tubes, and there are plenty of real world examples of missile launchers with more tubes than they launch at one time.

If we are to go by reality, why don't Battletech missile launchers work that way? One missile fired doing lots of damage instead of all missiles fired doing a little damage each? Just the way the art shows.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/8/8a/Madcat_PPC_fire.jpg
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/e/e5/TRO3050U.gif

Rules trump art and fluff. Could the argument be eliminated? Things do what they're written and shown doing. Instead of what we have currently where things are said and shown are different things that don't work by the rules or even have rules.

are you all arguing over fiction? LoL. how about this to explain discrepancies: engineering decisions? is a 'mech seemingly missing gun ports for those ML's (hidden panels because company A is famous for that). does that TRO 3025/3039 Atlas have a LRM-FIVE on it's hip? (nope, its a LRM 20 designed to fire in groups of 5 because they could not fit a larger set of tubes in the chassis). Why do later Atlas's have LRM-Tens on both sides of its torso (because the TRO artists were Robes and even in the TRO's the Robes like to troll their Suit brothers).

see? silly topic.

As you've pointed out, sometimes we get explanations through art of fluff and sometimes we don't. Sometimes we get answers in the forums. Other times.... :(
The Atlas I want to use has the 2 LRM-10s. Which variant is it? Where can I find the record sheet? Where are the rules for linking Partisan AA Tanks together? And for their ammo? I'd love to have that in my Riflemans and Jagermechs instead of having to switch between standard and flak.

Things not matching goes back a long time. Maybe its time they should?

[beachhead1985]

Actually given that some Arrow IV rounds can weight as much as a ton apiece, the idea that the auto-loader is too slow to keep up with a single tube makes a lot of sense. Say it takes 12 seconds to load and arm a new missile, but the system is capable of a rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute. Five tubes then guarantees that by the time missile #5 is expended, four new missiles are ready to go.

I guess I like to think of A4 as being...big and less heavy; AC/20 cassets/rounds/reloads weigh as much, but they're pretty square; A4 missiles would be in the range of 2-3 meters long for some of them; so you need more time in a complex strike-down system to reload them; thus many tubes.

I keep trying o think of ways to bring real, honest to gods MRLs into BT, but, I just can't without them being completely un-balancing.

[GhostBear]

Things not matching goes back a long time. Maybe its time they should?

Consider it an idiosyncrasy of the game.

Seriously? Just. Stop.

If it bugs you to the point of absolutely ruining your gameplay experience, then make up your own reason why and soldier on. We are not going to define every single minutiae for you. Nor do we need to justify every rivet or bolt not pictured, or weird armor shapes, or autocannon caliber bullets, or missile tubes with multiple holes (ad infinitum, ad nauseum).

And if you can't let it go, that you NEED absolute justification in order to survive and play a make-believe futuristic wargame, then maybe - just maybe - consider finding a game that is more suited to your play style and level of realistic detail. Because you are not going to find it here, and you are really causing a lot of grief for yourself and others by obsessing over it on this forum.

Relax. It's just a game.

[Trace Coburn]

  [copper]
  Sometimes the ‘MST3000 Mantra’ is the best answer to questions about what is, after all, a work of fiction.  Thread closed.
  / [copper]