Author Topic: (Answered) Improved one-shot launchers on ProtoMechs  (Read 2111 times)

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
(Answered) Improved one-shot launchers on ProtoMechs
« on: 03 April 2011, 05:22:39 »
Okay, 'Mech- or vehicle-mounted improved one-shot launchers weigh half a ton less than standard racks (and thus a full ton less than regular one-shots), down to a minimum of half a ton total. So far, so good.

How does that apply to ProtoMechs, though, which can conceivably be equipped with (small) missile racks that weigh less than half a ton to begin with? Do I
  • increase the total weight of the IOS launcher to half a ton as per usual if necessary,
  • just use the normal launcher weight instead if this situation pops up, or
  • decide that ProtoMechs, despite being technically eligible according to the IOS writeup and table entry (TacOps pages 327 and 409, respectively), don't actually get to use improved one-shot launchers because ProtoMechs can already be built with single-shot capability if desired (simply use the normal construction rules for them and give the launcher just enough missiles for one salvo) and so any weight benefit on top of that would essentially amount to a "free lunch"?


Mod note: answered in current TacOps errata.  Protos cannot take this launcher.
« Last Edit: 12 September 2012, 21:16:03 by Xotl »

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Improved one-shot launchers on ProtoMechs
« Reply #1 on: 04 April 2011, 09:47:42 »
Since writing the original post, I got a personal message from jymset indicating that option c appears to be correct -- based on the logic that the Missile Launchers entry in TechManual (specifically the boxed text on p. 231) points ProtoMech designers back to their units' own unique missile launcher construction rules and that TacOps does not, strictly speaking, override this. I'm willing to go with that.

Of course, if ProtoMechs can't actually use improved OS launchers because their own construction rules take precedence, they should not be listed as being able to do so in Tactical Operations...so, should I add that point to the relevant errata thread?