Talk to me about. The Puma (tank)

[Ferrosol]

I just got my hands on one of these as part of the blakist Level III I was playing as  and I just want to know what the Christ? how am I supposed to use this design effectively? what were the designers taking while making this? who paid for these things to made? and why weren't they dragged out and shot? Or am i looking at these and getting the wrong impression? Anyone have any ideas about how to use them effectively specifically the Puma 007 which I ended up with.  That said even the other variants are all  appear to be equally [stupid]

[Moonsword]

You might want to start here, although I haven't updated the article since RS3050 Unabridged came out.

[Maelwys]

A design that can't help but cry out for the use of Sponsons, or rules that lets it follow the fluff where the LRMs on the sides could fire into the forward arc.

[Marveryn]

never having use it but reading what are the stats i can't help this thing is suppose ot be a crazy kitty.  driver sit it spining in a circles while all weapons fire randomly much like the last star fight last weapon when surrounded.  Must make for an awesome show.

[Isanova]

I think it looks more like a warthog

[Diablo48]

never having use it but reading what are the stats i can't help this thing is suppose ot be a crazy kitty.  driver sit it spining in a circles while all weapons fire randomly much like the last star fight last weapon when surrounded.  Must make for an awesome show.

My interpretation is to use it to make minefields.  You can roll a handful of them out and scatter minefields to protect the flanks of your formation and then fight with the PPC and front-mounted weapons.

The newer variants look like linebreakers to me with the MMLs pointing every direction so you can roll them into the heart of the enemy formation and unload everything you have (mostly SRMs) in every direction before you go down.

[Iron Mongoose]

The tanks of that era had a number of weapon placement situations like the Puma's LRMs.  For my part, I've always just treated them as front firing, and my groups have tended to be ok with that when it (very infreequently) comes up, and that's been that.  With the LRMs on the side, its borderline unusable, hardly even worth consideration except as a curiosity to enter into 'worst' or 'most problematic' unit contests on the forums, or even in the 'so close but yet so far' catagory.

[SCC]

Shifting the LRMs to firing forwards doesn't cost any thing at all, where as putting the LRMs in sponsons you'd need to free up some weight (that SL would be a good start)

[Cannonshop]

Set the map sideways, so you're always using a zig-zag pattern, and the side-mount LRMS make a lot more sense.  Also if you run it "Sidways" across a line or formation.  Downside is, the Puma's another one of those tanks that can't get out of its' own way, so most of THAT utility is lost on it unless you're running crew with GOOD Gunnery scores to make up for the Flank penalty you're inevitably going to be eating.  The design dates back to a time when the vehicle rules didn't favour pillboxing as a universal solution-if your tank is kept IN MOTION the side-mounts don't create as many problems-likewise, if you're using the optional "Crew" rules to remove the penalty for targeting multiples.

But the layout of side-facing long-range weapons DOES work best on a diagonal movement plot.

[Deadborder]

Puma tank! It's weapons were designed by a moron!

[Demos]

Could live with the side mounted LRMs (barely), if the BV for such mounted weapon was not so high.
The Puma cries for a quirk - transforming the side arcs to sponsons - or an (official) treatment like the Sturmfeur. Like this...

For my part, I've always just treated them as front firing, and my groups have tended to be ok with that when it (very infreequently) comes up, and that's been that. 

Puma tank! It's weapons were designed by a moron!

Amen!

[Sabelkatten]

IIRC TRO2750 says the LRMs swing out to fire forward - that is, by the rules they should be front mounted. Unfortunately several of the people who wrote the early designs placed the weapons after where they were placed on the art (or fluff), not where they were facing.

Thus you get weird things like the Puma's side-firing missiles and the Von Luckner's rear-firing LRM (and fuselage-mounted weapons on fighters, body-mounted weapons on vehicles and so on).

The logical solution would have been to just issue an errate placing the weapons in the correct positions, but nooo... >:(

[skiltao]

The logical solution would be to de-couple firing arc from damage location.  ;)

[Sabelkatten]

The logical solution would be to de-couple firing arc from damage location.  ;)

Well, that would require a rules change rather than just errata for a couple of units... ::)

[SCC]

Sometimes I think the people who designed the tanks didn't actually know the rules (see the Galleon light tank) and designed the tank to match the art, not realizing how that would alter how it played from the art

[lucho]

IIRC TRO2750 says the LRMs swing out to fire forward - that is, by the rules they should be front mounted. Unfortunately several of the people who wrote the early designs placed the weapons after where they were placed on the art (or fluff), not where they were facing.

Thus you get weird things like the Puma's side-firing missiles and the Von Luckner's rear-firing LRM (and fuselage-mounted weapons on fighters, body-mounted weapons on vehicles and so on).

The logical solution would have been to just issue an errate placing the weapons in the correct positions, but nooo... >:(

That's what we always did: assume it was a typo, and go from there.

As for the tank itself, it can't seem to make up its mind if it is an MBT or fire support unit.

[skiltao]

Well, that would require a rules change rather than just errata for a couple of units... ::)

...and errata for a couple of units only makes sense if you've given the record sheets authority above the rules -- rules which already allow for "CT(r)" and the like. Granted, "clarifying" the rules would be a less trivial than changing the record sheets, but it's still trivial nonetheless.

[Maelwys]

Its a little late, but I have to ask, are the 007 and 008 even built correctly? Both have B-pods in the front facing, and the rules from TechManual states "may mount them on any Side location, or on the turret."

Emphasis mine. Am I reading this right? Side to me means "Left Side, Right Side." If they meant for it to be front and back as well, why not say "May mount in any location, except the body" ?

So, am I misinterpreting a poorly written rule, or can A- and B-pods only go on the sides and turret?

[Moonsword]

Toss that in Ask the Writers, please.