Author Topic: SPA Cramped Cockpit Question (Read 2961 times)

abou · « **on:** 15 October 2023, 08:54:42 »

I am running a campaign and using all quirks. There will be a Wolverine on the board today, but the Cramped Cockpit has me concerned.

It incurs a +1 to piloting skill rolls. The language is plain, so I assume that it literally applies to everything: physical attacks, falls, etc. Is that how others have interpreted it?

Daryk · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 October 2023, 09:18:25 »

Yes, that's at least how I do it.

Charistoph · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 October 2023, 11:45:17 »

Physical Attacks have a base To-Hit Number equal to their attacking unit's Piloting Skill Rating. Physical attacks are not Piloting Skill Rolls, and as such, Piloting Skill Roll modifiers do not affect physical attacks. (TW pg.144)

That's how we've been running it, and I've been using a Wolverine off and on throughout our local narrative campaign, and we've gotten 2 more since.

Failure16 · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 October 2023, 19:26:53 »

I see the logic in both Daryk's and Charistoph's treatment, but admit that I work under Daryk's paradigm on the logical basis that a small enclosure will affect everything that the user contained in is strait confines has to do.

Buuut...since when did the doughty WVR get a cramped cockpit? I mean, STGs, ASNs, sure.

Daryk · « **Reply #4 on:** 15 October 2023, 19:27:58 »

I think it was to balance out the Improved Comms and Command 'Mech quirks.

Failure16 · « **Reply #5 on:** 15 October 2023, 19:52:36 »

Since when do Quirks have to be balanced? I mean, semi-officially (that is to say: they are, but there is no official ruling actually saying that?).

Daryk · « **Reply #6 on:** 15 October 2023, 20:17:19 »

Officially, no, but you're right that they seem to be somewhat balanced unofficially.

paladin2019 · « **Reply #7 on:** 15 October 2023, 23:05:05 »

Quote

Since when do Quirks have to be balanced?

They don't. In fact, numerous 'mechs have zero concessions to balancing their quirks. For example, of the twelve or thirteen Macross 'mechs, only the Longbow, Marauder, and Stinger have a negative quirk. If we look at the fourteen originals, we only add the BattleMaster, Locust, and aforementioned Wolverine to 'mechs with negative quirks.

Charistoph · « **Reply #8 on:** 16 October 2023, 00:39:21 »

If anything, the Wolverine is the biggest demonstration of how imbalanced Quirks can be, as it's only Negative Quirk is its Small Cockpit, while it also carries 6 Positive Quirks, 3-4 of them which might have an impact on the table.

Still, if one is designing a brand new Mech to carry Quirks, it should have that balance between Positive and Negative concept going.

Failure16 · « **Reply #9 on:** 16 October 2023, 19:37:37 »

Quote from: paladin2019 on 15 October 2023, 23:05:05

They don't. In fact, numerous 'mechs have zero concessions to balancing their quirks. For example, of the twelve or thirteen Macross 'mechs, only the Longbow, Marauder, and Stinger have a negative quirk. If we look at the fourteen originals, we only add the BattleMaster, Locust, and aforementioned Wolverine to 'mechs with negative quirks.

So, if they do not have to be balanced--and I am agnostic in this aspect--why would the WVR-series get a Cramped Cockpit Quirk? I have yet to see any technical readout (including TROs 3025, Project Phoenix, and the newest Classics; the chassis gets fairly short shrift in the prose) that would give rise to such a notion. It is what it is, but it seems silly and out-of-place nonetheless.

Daryk · « **Reply #10 on:** 16 October 2023, 19:41:12 »

Good question, but one I don't think we'll get an answer to... :/

Failure16 · « **Reply #11 on:** 16 October 2023, 19:45:45 »

Eh. It's a mostly rhetorical exercise anyways. Especially when posed in this sub-board. It is irritating to see in a machine that has no need for it, regardless.

Daryk · « **Reply #12 on:** 16 October 2023, 19:53:29 »

For one of Liam's AUs, I removed the Improved Comms (to support another Wolverine keeping theirs) and got rid of the Cramped Cockpit.

Charistoph · « **Reply #13 on:** 16 October 2023, 20:00:23 »

Quote from: Daryk on 16 October 2023, 19:53:29

For one of Liam's AUs, I removed the Improved Comms (to support another Wolverine keeping theirs) and got rid of the Cramped Cockpit.

Speaking of which, it might be the concept of all the combined Improved Communications package, Command Package, as well as a Medium Laser in the Head MIGHT be justification for it.

Daryk · « **Reply #14 on:** 16 October 2023, 20:02:03 »

I'd take the down time of a Class B refit to move the Medium out of the head, personally...

abou · « **Reply #15 on:** 16 October 2023, 21:59:41 »

Quote from: Failure16 on 16 October 2023, 19:37:37

why would the WVR-series get a Cramped Cockpit Quirk?

My guess would be the medium laser mounted in the head.

Another example would be the Vindicator's difficult ejection due to the medium laser.

Failure16 · « **Reply #16 on:** 17 October 2023, 20:19:53 »

Quote from: abou on 16 October 2023, 21:59:41

My guess would be the medium laser mounted in the head.

Another example would be the Vindicator's difficult ejection due to the medium laser.

Quirks are driven by fluff. There is no extant fluff of any kind that I am presently aware of that would engender such a Quirk. The question was what the factual basis of such a Quirk is, not a possible reason or rationalization.

The VND's troublesome ejection situation is well known nearly since that machine's inception. Thus, that would be the factual basis. Just as the aforementioned ASN and STG's Cramped Cockpits make complete sense. Or the QKD's Exposed Actuators (or whatever Quirk it has for its ankles). And so on, and so forth.

RifleMech · « **Reply #17 on:** 18 October 2023, 00:46:48 »

Quote from: Failure16 on 16 October 2023, 19:37:37

So, if they do not have to be balanced--and I am agnostic in this aspect--why would the WVR-series get a Cramped Cockpit Quirk? I have yet to see any technical readout (including TROs 3025, Project Phoenix, and the newest Classics; the chassis gets fairly short shrift in the prose) that would give rise to such a notion. It is what it is, but it seems silly and out-of-place nonetheless.

This is just a guess but I think that the placement of the turreted medium laser in the Unseen Wolverine blocks the pilot's vision enough that it gives the same penalties as a cramped cockpit. It doesn't apply to the Retconned Wolverine as the medium laser isn't in a turret and is below and to the side of the cockpit. Depending on which Wolverine you're using, feel free to not use that quirk. And if you want to give the Unseen Wolverine the directional turret mount for the medium laser, I'd limit it's range of fire to the forward and right arm hexes as the SRM blocks the turret from aiming to the left and the head blocks the turret aiming to the rear.

Daryk · « **Reply #18 on:** 18 October 2023, 03:20:55 »

Actual basis is probably an "Ask the Writers" thing... :)

abou · « **Reply #19 on:** 18 October 2023, 14:27:39 »

Quote from: Failure16 on 17 October 2023, 20:19:53

Quirks are driven by fluff. There is no extant fluff of any kind that I am presently aware of that would engender such a Quirk. The question was what the factual basis of such a Quirk is, not a possible reason or rationalization.

I can look through the quirk table in the BMM and see a lot of quirks that don't have direct fluff references.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #20 on:** 18 October 2023, 21:15:48 »

Those cases generally seem to be based on artwork.

RifleMech · « **Reply #21 on:** 18 October 2023, 21:33:07 »

Quote from: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 18 October 2023, 21:15:48

Those cases generally seem to be based on artwork.

Some are. Others are based on fluff.

paladin2019 · « **Reply #22 on:** 18 October 2023, 21:50:03 »

Art is fluff, so basing a thing on art is basing it on fluff?

RifleMech · « **Reply #23 on:** 18 October 2023, 22:41:03 »

Quote from: paladin2019 on 18 October 2023, 21:50:03

Art is fluff, so basing a thing on art is basing it on fluff?

Fluff is the text. Art is the picture. The Wolverine having improved communications and being a command mech is based on the text/fluff. The Wolverine having a Jettison-Capable Weapon (AC/5) is based on the picture/art.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #24 on:** 18 October 2023, 23:33:41 »

Quote from: RifleMech on 18 October 2023, 21:33:07

Some are. Others are based on fluff.

I was responding to the post directly above mine, which was noting that there were mechs that had quirks that were not based on fluff.

RifleMech · « **Reply #25 on:** 19 October 2023, 15:54:28 »

Yes. Some quirks are based on fluff. Some on art. And others just because.

pokefan548 · « **Reply #26 on:** 20 October 2023, 09:10:40 »

Worth noting, there is a limitation for balance. Per AToW, units may not have more than 5 Positive and 5 Negative Quirks, and may not have a Quirk point total of more than +5.

Of course, just like the rule for SPA assignment with pilot cards and unique pilots, this tends to be ignored a lot by canon materials.

Failure16 · « **Reply #27 on:** 20 October 2023, 18:34:07 »

Ah. So, there are rules, after a fashion. Cheers.

Quote from: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 18 October 2023, 21:15:48

Those cases generally seem to be based on artwork.

Quote from: RifleMech on 18 October 2023, 21:33:07

Some are. Others are based on fluff.

I can get behind those reasons. This Cramped Cockpit for the WVR chassis isn't either of those, though. But, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't bother me enough presently to "Ask the Writers", either.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #28 on:** 20 October 2023, 19:34:09 »

When it comes to the Cramped Cockpit SPA, I feel like I remember hearing something about it being given to mechs that had weapons or other equipment in the head slot. Not 100% sure on that.

RifleMech · « **Reply #29 on:** 20 October 2023, 20:58:59 »

Quote from: Failure16 on 20 October 2023, 18:34:07

Ah. So, there are rules, after a fashion. Cheers.

I can get behind those reasons. This Cramped Cockpit for the WVR chassis isn't either of those, though. But, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't bother me enough presently to "Ask the Writers", either.

I think it either depends on Seen or Unseen art or just because. It doesn't bother me enough to ask either. We're still free to use it or not on our tables.