Talk to me about... the CLAN LB 10-X

[Terrace]

Ok, I've pretty much accepted that the IS LB 10-X is one of the best guns in the entire game when you're looking for the main gun for an Inner Sphere tank, but I've heard that the Clan version isn't held in the same regard. Why is this weapon system considered so good in one tech base, and not the other?

[Kidd]

Functionally identical stats. That means the relative advantage of Clantech over IS tech is a lot less than other weapons like say... Clan ERML vs IS ERML. Clantech is supposed to be lots better, decisively even.

In fact the only difference is 1 less ton and crit. Thats minuscule... possibly the least difference of any Clan/IS equivalent pairing.

[Tymers Realm]

I could guess because of the smaller (by one Crit) and more dakka Ultra/10 for the same weapon weight.
But then again, if I had the choice, I personally would use the LB 10 myself.

[JadeHellbringer]

Really, Kidd nailed it- it's so similar that it feels less over the top compared to other Clan weapons' advantages over their IS cousins. Really, Clan ballistic weapons in-general suffer from this. Consider the Gauss rifle, even- for all its power and range, the only real fundamental difference between the two tech bases is saving three tons. Not a small thing, mind you, but compared to half-weight missile racks and massive damage/range-boost energy weapons it's a bit underwhelming by comparison.

Make no bones about it. If you're dealing with vehicle/aircraft targets, the LB-10X is simply one of the best weapons available, end of story. Tech base be damned- the range is respectable, the shots per ton is plenty, the utility of the two ammo types is handy, and the ability to park even the scariest tank with one stray pellet is marvelous. And what it does to aircraft is tantamount to murder- every shot could send the scariest fighter spiraling out of control. Even against Mechs, there's not much more fun than following up PPC/Gauss shots with a peppering of LBX fire to exploit the holes punched.

I'll use an LB-10X over an Ultra every time. I'll use it over an LB-20X or LB-5X as well. Honestly, there's few weapons I rely on more in Battletech- particularly if you're mounting it on a tank, where energy weapons get a little sketchy for mass use. Goofy as it looks, the Ishtar becomes a beast thanks to that clustergun, and dropping the 20 for a 10 on an Oro is a big improvement overall (and frees up a couple of tons!) thanks to the range boost, too.

[jklantern]

I'll use an LB-10X over an Ultra every time.

I thought that was because Ultras HATE you.

[Caedis Animus]

I thought that was because Ultras HATE you.

I mean, I'd prefer LBX-ACs to Ultras for the whole jamming problem. Likewise, I'd rather take a RAC over an Ultra despite a similar jamming problem for one crucial reason; I can unjam a RAC.

[William J. Pennington]

I'll use an LB-10X over an Ultra every time.

Amen. Double the heat, double the ammo tonnage you need for sustained ultra mode fire, for a 41% average damage bump, with the jam increase. Give me LB 10 or 20 every time over an ultra. I just dont care for anything lower in autocannons  on a mech.

The IS LB-10X doesn't face the stiff competition for its weight and tonnage that the Clan LB-10X does. Clan Techs is so manifestly better on the energy side, coupled with the ability to have so many extra heat sinks due to critical space savings, that the merely 'ok' advantage of clan LB technology in size and weight just gives it less edge.

[JadeHellbringer]

I thought that was because Ultras HATE you.

Well, Ultra/2s, certainly. Damn Banes...

Nah, I actually do like the Ultra/10, truth be told. (I'd be a pretty miserable Marik player otherwise, wouldn't I?) It's a solid weapon- despite the weight being a bit troublesome on a Mech, it doesn't require the heat sinks a PPC or large laser can need, which in some cases can make it an attractive option (and of course, always on a tank!). It's a good gun- underrated, for sure.

That said, I'll drop a half dozen of them on my foot if it means getting an LB-10X instead. The ability to fire twice a turn is not to be overlooked, but the ability to pick what kind of bad day I give my opponent is far, far more useful overall to me. It really does come down to that for me- the slight weight difference is negligible overall, the jamming risk on the Ultra is (jokes aside) low enough not to be an enormous factor for me, but that cluster-shot capability is just gold.

[Stinger]

Well, Ultra/2s, certainly. Damn Banes...

Would you say they are the Bane of your existence?

I'll see myself out.

[JadeHellbringer]

Would you say they are the Bane of your existence?

I'll see myself out.

[UnLimiTeD]

I think the sad state of the cLBX10 is visible when comparing it to the SB-Gauss (Admittedly one of the best weapons in the game): Less damage per ton, same weight per damage output, less range.
I sometimes wonder what thought process went into clan weapons; Not too much, sure, but I can at least see it for most. Clan ERs are 2/3 longer ranged compared to ~1/3 for their IS cousins, with the lasers having +2 damage; Missiles are half the weight, etc. Ballistics are meh.
Maybe the question here is the comparison, with the IS LBX just being so good?

[Empyrus]

I sometimes wonder what thought process went into clan weapons;

I'd start with wondering who came up with the introductory weapons in the first place.
You know, the basic AC/5 vs PPC. Medium laser stats (really, the thing is one of the best weapons in the game still). MG ammo. Flamer compared to MGs and small lasers (it didn't generate heat back then, and even now that is merely an option). Stuff like that.

And TRO2750 didn't really consider the balance of the new additions either. The pulse laser is billed as a great improvement to standard lasers though it maybe the fluff's writer didn't really delve into actual game balance. The ERLL is rather questionable next to the ERPPC and other options.
I'm thinking the LB-10X and the Gauss Rifle were thought out weapons, made to add really good ballistic weapons to the game. But for reason or another, they didn't really bother keeping this with the Clan weapons.

Perhaps the game was played differently back then. A lot of old 'Mech designs sport a lot of weapons compared to heat sinks, and armor ain't necessarily maxed out either. In such situation, low-heat weapons look good on paper.
Nowadays, designs tend to be a lot cooler running or use heat capacity efficiently (bracket firing), and armor levels tend to be nearly maxed out or carefully considered.
If so, presumably the game designers weapon design philosophy was different as well.

[Jellico]

L1 combat was shooting uselessly at eachother for ages until you get close enough to go physical. If yoir ammo doesn't get hit first.

High armoured well heatsinked units were always favoured. Just the designers didn't give you many to choose from.

[Empyrus]

Hmm. Interesting how heavy armor high heat capacity units eventually became more common. Presumably fans started running things then? IIRC, some have commented that's what more or less happened.

[Rince Wind]

It might have also been a design decision to make the game not last too long. Later, with more speed and more high powered weapons you have other options of bringing something down quickly enough.

[UnLimiTeD]

True.
It's one of the inherent weaknesses of the system how the armour being capped, or nearly so, seems to be the best choice most of the time.
While a lot of weapons, back in the day, seem to be poorly balanced, the construction rules are based on them; Max armour is an actual choice when you could get a third more burst firepower instead by installing an extra medium laser and a heatsink.
We now sit on a mountain of legacy, and have to make do with what is.
Still, I think it's odd that clan beam weapons get such significant gains (2/3s more range, aka ~+25% over IS equiv., +2 damage, less weight and crits if possible, the PPC has +50% dmg...) and missiles weight half, with potential gains in (minimum) range, and ballistic weapons, on average, just seem to weight 20% less, and maybe save a crit.
Well, a Gauss Rifle has to be balanced against other similar options, and I think it does an ok job against, say, ER PPCs, while on the IS side it is a shining example of former lostech still towering over the alternatives - just like the LBX 10. But the latter, on the clan side, isn't quite as impressive. I actually think the 5 may be a better choice, what with it weighing less and having the same damage per ton.
I assume the designers just didn't want a 9.5 ton weapon - because 9 would be a bit low compared to the 5.
Edit for word mixup.

[gyedid]

The Clan LB-2, LB-5, and LB-20 are all lighter, cooler-running, and outrange their *standard* IS equivalents.  This is true of the Clan LB-10 as well.  But remember, when the Clans came calling in 3050, the IS had just re-introduced the Star League-tech LB-10, which offered those same advantages, just not to the same extent--they didn't yet have the full size range, and neither did the Star League.  To make the Clan LB-10 better still would've pushed it into the territory of the LB-5 and IS Ultra/5 (picture the Clan LB-10 at 9 tons, 1-7/8-14/15-21).  But the Clan LB-10 still doesn't offer as dramatic an advantage over the standard equivalent as do the other sizes.  In that sense it's an odd duck.

cheers,

Gabe 

[UnLimiTeD]

True, there really wasn't much space for it to shine.
Then again, speciality tools were always a niche where the IS could match the clans. And medium lasers, for much the same reason - hard to improve on that.

[The Eagle]

You know, this disparity isn't something I've ever consciously noticed but it's certainly something that I've worked around subconsciously.  When I see an Inner Sphere 'Mech with an LB-10X, I automatically express interest because it's a weapon that I know and love for all the reasons previously elucidated.  It's on the Hercules, one of my favorite heavy 'cav 'Mechs, for example as well as the ON1-M, the first generation Level 2 Orion.  But yet I can't think of a single Clan 'Mech, standard or Omni, where it's mounted on what I would call a favorite variant or configuration. Ultra 10s, sure, but not LBX.

Weird.

[Armond]

Clint IIC has one.  I like it because of his decent speed with his jump ability makes it a pretty decent platform to carry it.  I try to ignore the possibility of loading Ultra-anything, and focus on the fact that IICs tend to do well as garrison forces and battling vehicles is a very real reality.  LBXs just do the job that fit the role for me.

[JadeHellbringer]

Ditto for the Thor Prime, where it's wasted by having a single ton of ammo (BAD Falcons!), or a favorite oddball of mine, the Predator (two big LBX guns that don't look anything like the usual LBX art, plus crotch-mounted cockpit = hilarity!)

They're out there- just not as common as energy or missile oriented units.

[Empyrus]

The Grand Summoner A is good, with two tons of LB-10X ammo.

[JadeHellbringer]

The Grand Summoner A is good, with two tons of LB-10X ammo.

Oh totally. I was sticking to either Prime configs or standard versions of second-line machines, but yeah, the Thor II (Thor Harder) A is a thing of beauty. It should be nicknamed 'The Valet', because it looks forward to parking all of your tanks.

[Nightsong]

You know, this disparity isn't something I've ever consciously noticed but it's certainly something that I've worked around subconsciously.  When I see an Inner Sphere 'Mech with an LB-10X, I automatically express interest because it's a weapon that I know and love for all the reasons previously elucidated.  It's on the Hercules, one of my favorite heavy 'cav 'Mechs, for example as well as the ON1-M, the first generation Level 2 Orion.  But yet I can't think of a single Clan 'Mech, standard or Omni, where it's mounted on what I would call a favorite variant or configuration. Ultra 10s, sure, but not LBX.

Weird.

The Nova Cat D puts it to very good use, actually, using it as a critseeker to follow up the 3 HLLs, all with a TComp. Not the most efficient use, but one of the few HLL configs that I’ve seen put to good use, and the LB10-X is what makes it kind of scary, being able to take advantage of those big holes the lasers make.

[Firesprocket]

The Nova Cat D puts it to very good use, actually, using it as a critseeker to follow up the 3 HLLs, all with a TComp. Not the most efficient use, but one of the few HLL configs that I’ve seen put to good use, and the LB10-X is what makes it kind of scary, being able to take advantage of those big holes the lasers make.

This example I think exemplifies my own personal issue with the Clan LB-10X.  There are only a small number of units that the weapon works well to compliment when you look at the larger array of weapons in a Clanner's arsenal.  Aside from pairing up with an Ultra-10 with identical range or an Heavy Large Laser most other long range weapons have a larger range to them in which case I'd rather stick it out with an LB-5X or another weapon entirely as a back up.  Compare that to an IS LB-10X where there are multiple weapon systems that range out at 18 hexes.

[gyedid]

This example I think exemplifies my own personal issue with the Clan LB-10X.  There are only a small number of units that the weapon works well to compliment when you look at the larger array of weapons in a Clanner's arsenal.  Aside from pairing up with an Ultra-10 with identical range or an Heavy Large Laser <snip>

The Heimdall certainly agrees with you.  >:D  ;D

cheers,

Gabe

[marauder648]

Could one say that the LB-10 has been supplimented and replaced by the HAG-20?  Sure it only fires in cluster mode, but its got a greater range, and does more damage. Its biggest drawback is that you need to devote more tonnage to ammo for endurance as you only get 6 shots with a HAG-20.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I'd say no, the HAG20 only has four clusters, the LB10 goes up to ten.  Definitely the better critseeker.

[JadeHellbringer]

I'd say no, the HAG20 only has four clusters, the LB10 goes up to ten.  Definitely the better critseeker.

Agreed. The extra AA bonus is nice, but I'll take an LB-10X over a HAG most of the time still. The LB gets the advantage of being able to select between that wonderful cluster shot or a solid 'oomph' if the situation demands it, something the HAG can't really do- it does more damage OVERALL on average, but spread out whether you want to or not. The LB also gets more shots per ton, which can be a big advantage- not just in terms of total number of shots, but the ability to take the kind of shots that are iffy on whether you'll hit or not- if I have ten rounds available per ton, I can take a potshot that I might not be willing to take at six shots available. The LB's ammo is explosive, so that sucks, but the HAG can explode as well- for less damage overall, but with a much larger 'footprint' in terms of crits, thus a much larger chance of being hit.

The HAG isn't a bad weapon, mind you, but given the choice I'll stick to the classic.

[Firesprocket]

Could one say that the LB-10 has been supplimented and replaced by the HAG-20?

It definitely is not a replacement.  While it has better range, at long range the HAG will be less effective and more than likely put out 2 clusters or less.  Pretty much any LB will do that better.

[Hellraiser]

Ok, I've pretty much accepted that the IS LB 10-X is one of the best guns in the entire game when you're looking for the main gun for an Inner Sphere tank, but I've heard that the Clan version isn't held in the same regard. Why is this weapon system considered so good in one tech base, and not the other?

As JHB & Kidd stated.
Its not that it isn't a nice gun, its just not an "Uber" improvement over the IS model, that's all really, it lacks "Clan Wow!" factor.

  But yet I can't think of a single Clan 'Mech, standard or Omni, where it's mounted on what I would call a favorite variant or configuration. Ultra 10s, sure, but not LBX.

I think there is a KitFox modeled after the original A variant that used the LB10 w/ 2 MPL that is a solid design but its hard to get past using, you know, a KitFox.
That said I like it as a more accurate version of the A.  Still not my favorites though which are the JJ models (S&E).

As for being a "favorite" configuration......hmm...... The Warhawk-A is my favorite for its BV economy so that one qualifies.

[Demiurge]

I'd start with wondering who came up with the introductory weapons in the first place.
You know, the basic AC/5 vs PPC. Medium laser stats (really, the thing is one of the best weapons in the game still). MG ammo. Flamer compared to MGs and small lasers (it didn't generate heat back then, and even now that is merely an option). Stuff like that.

It's really amazing that this game has never had a 2nd edition.  Not like the minor rules touch-ups in Total Warfare.  I mean like, a total revamp the way WOTC does for their pet franchises.

Because let's be honest here; there's a lot that's clunky and unbalanced, and the only thing that makes the game work are a bunch of unspoken gentlemen's agreements that nobody is going to be obnoxious and bring too many cluster table weapons that bog the game down or too many clan pulse lasers or whatever.

[Empyrus]

It's really amazing that this game has never had a 2nd edition.  Not like the minor rules touch-ups in Total Warfare.  I mean like, a total revamp the way WOTC does for their pet franchises.

Because let's be honest here; there's a lot that's clunky and unbalanced, and the only thing that makes the game work are a bunch of unspoken gentlemen's agreements that nobody is going to be obnoxious and bring too many cluster table weapons that bog the game down or too many clan pulse lasers or whatever.

It is rather odd considering that most tabletop games do tend to get refreshed editions. BT is an oddity in that.
Amusing too. Consider: There are people who still want to play old editions of DnD and Warhammer and whatever else, or even create retro-like editions/house rules. BattleTech? Eh, it is the same old, in good and bad. Met someone in the summer who was surprised to see BattleTech being played, and was highly interested to hear the game was more or less as he remembered it.

It is possible back in the FASA days, they didn't really think it to be worth it: Keep people happy by having maximum compatibility. I mean, every single time there's a new DnD (or Warhammer or whatever) edition, people do freak out.
Alternatively, perhaps FASA didn't think BT would really retain its popularity long enough to bother with such an idea. Just pump out expansion materials until people stop buying them, and then forget about it. Honestly think this was the most likely reason.
Or perhaps they never figured out HOW, while keeping the game simulation-like. I've thought about various ideas but they really need some heavy-duty reworking for the game, if not ground-up rebuilding it. Not a simple task by any means, depending on what kind of limits one places for a revamped edition.

As for post-FASA eras, reworking the system was probably off the table for financial and perhaps even licensing issues (while MWDA existed, reworking BT probably could've been seen as competition). It just wouldn't be cost effective to redo everything. Or at least it would be highly risky, if old people would quit over having to rebuy all their 'Mech books, new people would have to be found in sufficient numbers... yet if that would fail, it would be the end.

Radical changes to BT aren't exactly welcomed though. MWDA was immensely popular at its high though its nature didn't lend to a long-term game, but regardless of that, it was highly divisive among old-school fans. I can't say if Alpha Strike is popular or not but it certainly is divisive at times as well.
Personally i would not have any trouble with radical reworking as long as the game stays simulation-like (Alpha Strike is too abstracted for my tastes). Market research probably ignores people like me though.

[Hellraiser]

It's really amazing that this game has never had a 2nd edition.  Not like the minor rules touch-ups in Total Warfare.  I mean like, a total revamp the way WOTC does for their pet franchises.

Because let's be honest here; there's a lot that's clunky and unbalanced, and the only thing that makes the game work are a bunch of unspoken gentlemen's agreements that nobody is going to be obnoxious and bring too many cluster table weapons that bog the game down or too many clan pulse lasers or whatever.

As someone who finds the way 40K or D&D have had 1/2 dozen-ish editions in the last 20 years, to be really annoying & a blatant grab to suck up our $$, I'm thrilled that BT has stayed pretty much the same.

[Scotty]

Today I learned that improving a product is a blatant cash grab.

D&D 2.0 was better than AD&D.  3.0 was better than 2.0.  3.5 was better than 3.0.  5th edition is better than 3.5 (we don't talk about 4th edition).  Warhammer 8th edition is staggeringly better than 7th edition.  They practically rewrote half the rules from the ground up, and it shows in better gameplay.

I'd pay an extra $40 every few years in a heartbeat if it meant the rules were actually getting better.

[Kidd]

Might it be argued that Total Warfare is, in some ways, a Classic Battletech 2.0? Just one with 90% similarities that is...

[Empyrus]

Might it be argued that Total Warfare is, in some ways, a Classic Battletech 2.0? Just one with 90% similarities that is...

TW/BMM compared to earlier BT is perhaps a bit less than DnD 3.0 to 3.5. Mostly same but some stuff fixed.

[Demiurge]

As someone who finds the way 40K or D&D have had 1/2 dozen-ish editions in the last 20 years, to be really annoying & a blatant grab to suck up our $$, I'm thrilled that BT has stayed pretty much the same.

I'd pay an extra $40 every few years in a heartbeat if it meant the rules were actually getting better.

I think you can have updates that are blatant cash grabs and updates that are not.  I think you can also fail to update a game enough to keep it competitive.

Total Warfare had a noble goal; smooth out Battletech, streamline some of the rules, and put all the essential rules into a single book so that a GM wouldn't need a giant stack of books to keep everything straight all while keeping nearly 100% backwards compatibility with previously published material.

This worked pretty well, but that was more than a decade ago.  A GM can keep track of all the rules, unless the players want to play the new material, in which case they need Total Warfare and one of the new sourcebooks to tell them how all the fancy new toys work.  This is clearly a problem, otherwise we wouldn't keep having threads on this very forum titled things like "Hey, I am getting back into the game because I played it a lot when I was stationed in Germany waiting for Ivan to roll through the Fulda Gap, and WTF are variable-speed pulse lasers and improved jump jets?!"

Meanwhile, Heavy Metal Pro is advertised on a website so embarrassingly web 1.0 that it's being picked over by archaeologists, and there is still no officially supported computer port of the game.

Oh, and we still have A-pods, MGs still have four times the ammo efficiency of autocannons, the most heavily armored portion of a mech is the only one that can randomly be penetrated before the armor is stripped off, ultra and rotary autocannons can both jam, but the unjamming rules are different, and clan energy weapons are so much better than everything else it's unclear if they were originally intended for this game system or not.  There's a lot that could be done to improve matters.

[UnLimiTeD]

Most certainly, a new "edition" with improved rules could be very beneficial to the game. If it didn't change the construction rules, maybe with rare exceptions, it would actually be backwards-compatible with all previous publications that didn't fall into those exceptions.
However, doing that well would certainly involve some risk - not necessarily from people being upset, I doubt battletech lends itself to drastic changes in function, but due to a proper, gentle rework requiring lots of thought - it costs time and money, and then plenty of people would actually have to buy it.
... I doubt that'll ever happen just because we discuss it in a thread about a weapon.^^

Speaking of comparing it to a HAG; the HAG20 compares somewhat unfavourably to the LRM 20, which is a weapon you could also use instead of an lbx if you're only out for more than one crit while doing some damage.
I believe LBX weapons will always have their niche, and it being a niche is probably the reason the IS is better at it.
To not entirely drop the "Battletech 2.0" discussion, how could we streamline the usage of LBX when not using megamek?
Handle it as clusters scaling with amount of pellets, then get crit bonuses?
In megamek, I've found clusterspam outright dangerous in the few games I played, but it's probably more dangerous for your health if you do it analogue.

[Hellraiser]

Today I learned that improving a product is a blatant cash grab.

D&D 2.0 was better than AD&D.  3.0 was better than 2.0.  3.5 was better than 3.0.  5th edition is better than 3.5 (we don't talk about 4th edition).  Warhammer 8th edition is staggeringly better than 7th edition.  They practically rewrote half the rules from the ground up, and it shows in better gameplay.

I'd pay an extra $40 every few years in a heartbeat if it meant the rules were actually getting better.

Clearly we have different ideas on "better", or perhaps how much better it needs to be to make a new version vs errata.

We also have different ideas on what a new edition costs for either of the games I mentioned because I'm positive I paid loads more than $40. 

[Scotty]

An 8th edition codex is $40.  D&D 5th edition Player Handbook is $50.

Since every single model I owned in 7th edition still has rules in 8th, that seems to be the cost of upgrading the edition.  Since you only actually need the PHB to play 5th edition, that's the cost of upgrading the edition.

Everything else you buy is part of playing the game, and that doesn't change whether it's 40K or BattleTech or Heavy Gear.

[Weirdo]

[ unsubtle hint ]Hey, how 'bout them clusterguns? [/ unsubtle hint ] [copper]

[anime ninja]

I am thinking that as said before, the main issue with ballistic weapons and the Clans was that they we good but not the really good that you had with energy and missiles. Why take an UAC/x when it could jam or the LBX that is still heavy and critical using. ERPPC, ERML, LRM/x are all just better.

[Empyrus]

Clans can use SRMS for crits. Poke the enemy with energy weapons first, then swoop in and fill the holes with SRMs.
I mean, Clan SRMs are pretty damn good. Consider the SRM-6: 1.5 tons, up to 12 damage, average 8, low heat, 9 hex range.
One can easily replace a LB-10X with bunch of SRMs, heat sinks and medium lasers. Maybe include a supercharger or MASC.

[gyedid]

Compare that to an IS LB-10X where there are multiple weapon systems that range out at 18 hexes.

Yep, LB-10X/heavy PPC is one of the best weapon combos for the IS.

cheers,

Gabe

[JadeHellbringer]

Clans can use SRMS for crits. Poke the enemy with energy weapons first, then swoop in and fill the holes with SRMs.
I mean, Clan SRMs are pretty damn good. Consider the SRM-6: 1.5 tons, up to 12 damage, average 8, low heat, 9 hex range.
One can easily replace a LB-10X with bunch of SRMs, heat sinks and medium lasers. Maybe include a supercharger or MASC.

While that's technically correct ("The best kind of correct!"), there's a few holes to poke in the theory.

+First, the range factor. An SRM ranges out to 9 hexes max (12 for Streaks). An LB-10X, however, has considerably greater reach- which not only means a longer MAXIMUM range, but longer ranges for the medium and short range brackets. That's never a small consideration, particularly in the kind of fast-moving and wild fights that Clan warfare tend to become. Speed is a double-edged sword in a situation like this- while it's true that the range disadvantage of an SRM can be made up for on a fast-moving strike platform that can dash in quickly to deliver the missiles (Dasher Prime, Arctic Wolf, etc.), just as relevant is a quick unit with an LB that can use its speed to keep moving back and hold that range advantage longer (Ryoken C is a great example of that setup).

+Another factor is that while SRMs work fine for the job once in range to do so, an LB-10X (or HAG) get easier shots on aircraft than other weapons. That's not really a factor in many tabletop environments, but in actual warfare keeping someone from bombing you into the stone age is pretty important. The one time you get aerospace fighters overhead from a smart opponent and you don't have something handy to get rid of those planes, you'll regret it. (I still feel ill thinking about my experience dealing with a couple of angry Corsairs- my poor Falcons didn't have a good day, and the only Mech I had that was able to shoot back with decent numbers was a Kit Fox B- and its LB-10X!)

Look, I'll never say SRMs suck. They've been my go-to weapon since my earliest days of Battletech thanks to their light weight, utility, and power. But just because both weapons crit-seek doesn't mean one is clearly the better choice over the other- after all, if the LB is hitting two turns before the SRMs are in range, that's two turns in which one has a distinct advantage over the other- one that could even end the battle before an SRM even fires.

[Empyrus]

For AA work i'm inclined to use LB-5Xs or HAGs. The former offers even better range and is lighter, while the latter offers more range and has more raw damage. LB-10X works for sure, but it is not my prime choice.
Amusingly, the LB-10X is the perfect example of a generalist weapon: Jack of all trades but master of none. Unfortunately the Clan tech advantage makes such generalist weapons less valuable, it is quite possible to pack multiple specialist weapons for given weight.

I will grant you that LB-10X has range advantage over SRMs.
But my theory is based on a sufficient fast and mobile 'Mech long/short bracketed weapons and sufficient armor it can shrug off enemy hits while closing in for the kill.

I'm not much of a Clanner to be honest. My next step would be to go melee and pummel the enemy to death if it is still standing. It is not enough to shoot an enemy to death from distance, let's make it personal and do it where i can see the face of my enemy.
(If we go for distance, i'm inclined just to level everything with artillery or ortillery. I am both very pragmatic and bloodthirsty. Not exactly a good combination in my experience.)

[Kidd]

What if Clan LBXs got a cluster roll bonus? Say +2.

[Empyrus]

What if Clan LBXs got a cluster roll bonus? Say +2.

This would increase average hits to 8. That might work, at least within the context of Clan technology. Agains Inner Sphere tech... well, i guess it wouldn't change that much given the Clan tech is already so much better in general.
OTOH, it would make other Clan ballistics a bit worse perhaps. While this thread is specifically about the Clan LB-10X, in truth nearly all Clan ballistics suffer when compared to their missile and energy weapons.

The Clan Ultras could be tweaked likewise with no major issues, perhaps. Though Ultra-20 with two hits probable would be pretty damn terrifying.
One can argue the Clan Gauss Rifle's advantage is its low heat, meaning it can be paired with other weapons easily unlike the Clan ERPPC. But what about when the options are Ultra/10 that probably hits for 20 points total and doesn't produce much heat either?
Of course, if Ultras are not tweaked, LB-types are easily far more favored, as if they weren't already.

This is just theory, maybe it works in practice even though on paper it might have awkward effects.

[Rage]

Massed SRMs in place of the LB-10X are only useful if it's on something stupid fast to be able to deliver them like the Fire Moth or Mist Lynx or even the Gargoyle, which mixes LBX and SRMs to be able to do some damage as it closes to bring them to bear. In regards to the HAG being a superior weapon, it's really not, but it's a good way to get LRM damage at the same range of an LB-5X (or old school IS AC/2).

Oh, and Hellbie? You must really be getting old as the Kit Fox Bravo has an Ultra AC/10, not an LBX. That's the Prime, and it's only a class 5. :P

[JadeHellbringer]

In my favor, I also haven't played a game of Battletech in a good year and a half. I'm bound to be a little rusty at this point.

[Rage]

In my favor, I also haven't played a game of Battletech in a good year and a half. I'm bound to be a little rusty at this point.

Yeah. Plus it's not a very popular design to use, like, ever, despite it being your favorite faction's go-to Light 'Mech. Forgetting what exactly is on it outside of maybe the Alpha configuration is to be expected. I'll still say it's 'cause you're old, though, but that's also to be expected. ;)

[JadeHellbringer]

Actually, screw the 'A' config- not that it's BAD, but it's become a backup plan only if I can't use an E. I usually find E configs boring, but... jump jets, a headcapper, and oh by the way an ATM that we crammed on with the remaining weight? Yes plz. (Even modded one recently using IWM parts and jump jets left over from a Pariah)

[Rage]

Actually, screw the 'A' config- not that it's BAD, but it's become a backup plan only if I can't use an E. I usually find E configs boring, but... jump jets, a headcapper, and oh by the way an ATM that we crammed on with the remaining weight? Yes plz. (Even modded one recently using IWM parts and jump jets left over from a Pariah)

Eh, I only mentioned the Alpha because _everyone_ gushes about the Gauss Rifle.. or at least they seemed to way back when, anyway. Echo is damned fun but expensive as hell, though.

[JadeHellbringer]

Eh, I only mentioned the Alpha because _everyone_ gushes about the Gauss Rifle.. or at least they seemed to way back when, anyway. Echo is damned fun but expensive as hell, though.

Yeah, jump jets and a headcapper will always do that to you. If you're paying in BV, it's a tough sell, but if you're just building a thematic force it works quite well.

I do love the A, particularly in invasion-era games when it can use the range on that rifle to compensate for the Coors-can armor, but even then there's better options out there. It's just too much of an attention-getter- justifiably, the enemy demands killing it as soon as possible, because DUH. And more often than not, a competent enemy will do just that.

(Side note, the simple swap of dropping the rifle for an Ultra-20 to make a half-assed Hunchback ripoff is a lot of fun in a city fight. Again, it won't last long because it CAN'T, but with only five double-tap shots to begin with you won't have to worry much about longevity- it'll run dry or it'll drop, but it'll cause some serious problems before it does. In an old Refusal War campaign, one of these dropped a Timber Wolf B and a Pouncer Prime before dying at the hands of an Ice Ferret D- and even then it took the Ferret's leg off in the exchange.)

[Demiurge]

Fundamentally, crit-seeking is not an effective way to kill things in a clan techbase.

"But," you say, "that doesn't make any sense at all!  Clanners got the same rules on critical hits as anyone else!"

True, they do, but you have to look at these things in terms of opportunity costs and likely target cross section.

An LBX-10 does an average of 6 points of damage when firing cluster ammo and 10 when firing solid shot.  Of note, it also does six individual points of damage, each with a chance for a critical hit.

So, there is a straightforward opportunity cost of hitting for a bunch of damage in one place vs hitting for less damage several times.  There is a less obvious opportunity cost of hitting with the LBX or hitting with another weapon.  The ability of the LBX to fire two types of ammo is like hedging; over the course of two turns you can opt for opposing strategies so you don't get locked into one strategy that's not competitive.  Thing is though, if it turns out that just doing damage to things is more competitive than going for critical hits, then the LBX might not be worth the extra tonnage.

In the clan tech base critical hits are not an efficient way of killing mechs vice just shooting them to death.  Remember that a mech has seven (eight if you count the head) hit locations.  So an LBX is hitting each hit location on average less than once.  When you take into account that certain locations get hit more, sure, an LBX-10 cluster hit gives a good chance of center torso hit (66.5% probability with six hits and a frontal shot).  So if you shoot a mech with a stripped center torso, you have a good chance of hitting the stripped center torso and rolling for a critical hit.

Here's the thing; critical hits rolls aren't particularly devastating.  More than half of the time they do nothing.  The average number of actual critical hits from a hit against a bare location on a 'mech is .61.  Not only that, a mech can take multiple gyro and engine hits before it dies.

Clan forces are mech heavy, and clan forces spend most of their time fighting other clanners.  LBXs are far more effective against vehicles and aircraft, but the majority of targets a clan mechwarrior worries about are other mechs.  The LBX-10 is not a particularly efficient gun for killing mechs.

Going back to the example of an opponent who has a stripped center torso, sure, you can do nasty things to them with an LBX-10 and possibly get lucky and finish them off quickly.  Do you know what else you could finish them off quickly with?  Literally any other gun.  A mech with a stripped center torso is 2/3s dead already!  You've gotten through the armor, and that's the hard part!  Just pile on damage and they will fall soon!  The LBX-10 is not a good weapon for piling on damage because it has a bad damage/weight ratio compared to... basically any other clan weapon that isn't an autocannon.

So the whole can-opener/crit-seeker combo may be effective in the IS tech base, but in the clan tech base you're better off just hitting them with a bunch of massively overpowered energy weapons until they die.  Why bother with the LBX-10 when you can have an ER-PPC?  It's really only good at knocking down things with wings, rotors or tracks.

[UnLimiTeD]

I think what you sum up here is pretty much correct.
But then, it's also more of what has already been said: Yes, the niche for LBX weapons is smaller with the clans, less relevant - but more than that, it's just not that great a weapon compared to others.
In the IS, not only does the weapon have a significant function in fighting nearly everything that isn't a mech - and that'll be the majority of the opposition - it also fares better compared to other weapons when just using it to fire solid shot.
Factoring in Ammo and heatsinks, the LBX is 13 tons; A PPC is 12 tons. That's actually very little opportunity cost once the heatsinks in the engine are used up. And it's crit efficient, to boot.
So clans not only get less out of it, they also pay more for it.

[gyedid]

OK, so I had to go and revisit the stats for the Clan LB-X family.  I had misremembered the stats for the LB-2 and LB-5; I had thought they were each 2 tons lighter than their standard IS counterparts.  They are not, they're only 1 ton lighter, and bulkier to boot.  So there is no consistency to the LB-X family.  But the smaller calibres make up for that with a considerable range boost over their standard counterparts; the Clan LB-10 is the only member of the family that does NOT get such a range boost.  Well OK, it does, compared to a standard AC/10, but not vs. the IS LB-10.

The unimpressive nature of the Clan LB-10 becomes clear when you try and make it the centrepiece weapon of a chassis like the Gargoyle, overengined, oversinked, and where pod space is at something of a premium.  Take the Prime and replace the paired LB-5s with a -10.  Sure you saved 4 tons, but you also lost 6 hexes of range. 

If you're designing around the LB-10, 12 tons (10 for the weapon + 2 for ammo) eats up more than half your pod space.  How do you fill out the remaining 9 tons with something attention-grabbing?  You need either range or power; a single ER PPC still seems underwhelming, especially when several lighter designs do that better.  Pretty much all of the available options still seem like they force an LB-10 centred config into a role hunting vehicles and infantry.  So why not spend the extra 2 tons and upgrade to a Gauss rifle?

Cheers, Gabe

[Kidd]

Take the Prime and replace the paired LB-5s with a -10.  Sure you saved 4 tons, but you also lost 6 hexes of range.

Add an ER Large Laser

If you're designing around the LB-10, 12 tons (10 for the weapon + 2 for ammo) eats up more than half your pod space.  How do you fill out the remaining 9 tons with something attention-grabbing?  You need either range or power; a single ER PPC still seems underwhelming, especially when several lighter designs do that better.  Pretty much all of the available options still seem like they force an LB-10 centred config into a role hunting vehicles and infantry.  So why not spend the extra 2 tons and upgrade to a Gauss rifle?

Spend 2 tons upgrading to a Gauss instead of filling out the 9 tons with say an ER PPC and 3 DHS?!?! Am I missing something?!

[gyedid]

Add an ER Large Laser

I had thought about that actually.  It's got pretty much the same range profile as the LB-5, is like having two of them together, and does a solid 10 concentrated points.  And the heat sinks are already there.  But the resulting config still isn't the ranged vehicle-buster that the Gargoyle Prime is.  With ER LL/LB-10/2 SRM6, this is more of a generalist.

Spend 2 tons upgrading to a Gauss instead of filling out the 9 tons with say an ER PPC and 3 DHS?!?! Am I missing something?!

That's still only 2 weapons, and the Garg doesn't need the extra sinks with those 2 particular weapons--unless you just want them to pad ammo and engine crits.  Clan ER PPC/LB-10?  The Huntsman B already does that job for 25 tons less.

Other solutions I thought of:
--2 ER LLs and a 3rd ton of ammo (slug) for the LB-10.  3 solid 10 point hits, 2 at range with no ammo expenditure, with option to switch to crit-seeking on one of them, AND heat-neutral, is something I can get behind.  Still not great for a Clan 80-tonner, but considering the Garg is really an overbulked 65-tonner, run with it.
--ER PPC and 3 medium heavy lasers.  Yes, not an alpha baby, but gives you the ranged potential headcapper + 10 points from slug ammo closing in, followed by those 3 short-range 10 pointers to make juicy holes for the cluster rounds.

It's strange, but in Clan tech, you almost have to think of the LB-10 as a secondary weapon.

cheers,

Gabe

[Ruger]

Other solutions I thought of:
--2 ER LLs and a 3rd ton of ammo (slug) for the LB-10.  3 solid 10 point hits, 2 at range with no ammo expenditure, with option to switch to crit-seeking on one of them, AND heat-neutral, is something I can get behind.  Still not great for a Clan 80-tonner, but considering the Garg is really an overbulked 65-tonner, run with it.

It's strange, but in Clan tech, you almost have to think of the LB-10 as a secondary weapon.

cheers,

Gabe

Or 2 Heavy Large Lasers (or improved models), an extra heat sink and something to fill the final half ton (I would favor a light active probe or flamer)...two 16 point hits, and a 10 pointer...not much range difference, and the LB becomes your long ranged weapon...not as heat neutral, but it hits HARD, and the heat is not so bad that it can't be managed...

Ruger

[gyedid]

"Not much range difference" ...?

15 hexes for the LHL vs. 25 for the ER LL...?

cheers,

Gabe

[Kidd]

@gyedid - well yeah. Exactly. LBX/10s and Gauss are absolutely no contest to Clan energy weapons.

[Ruger]

"Not much range difference" ...?

15 hexes for the LHL vs. 25 for the ER LL...?

cheers,

Gabe

I was referring to the relatively minimal differences in range between the heavy large laser and the LB-10X in comparison to the vast differences in range between the clan ER large laser and the LB-10X...

IOW's, if you're trying to match ranges on the big guns, I feel the heavy large laser is a better match for the LB-10X than the ER large laser is to the LB-10X...now, a clan ER Large laser with with a pair of Clan LB-5X's might be good...

Ruger

[Nightsong]

I was referring to the relatively minimal differences in range between the heavy large laser and the LB-10X in comparison to the vast differences in range between the clan ER large laser and the LB-10X...

IOW's, if you're trying to match ranges on the big guns, I feel the heavy large laser is a better match for the LB-10X than the ER large laser is to the LB-10X...now, a clan ER Large laser with with a pair of Clan LB-5X's might be good...

Ruger

Yes, why the aforementioned Nova Cat config with the HLLs and AC is a nice combo. I do want to try that ERLL/LB5-X one though. Would actually be a slight tweak to the other nova cat mod that’s 2 LB and 1 Ultra, with a LPL.

[gyedid]

I was referring to the relatively minimal differences in range between the heavy large laser and the LB-10X in comparison to the vast differences in range between the clan ER large laser and the LB-10X...

Well OK, there I would agree.  But a design where the LB-10 is the longest-ranged weapon is still an infighter by Clan standards  ;D

Cheers, Gabe

[Demiurge]

As an aside, how does everyone imagine LBXs working?

If they fire one cartridge that contains a bunch of submunitions, taking the "giant anti-mech shotgun" description literally, then it doesn't particularly make sense that they have the same missile hits roll at all ranges.  Shouldn't they have some sort of penalty at long ranges and a bonus up close the way HAGs do?  And for that matter, why do they have the same range as solid shot?  Smaller projectiles would have much lower drag coefficients, so they shouldn't be able to reach as far.  And for that matter, why do they scatter while autocannons don't if autocannons are supposed to fire bursts?

I've long imagined them as shells with some sort of time or proximity fuse, like the Bofors 3P round.

But then, if that's the case, then LBXs ought to be able to hit targets behind defilade...

[Rince Wind]

In BT smaller ammo usually has a longer range.  #P

[Weirdo]

They're explicitly stated as being proximity fused.

[Empyrus]

While MechWarrior games portray LB-X as shotguns, i'm pretty sure they're implied to fire shells that have proximity fuse to explode just before they hit the target to shower it with fragments. Air-burst shells/grenades basically. This explains its effectiveness against aircraft neatly as well, not very different from WW2-era AA flak cannons. Firing shotgun-style blasts would likely have inferior ballistics for the fragments, reduce effective range.

HAGs are rapid-fire coil-guns. The cluster modifier represents effectiveness of rapid fire in close range and difficulty of keeping rapid-fire weapon aimed at a target. A bit different from LB-X, ignoring the fact autocannons are, well, autocannons...

I don't recommend reading too much into gameplay function of weapons though. It should be noted that autocannons are kinda intended to be rapid-fire weapons. And ultras and rotary ACs are basically really super-fast autocannons. Logically all these should basically function as cluster weapons. But were it so, weapons wouldn't be that different.
(Incidentally, pulse lasers probably should be cluster weapons as well. And standard beam lasers should have the accuracy bonus, at least based on MWO, it is surprisingly easier to keep long-duration beam aimed at the right place rather than a short pulsed beam...)

[Ruger]

In BT smaller ammo usually has a longer range.  #P

I rather liked the reasoning someone I once knew came up with to explain why autocannons work the way they do...basically, they do fire bursts, but the reason the larger ones are shorter range is that they tend to fire longer burst and/or larger ammunition in their bursts...but to damage BTech armor, the entire burst must be kept on target to hit a relatively small area...so longer bursts of smaller ammo, or shorter bursts of larger caliber ammo require greater recoil control, which means that your effective range tends to be much shorter as these numbers increase, as hits at ranges longer than the ones given in the rules result in hits too spread out to actually damage the target...

Ruger

[Weirdo]

That's my headcanon as well.

[Jellico]

There is less room in a small shell for the drogue chute.

[Terrace]

I rather liked the reasoning someone I once knew came up with to explain why autocannons work the way they do...basically, they do fire bursts, but the reason the larger ones are shorter range is that they tend to fire longer burst and/or larger ammunition in their bursts...but to damage BTech armor, the entire burst must be kept on target to hit a relatively small area...so longer bursts of smaller ammo, or shorter bursts of larger caliber ammo require greater recoil control, which means that your effective range tends to be much shorter as these numbers increase, as hits at ranges longer than the ones given in the rules result in hits too spread out to actually damage the target...

Ruger

That's how normal Autocannons work, which also neatly ties into my own headcanon for why Ultras have a chance to jam. I've always favored the idea that LB-X cluster rounds work based on proximity fuses. Once it gets close enough, the whole round bursts into a cloud of shrapnel (or maybe little bomblets, maybe that's why it's lostech). Solid LB-X ammo, on the other hand, is just a big slug.

[gyedid]

I rather liked the reasoning someone I once knew came up with to explain why autocannons work the way they do...basically, they do fire bursts, but the reason the larger ones are shorter range is that they tend to fire longer burst and/or larger ammunition in their bursts...but to damage BTech armor, the entire burst must be kept on target to hit a relatively small area...so longer bursts of smaller ammo, or shorter bursts of larger caliber ammo require greater recoil control, which means that your effective range tends to be much shorter as these numbers increase, as hits at ranges longer than the ones given in the rules result in hits too spread out to actually damage the target...

Ruger

Perhaps this also goes some way towards explaining why, for both LBs and Ultras, the larger calibres (10 & 20) don't get as much of a range boost compared to their standard counterparts as the 2s and 5s do?

cheers,

Gabe

[Ruger]

That's how normal Autocannons work, which also neatly ties into my own headcanon for why Ultras have a chance to jam. I've always favored the idea that LB-X cluster rounds work based on proximity fuses. Once it gets close enough, the whole round bursts into a cloud of shrapnel (or maybe little bomblets, maybe that's why it's lostech). Solid LB-X ammo, on the other hand, is just a big slug.

It would still apply to LB's as the proximity fused bomblets/shrapnel coukd still impact different areas of its target to cause the minimal damage of the spread...it would also help explain the misses...

Ruger

[Weirdo]

The point there would be to keep the prox-fused shells near each other when they go off, so that the bomblets can build off of each other and magnify the effect to something Battletech armor cares about.

[Scotty]

The problem I have with "bigger autocannons are more bullets kept on target, hence shorter range" is that we're told explicitly by physical attacks that high mass, high surface area attacks do better against BattleTech's magic armor.  You'd think it'd be better for an AC/20 to fire a single massive 203 mm shell (for an arbitrary example) than however many dozen smaller caliber shells.

It also seriously begs the question of "why can't I downgrade my damage for longer range?"  If the above is true, then an AC/20 should be able to voluntarily function as an AC/10 for a longer range punch.  If an AC/20 can't do that, then why the [bleep] not?  It can't be something like automatic safeties in the weapon, because you can bet your ass the first thing a canny merc is going to do is rip the safety out, and we're back to square one.

But I'm sure that's a hornets nest nobody seriously wants to stick their hand in.

[Kidd]

"...and our top story of the day, thirty-two more catgirls succumbed to the plague sweeping FASAfiziksland today. Emergency services are working around the clock to manage the sudden outbreak. Hospitals are filling up even as authorities call for calm and..."

[UnLimiTeD]

I feel I've read this exact chain of arguments before.
A always just assumed they utilized low recoil, low speed HEAT shells, or something to that effect - but then, where talking about nonsensical giant robots with a often cockpit conveniently located where a person would have it's head, that gets warm if you fire a laser in it's leg, carrying an active fusion reactor but somehow being able to utilize stealth composites....
Best not to think about it too much.
Though the range thing is sort of the problem with the clan LBX10. Too short to be a long range weapon, not enough punch for a real Brawler.

[Cannonshop]

The problem I have with "bigger autocannons are more bullets kept on target, hence shorter range" is that we're told explicitly by physical attacks that high mass, high surface area attacks do better against BattleTech's magic armor.  You'd think it'd be better for an AC/20 to fire a single massive 203 mm shell (for an arbitrary example) than however many dozen smaller caliber shells.

It also seriously begs the question of "why can't I downgrade my damage for longer range?"  If the above is true, then an AC/20 should be able to voluntarily function as an AC/10 for a longer range punch.  If an AC/20 can't do that, then why the [bleep] not?  It can't be something like automatic safeties in the weapon, because you can bet your ass the first thing a canny merc is going to do is rip the safety out, and we're back to square one.

But I'm sure that's a hornets nest nobody seriously wants to stick their hand in.

I always figured it was "Bigger projectiles, much smaller propellant charges".  Every round has to fit through the same passage (the hole in the joint between ammo bin in torso, and gun).  So you get explicitly lower velocities, and in a standard gravity well, explicitly shorter ranges, as your bore size increases.

which also explains why your Hypervelocity cannons blow up of their own accord occasionally-they're ramming hotter powder charges into the same volume of pressure vessel with the same mass of projectile-but without corresponding improvements to metallurgy.

[Scotty]

We had the metallurgical prowess in the 1980s to handle pressure charges far in excess of what BattleTech subjects autocannons to.  Unless something as relatively simple as the composition of effective gunpowder is Lostech (and we have zero reason to believe it is, since autocannons don't get magically longer ranges during the Star League) then the simple fact of the matter is that BattleTech's ballistics don't make sense.

I don't know why that's difficult to accept.

[Maingunnery]

We had the metallurgical prowess in the 1980s to handle pressure charges far in excess of what BattleTech subjects autocannons to.

Maybe you are underestimating the pressures in BT ACs.

Unless something as relatively simple as the composition of effective gunpowder is Lostech (and we have zero reason to believe it is, since autocannons don't get magically longer ranges during the Star League) then the simple fact of the matter is that BattleTech's ballistics don't make sense.

I don't know why that's difficult to accept.

Possible Range =!= Effective range.  ;)

[JadeHellbringer]

I'm baffled that the thread is turning into yet another tired argument about real life physics vs. Battletech weaponry. Sure that's what you guys want to do here? Hasn't that debate pretty much been run into the ground?  :-\

[Scotty]

Maybe you are underestimating the pressures in BT ACs.
Possible Range =!= Effective range.  ;)

the simple fact of the matter is that BattleTech's ballistics don't make sense.

I don't know why that's difficult to accept.

EDIT: Since the intent here wasn't to be as dismissive as it turned out being: the part that baffles me is why autocannons are the line in the sand that gets argued into the ground, when there are plenty of parts of BattleTech that make absolutely no sense already.

[Empyrus]

They stick out more so than many other aspects, i think.
Like, realizing that BattleTech spaceships are very unrealistic is on another level than realizing that autocannon progression seems really weird in comparison to real world weapons.

[UnLimiTeD]

You mean how they throw out mass far in excess of lightspeed?

I'm baffled that the thread is turning into yet another tired argument about real life physics vs. Battletech weaponry. Sure that's what you guys want to do here? Hasn't that debate pretty much been run into the ground?  :-\

And now everyone's digging.
It's a game about fighting robots, so everything already makes no sense, but sometimes, it does so too obviously.
Well, not that I don't agree with you.
So, as for the actual topic, did we reach any real verdict regarding clan LB10X?

[Empyrus]

Clan LB-10X: It works, but it is not really that great option.

[gyedid]

If you know you're going to be facing vehicle-heavy or aero-heavy forces, then the LB-10 should remain one of your go-to weapons.  If you're facing 'Mech-heavy forces, then it's not such a good choice and there are more effective options available.  Clan omni forces can take advantage of their flexibility, second-line forces will have fewer options at their disposal.

Cheers, Gabe

[Empyrus]

If playing Clans, i'd favor LB-5X for anti-vehicle and anti-air duties. It has better brackets and longer range. Maybe it isn't as effective but given its light weight, i'll probably have a large laser or ERPPC to go with it.

[Greatclub]

@gyedid - well yeah. Exactly. LBX/10s and Gauss are absolutely no contest to Clan energy weapons.

They are good supplements though. Look at the Daishi Hohiro. ER-PPC, 3 LPL. Ideally another ER-PPC would round it out, and it has the tonnage; what it doesn't have is the critical spaces to install the second PPC and associated heat sinks. The Gauss is a good enough compromise; it eats a lot of tonnage, but not as much space, and has performance that is only slightly inferior.

Another would be a custom kit fox; ER-LLas and LB-10X. The first one can punch holes in anything 30 tons or under, and then the second gun sandblasts the gooey insides, while still running Heat-neutral.

Looked at in isolation, yes, clan LB-10X suck, and clan gauss are subpar. But as part of a whole, they can be pretty acceptable. Is a LB-10X worth giving up 3 ER-ML and associated heat sinks? Sometimes. Not always, but sometimes. And sometimes you just don't have the crits free for those heat sinks, so you slap in the LB-10X.

The ultra 10 and 5? Those I have a much lower opinion of.

[Empyrus]

The Kit Fox needs all the range it can get. The LB-5X is a better choice.

[Sabelkatten]

The Kit Fox needs all the range it can get. The LB-5X is a better choice.

Heck yeah! My custom config is an ERLL and twin LB2-X! :D