BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => Ground Combat => Topic started by: abou on 29 May 2012, 11:17:24
-
At some point I realized that I was trying too hard to tinker with designs by putting Artemis IV FCS on them. For example, I made an AXM-2N variant that swapped the large pulse laser for an ER model in the center torso, removed a medium laser, and added Artemis IV for both launchers and an extra ton of LRM ammo.
I imagine that Artemis is not always economical for every launcher, but on the larger LRMs I love it -- particularly for Inner Sphere designs. That +2 seems to work wonders for me.
Thoughts?
-
Used to be a big fan but as ECM becomes more and more prolific my enthusiasm has dimmed.
-
Artemis IV is useful when used on larger launchers (LRM-20, LRM-15 or even LRM-10 sometimes, from SRMs only SRM-6 is worth it).
Problem is that ECM negates it.
-
Artemis IV is useful when used on larger launchers (LRM-20, LRM-15 or even LRM-10 sometimes, from SRMs only SRM-6 is worth it).
Problem is that ECM negates it.
If you want to look at the numbers, there's a table at http://i53.tinypic.com/t9zj8h.jpg (http://i53.tinypic.com/t9zj8h.jpg). I think it was originally attached to a forum post, but that seems to be gone now.
Personally, my main complaint is the incompatibility with Semi-Guided LRMs, which I prefer when available. +2 (usually more) to hit > +2 on the cluster chart IMO. Having said that, Artemis is pretty good in the Clan Invasion when there is no SG and less ECM. One of the first things I look at when customizing mechs from that era is going from an LRM-20 to an Artemis LRM-15 - nearly the same damage, but two tons lighter per launcher (plus lower heat and more ammo longevity).
-
If you want to look at the numbers, there's a table at http://i53.tinypic.com/t9zj8h.jpg (http://i53.tinypic.com/t9zj8h.jpg). I think it was originally attached to a forum post, but that seems to be gone now.
Personally, my main complaint is the incompatibility with Semi-Guided LRMs, which I prefer when available. +2 (usually more) to hit > +2 on the cluster chart IMO. Having said that, Artemis is pretty good in the Clan Invasion when there is no SG and less ECM. One of the first things I look at when customizing mechs from that era is going from an LRM-20 to an Artemis LRM-15 - nearly the same damage, but two tons lighter per launcher (plus lower heat and more ammo longevity).
You can still fire SG LRM's from a Artemis equipped launcher. You just can't combine the two abilities which would be hideously broken if you could IMO.
-
You can still fire SG LRM's from a Artemis equipped launcher. You just can't combine the two abilities which would be hideously broken if you could IMO.
True, but then the Artemis tonnage is dead weight. I suppose you can mix ammo types, but then you aren't getting the most out of either your TAG either, so meh. I don't disagree that they would likely be broken if you could benefit from both though; I should probably have said it was the main oppurtunity cost rather than phrasing it as a complaint.
-
Used to be a big fan but as ECM becomes more and more prolific my enthusiasm has dimmed.
+1, AIVFC was awesome until the proliferation of C3 and C3i necessitated an increase in ECM coverage. I will say that, if you are using TacOps, it is easier to get around that through the use of ECCM, but then it becomes an electronic warfare arms race. Sometimes it just gets to be a headache when you have to keep track of who is covering whom. Easier to just try annihilating the guy who is throwing up the bubble in the first place. Thankfully, there is Artemis V now (love the Mad Cat III!) to try and keep missiles competitive in an ECM-heavy environment. Plus it is a nice way to balance against the power of some of the newer laser weapons.
-
Artemis is nice but I usually try to avoid it.
I use special ammunitions a lot and are also fond of indirect fire- I prefer TAG or Narc. Too bad that there are so few good Narc platforms out there...
-
I like having it when I can get it. Unfortunately, any time I run with a large amount I end up in an ECM nightmare or a forest that cuts line of sight to less than 6 hexes.
-
Artemis IV is fun but not overwhelmingly great.
Artemis V almost makes me feel bad when I use it if my opponent doesn't have an AMS or ECM.
-
If you want to look at the numbers, there's a table at http://i53.tinypic.com/t9zj8h.jpg (http://i53.tinypic.com/t9zj8h.jpg). I think it was originally attached to a forum post, but that seems to be gone now.
Personally, my main complaint is the incompatibility with Semi-Guided LRMs, which I prefer when available. +2 (usually more) to hit > +2 on the cluster chart IMO. Having said that, Artemis is pretty good in the Clan Invasion when there is no SG and less ECM. One of the first things I look at when customizing mechs from that era is going from an LRM-20 to an Artemis LRM-15 - nearly the same damage, but two tons lighter per launcher (plus lower heat and more ammo longevity).
I like the semi-guided/TAG combo, but the problem is that you generally have to have two different mechs to do it, so the bonuses inherent are reliant on the TAGing mech to be funtional and in position when you're ready to fire your LRMs. In addition, if the TAG mech can't hit with TAG, then you're not going to be getting any bonus at all with your LRMs. It's a cool combo when you can take advantage of it for indirect fire, but I find it to be underwhelming much of the time.
-
I like the semi-guided/TAG combo, but the problem is that you generally have to have two different mechs to do it, so the bonuses inherent are reliant on the TAGing mech to be funtional and in position when you're ready to fire your LRMs. In addition, if the TAG mech can't hit with TAG, then you're not going to be getting any bonus at all with your LRMs. It's a cool combo when you can take advantage of it for indirect fire, but I find it to be underwhelming much of the time.
Yeah, the number of mechs that can self-designate is not impressive (pretty much just the Eyleuka, Sling, Owens and Perseus, right?). I tend to randomly stick TAG on custom mechs, so that may skew my perspective compared to canon units.
-
Yeah, the number of mechs that can self-designate is not impressive (pretty much just the Eyleuka, Sling, Owens and Perseus, right?). I tend to randomly stick TAG on custom mechs, so that may skew my perspective compared to canon units.
Even if you can self-TAG, the range bands of TAG and LRMs just don't work well together.
-
And you're not getting the full use out of Semi-guided rounds if you're self TAGging.
-
And you're not getting the full use out of Semi-guided rounds if you're self TAGging.
What do you mean?
-
Because the biggest benefit of Semi-Guided LRMs is the elimination of the penalties when indirect firing or by being able to pass the TMM off to a different mech (basically, give your spotter a better gunnery score so that it can hit with the TAG, while your fire support doesn't need the better gunnery score), and you can't do that if the mech that's using the TAG is firing the LRMs as well.
-
Because the biggest benefit of Semi-Guided LRMs is the elimination of the penalties when indirect firing or by being able to pass the TMM off to a different mech (basically, give your spotter a better gunnery score so that it can hit with the TAG, while your fire support doesn't need the better gunnery score), and you can't do that if the mech that's using the TAG is firing the LRMs as well.
But if you successfully TAG the target, you don't need to "spot" as well. TAG effectively allows you to spot without the usual restrictions and penalties for spotting.
-
Yes, that's one of the penalties that's reduced.
-
Yes, and you can fire your weapons as well. Like, if I'm running an Owens (hate the mech, love the mini) I would give it semi-guided just to work with its own TAG, but would probably fire my LRMs with minimum range penalties to increase the chance to hit with TAG for the rest of the force to use.
-
If you want to look at the numbers, there's a table at http://i53.tinypic.com/t9zj8h.jpg (http://i53.tinypic.com/t9zj8h.jpg). I think it was originally attached to a forum post, but that seems to be gone now.
The weights used in that chart are off, they seem to include ammo, but not a constant amount, the ammo amount is not stated and they way it's used distorts some figures, plus endurance numbers don't seem to come into it (apart from upping the ammo to larger launchers)
-
...
Thankfully, there is Artemis V now (love the Mad Cat III!) to try and keep missiles competitive in an ECM-heavy environment.
Are you sure? It seems that Artemis V cab be jammed by using Guardian ECM. At least this is my impression from the description of the equipment in Tactical Operations.
Artemis V almost makes me feel bad when I use it if my opponent doesn't have an AMS or ECM.
Yes, but there's only a half dozen of canon 'Mechs and vehicles that actually use it.
-
The weights used in that chart are off, they seem to include ammo, but not a constant amount, the ammo amount is not stated and they way it's used distorts some figures, plus endurance numbers don't seem to come into it (apart from upping the ammo to larger launchers)
I'm guessing the ammo amounts are the subjective judgement of whoever made it as to what is "enough". Having said that, except for the -15, the ammo endurance for the LRMs is the same (the LRM 15 has 16 shots while all the others have 12, not sure why). But yeah, holding ammo endurance constant for weapons of the same type would have been a better approach.
Also, I was mistaken about the original post apparently being gone, it's at http://www.solaris7.com/fiction/FictionInfo.asp?ID=845.
-
Are you sure? It seems that Artemis V cab be jammed by using Guardian ECM. At least this is my impression from the description of the equipment in Tactical Operations.
Mine too.
Yes, but there's only a half dozen of canon 'Mechs and vehicles that actually use it.
For now.
-
Artemis FCS.
No thanks.
-
It's a throw-away piece of tonnage, IMO. I can't think of a single 'Mech it truly improves. Kind of like the AC/5 in 3025.
-
An upgraded Highlander with a Gauss Rifle and an LRM-20 with Artemis IV can really teach a man to love A4.
-
I have a love-hate relationship with the Artemis IV system. Which side is dominant depends mostly on who I'm playing as. If it's a regular military with supply lines, the Artemis is one of my favorite pieces of 3050 equipment, since it in essence increases the power of the launcher to the next higher level. LRM-10's become LRM-15s, LRM-15s become LRM-20s, etc. Moreover, as I usually have a bad case of Hellbie dice, anything that adds pluses to my rolls is welcome.
If I'm a mercenary, however, they're one of the first things I get rid of. The problem is not so much the effectiveness so much as the cost: LRM munitions are expensive enough as is, and Artemis-guided munitions are twice that. In other words, it's a cost in dead-weight tonnage on my mech or a cost in ridiculously high ammo bills eating into my profit margin.
-
An upgraded Highlander with a Gauss Rifle and an LRM-20 with Artemis IV can really teach a man to love A4.
Now, what we have here isn't just any ol' Highlander [salesman spits on the ground], but this here is a brand, spankin', only-been-refurbished-once Highlander IIC fresh from Operation Bulldog.
-
I like to use NARC or semiguided missiles for enhanced indirect fire so Artemis IV feels like a wasted ton. However if ammo reserves allow I'll run with a ton or two of Artemis IV ammo for use in direct-fire situations.
-
I absolutely love the Archer ARC-4M, both because it has the simple DHS upgrade and A4 for added missiley goodness.
-
I liked it fine when 3050 came out, the Archer-4M was a great mech.
These days, meh, I don't go out of my way to put it on customs & only use it when it comes standard (See above 4M & 8M as well)
Most the time I tend to use indirect fire with my LRMs & most my units still have some L1 tech in them, so I find NARC & SG ammo types to be of more use.
-
I like it on the larger LRM launchers.
-
Are you sure? It seems that Artemis V cab be jammed by using Guardian ECM. At least this is my impression from the description of the equipment in Tactical Operations.
You know, I see what you mean. In the fluff entry for Artemis V, page 282, it mentions that it is still susceptible to Guardian ECM, but without saying anything in the rules entry below it. Further, in the Angel ECM rules on page 279 it says "The Angel ECM Suite works like standard ECM (see p. 134, TW), but can also block the Bloodhound Active Probe, Artemis V and C3 Booster
Systems, and even negates the locking systems of Streak missiles." (Bolding mine) I had read that entry before and it implied to me that Guardian ECM did not stop Artemis V. I will take this over to the rules questions forums and figure out which is right, though I am betting Guardian ECM is capable of stopping Artemis V.
-
You know, I see what you mean. In the fluff entry for Artemis V, page 282, it mentions that it is still susceptible to Guardian ECM, but without saying anything in the rules entry below it. Further, in the Angel ECM rules on page 279 it says "The Angel ECM Suite works like standard ECM (see p. 134, TW), but can also block the Bloodhound Active Probe, Artemis V and C3 Booster
Systems, and even negates the locking systems of Streak missiles." (Bolding mine) I had read that entry before and it implied to me that Guardian ECM did not stop Artemis V. I will take this over to the rules questions forums and figure out which is right, though I am betting Guardian ECM is capable of stopping Artemis V.
Per errata (no, it's not in the original book), Artemis V works like Artemis IV except where specifically noted otherwise. So yes, it's susceptible to Guardian ECM, its bonuses don't apply to LRM indirect fire, and so on.
-
Strange, I checked my Tactical Operations 3.0 Errata and couldn't find anything about the system in there. Thanks for the heads up A. Lurker!
-
Honestly, I never use it unless I'm playing some sort of scenario (and have no choice of mech, or can't customize). I generally pull it out and add a ton of ammo for the launcher. Most of the 3050 and beyond mechs that have it are so short on ammo that you probably do better by having 12 rounds of fire per launcher without the +2 on the missile roll than 6 rounds with it.
-
It's a throw-away piece of tonnage, IMO. I can't think of a single 'Mech it truly improves. Kind of like the AC/5 in 3025.
Disagree strongly, at least before every other mech had ECM. When A4 first came out - after double heat sinks it was one of the single largest "easy" upgrades available for LRM boats. Signficantly inreases damage, for no increase in heat. Or swap an LRM 20 for a LRM15 w/ Arty to save 1.5 tons, 1 critical spaces, encrease your endurance by 25%, and decrease the heat by 16%, for a neglible decrease in damage.
Like I said, the main issue is that you're HIGHLY unlikely to be able to take advantage of the benefits with the proliferation of ECM.
-
Of course, if there's too much ECM proliferation in your games, the obvious solution is to try playing with ECCM rules.
-
Of course, if there's too much ECM proliferation in your games, the obvious solution is to try playing with ECCM rules.
lol ECCM dedicated units for lame piece of equipment that lets your LRM-20 do 2 extra damage? ...I think the 1 - 1.5 tons can be spent elsewhere...
-
lol ECCM dedicated units for lame piece of equipment that lets your LRM-20 do 2 extra damage? ...I think the 1 - 1.5 tons can be spent elsewhere...
Well, if you're bringing ECM specifically for ECCM to protect C3 networks, then the happy side-effect of making artemis more viable isn't something to just throw away.
-
Well, if you're bringing ECM specifically for ECCM to protect C3 networks, then the happy side-effect of making artemis more viable isn't something to just throw away.
Side effect is one thing. Specifically to protect Artemis, no.
-
lol ECCM dedicated units for lame piece of equipment that lets your LRM-20 do 2 extra damage? ...I think the 1 - 1.5 tons can be spent elsewhere...
If you're that worried about maxing the efficiency of your units, why use anything but laser spam?
-
If you're that worried about maxing the efficiency of your units, why use anything but laser spam?
No, I'm just not willing to arm my units with an ECM suite just to support another ton of tech. The Artemis isn't very good. If it were Artemis V or Narc, giving you -1 To-hit, that's worth protecting. A bonus to a cluster roll? It's not even a BIG bonus...
-
lol ECCM dedicated units for lame piece of equipment that lets your LRM-20 do 2 extra damage? ...I think the 1 - 1.5 tons can be spent elsewhere...
Upgrading from an LRM 15 to an LRM 20 is already 3 tons, 1 heat, and fewer shots for 3 damage. One ton for two damage looks pretty good in comparison, if you can reliably get the bonus/aren't using incompatible ammo.
-
No, I'm just not willing to arm my units with an ECM suite just to support another ton of tech. The Artemis isn't very good. If it were Artemis V or Narc, giving you -1 To-hit, that's worth protecting. A bonus to a cluster roll? It's not even a BIG bonus...
Narc doesn't get you -1 to hit modifier, only iNARC with Homing pod does.
-
Narc doesn't get you -1 to hit modifier, only iNARC with Homing pod does.
Or if you load your launcher with ARAD ammo. NARC counts as emissions for them. Experimental rules admittedly.
-
I tend to grab Artemis IV more often than not when using a LRM 15 or 20, but it is still very much an expendable piece of equipment if I am running low on mass for more important things. All other launchers go without with the occasional exception of the larger MML racks, although I really do not use them often enough to matter.
That said, I tend to use them very often because I am a big fan of ATMs which come with free Artemis IV, but that is not particularly relevant to this discussion.
-
Strange, I checked my Tactical Operations 3.0 Errata and couldn't find anything about the system in there. Thanks for the heads up A. Lurker!
It should be in there, actually. It's not new errata anymore, though, so you may have to look in the appropriate "full" or "previous" errata section of the document, not the "this is what changed since last time" one they habitually start with.
As far as using Artemis on my own units goes: I generally ask myself "how often am I going to want to use other ammo with this, and (for LRMs) how much time do I expect to spend lobbing indirect fire in the general direction of the enemy without exposing myself?" and go by the answer to that. Artemis IV/V is a straight-up easy-to-use firepower boost as long as it works and I have a steady supply of compatible missiles...but that's already all it does, and only on direct-fire missions at that. If that's what a given design is primarily intended for, fair enough; if I'm mounting missile racks mainly for the full "tactical flexibility" aspect, though, Artemis is as likely as not to turn into dead weight on any given salvo and I can get similar perks from using Narc/iNarc or TAG in conjunction with appropriate ammo from regular launchers on a case-by-case basis.
-
I tend to grab Artemis IV more often than not when using a LRM 15 or 20, but it is still very much an expendable piece of equipment if I am running low on mass for more important things
An LRM15+Artemis IV is, on average, just about as effective as an LRM20, but lighter, cooler, and more ammo efficient.
-LRM15+Artemis IV: 8 tons, 5 heat, 8 shots/ton, 11.5 average missile hits per shot (12 hit on most likely roll), generating on average 92 hits per ton of ammo.
LRM20: 10 tons, 6 heat, 6 shots/ton, 12.7 average missile hits per shot (12 hit on most likely roll), generating on average 76 hits per ton of ammo.
So the LRM15+Artemis is saving you 2 tons, a point of heat, and probably a ton of ammo when you get one instead of an LRM20, and is going to do about the same damage in the long run. Yeah, ECM hoses you, but that is always a risk with the advanced electronic options.
-
lol ECCM dedicated units for lame piece of equipment that lets your LRM-20 do 2 extra damage? ...I think the 1 - 1.5 tons can be spent elsewhere...
Its 4 Extra damage, not 2.
If it were Artemis V or Narc, giving you -1 To-hit, that's worth protecting.
As already stated, Narc does not give you a -1 to hit.
-
Its 4 Extra damage, not 2.
::shrug:: MIGHT be worth it on the LRM-20 in 2750 or some era where ECM is practically non-existent. Maybe. Otherwise... still. No.
-
I've found the Artemis fairly useful in online megamek campaigns like the Mekwars Legends where I've played in the FWL. As their typical opponents are Capells, Taurians, Magistracy, Steiner, WOB and FS, its pretty likely that an enemy force will no ECM and the occasional force that has it only has 1, max 2, Guardians, as that campaign doesnt have just the "state of the art" units, not even for the FS. Artemis is very useful on units like Archer, Apollo and Orion to get most out of those LRM15s and LRM20s. Sometimes when enemy has ECM you still only lose 1 or 2 tons on 1, 2 or 3 meks as nearly useless useless dead weight. Still works as crit padding to those ammo boxes. There are worse systems around!
-
::shrug:: MIGHT be worth it on the LRM-20 in 2750 or some era where ECM is practically non-existent. Maybe. Otherwise... still. No.
Are LRM's even worth it to you ?
LRM20 = 10 Tons for 12 Damage (Average) = 1.2 Damage/Ton
LRM20+A4 = 11 Tons for 16 Damage (Average) = 1.45 Damage/Ton
The Artemis part of that equation at 1 Ton for 4 Damage & 0 heat puts it up there as competitive with the ML in raw effectiveness, ECM or no, that is saying something.
-
Are LRM's even worth it to you ?
LRM20 = 10 Tons for 12 Damage (Average) = 1.2 Damage/Ton
LRM20+A4 = 11 Tons for 16 Damage (Average) = 1.45 Damage/Ton
The Artemis part of that equation at 1 Ton for 4 Damage & 0 heat puts it up there as competitive with the ML in raw effectiveness, ECM or no, that is saying something.
If he is used to playing in games with a lot of C3 nets or Stealth 'Mechs then the Artemis would be mostly useless as there would already be a lot of ECM on the field which will virtually guarantee the system is jammed at all times.
-
Are LRM's even worth it to you ?
Sure. I generally dislike the LRM-20, but IDF is a fantastic tool for a lot of situations. Just because I don't think Artemis IV is worth a darn doesn't mean I feel the entire weapons system needs to be scrapped. This is especially true of Clan weapons, where LRMs are half the tonnage and it's more worthwhile to mount a second launcher or another ton of ammo over improving the cluster roll for one of them.
The point is that most Artemis-equipped designs aren't built for longevity. The ones who do have it could generally utilize its removal in favor of heat sinks, extra ammo, support weapons; anything but Artemis.
Not Artemis V, that's a different story.
-
...
The point is that most Artemis-equipped designs aren't built for longevity. The ones who do have it could generally utilize its removal in favor of heat sinks, extra ammo, support weapons; anything but Artemis....
That would be a failure of the larger design, not a failure of the system. It is perfectly possible to mount a LRM 20 with Artemis IV and three tons of ammo without sacrificing anything critical, especially with Clan tech where the LRM can cover short ranged combat just fine. I fully agree that sacrificing critical things like ammo or sinks for Artemis IV is a bad idea, but there are plenty of ways to fit it into designs without screwing yourself over.
-
For me its worth it if you have few launchers (and large ones) in the lance/company. If you have lots of launchers, narc is better.
-
The problem with that is 1) you have to hit each individual target on the opposing side with a NARC pod for it to work and 2) you have to find a unit that has a NARC launcher and doesn't royally suck.
The second problem is usually much worse than the first.
-
I don't think Artemis and MML's has been mentioned yet......Haven't tried it with an MML 7 or 9.....yet.... >:D
I like Artemis because personally in most tabletop games people don't bring a huge amount of ECM's and when they do they are typically on light mech that if I can target and take out early I have a big advantage. I also don't play against people who go crazy with C3 because they know a few ECM equipped mech can render their networks useless.
-
Artemis is pretty inefficient on MML pods. First, it doesn't give a very significant bonus on the smaller cluster tables, and second the MML's big claim to fame is how flexible it is for using specialty munitions, which don't get any bonus for Artemis.
-
The problem with that is 1) you have to hit each individual target on the opposing side with a NARC pod for it to work and 2) you have to find a unit that has a NARC launcher and doesn't royally suck.
The second problem is usually much worse than the first.
That is what custom omni configurations are for. You do not need a good canon NARC platform if your group will let you pod one onto a Viper or Fire Moth.
-
And if you aren't playing a group the enforces Clan honor. O0 That said, there are a couple of choices for IS light Omnis to use.
-
I'm a fan of Artemis only if it's on bigger LRM launchers, and then only if I'm not going to be using TAG in the field. For a mercenary unit, I'd pass on almost all opportunities, preferring cheaper LRM munitions and an extra ton of payload space. For House Units, I'll take Artemis if I don't expect TAG support.
-
And if you aren't playing a group the enforces Clan honor. O0 That said, there are a couple of choices for IS light Omnis to use.
In the Jihad era, most of the "original 16" omnis are available in varying degrees to most IS powers.
Also, even the Clan's don't always play by Zellbrigen. Only when facing a *very* honorable IS opponent who has declared a Trial, or when fighting against a Clan opponent who has not previously broken Zellbrigen. Some clans even goad their clan opponents into breaking Zell first so they can use it as an excuse to go hog-wild. Zellbrigen is similar to the Clans what Bushido was to the samurai: more of an ideal than a reality.
-
Sure. I generally dislike the LRM-20, but IDF is a fantastic tool for a lot of situations. Just because I don't think Artemis IV is worth a darn doesn't mean I feel the entire weapons system needs to be scrapped. This is especially true of Clan weapons, where LRMs are half the tonnage and it's more worthwhile to mount a second launcher or another ton of ammo over improving the cluster roll for one of them.
The point is that most Artemis-equipped designs aren't built for longevity. The ones who do have it could generally utilize its removal in favor of heat sinks, extra ammo, support weapons; anything but Artemis.
Not Artemis V, that's a different story.
As counterexamples, I would offer up the Apollo -1M and -2S, Archer- 5R, -8M, -9M, and -2Rb, Argus -2D and the Atlas -S2 as mechs that mount Artemis with plenty of ammo, heat sinks, armor, and support weapons (well, assuming you flip the rear-facing mediums arround on some of the Archers, but that's not something involving Artemis), and that's just from the A's. You could probably tweak those designs, but I'd argue that reflects personal preference and playstyle more than actual optimization (for example, I'd add the Archer -4M, -6s and -7s to that as well, since 2 tons is IMO sufficient for a -20 launcher, but that's at least debatable).
-
That is what custom omni configurations are for. You do not need a good canon NARC platform if your group will let you pod one onto a Viper or Fire Moth.
Not everybody plays Clan all the time.
Or allows customized mechs.
-
True, and even when they DO allow customs, they most likely only allow those that either SSW or HMP have validated.
-
Let's try not to turn this into yet another canon vs. custom flame war. I'll agree that finding decent canon Narc platforms is something of a challenge -- even in-universe and in the Inner Sphere that may have something to do with people rather building something they could take into the arenas on Solaris IV or otherwise use to hunt for individual glory than purpose-designing dedicated team players.
In any case, the real advantage of Narc is that, barring ECM, it lets you fire indirectly at the tagged unit without needing a spotter -- meaning you can rain LRMs down on them no matter what they're trying to hide behind until the local cow analogues come home or the body part stuck with the beacon falls apart, whichever comes first (and if the pod just so happens to have attached itself to the CT or head, well...). The cluster bonus for direct fire is just gravy.
-
In the Jihad era, most of the "original 16" omnis are available in varying degrees to most IS powers.
Also, even the Clan's don't always play by Zellbrigen. Only when facing a *very* honorable IS opponent who has declared a Trial, or when fighting against a Clan opponent who has not previously broken Zellbrigen. Some clans even goad their clan opponents into breaking Zell first so they can use it as an excuse to go hog-wild. Zellbrigen is similar to the Clans what Bushido was to the samurai: more of an ideal than a reality.
That is, of course, assuming that you are playing in the Jihad era; there is a lot of ground for BattleTech games to cover, which is part of the fun. It is a lot harder to bring that kind of stuff to bear, even in the 3060's. As for the original 16 being available to most IS powers, that is also true but I always thought that was largely relegated to veteran units or those posted along the Clan front. The guys who really needed 'em. Though I would imagine the FWL has a healthy stockpile that they received while churning out refit kits and the like. Of course, all this is academic if you are just playing with friends and don't care what either side wants to field. :)
-
The second problem is usually much worse than the first.
Agreed.
A proper selection of C3M & NARC units is sorely missing IMHO.
-
That is what custom omni configurations are for. You do not need a good canon NARC platform if your group will let you pod one onto a Viper or Fire Moth.
Pretty sure NARC is a breach of Zell, now an Owens with NARC, that is totally fine IMHO.
-
Pretty sure NARC is a breach of Zell, now an Owens with NARC, that is totally fine IMHO.
While I don't particularly like its use on Clan units, you can NARC for yourself. As I recall, one of BoK books has Phelan doing just that in a Trial of Position (on the other hand it apparently allows him to destory an ASF with a rockslide, so YMMV). Now how the Clans justify TAG, I have no idea.
-
While I don't particularly like its use on Clan units, you can NARC for yourself. As I recall, one of BoK books has Phelan doing just that in a Trial of Position (on the other hand it apparently allows him to destory an ASF with a rockslide, so YMMV). Now how the Clans justify TAG, I have no idea.
Read the Wars of Reaving. Even in a war that is basically started because the Clan's aren't following Zell close enough, they break Zell more often than they follow it.
-
While I don't particularly like its use on Clan units, you can NARC for yourself. As I recall, one of BoK books has Phelan doing just that in a Trial of Position (on the other hand it apparently allows him to destory an ASF with a rockslide, so YMMV). Now how the Clans justify TAG, I have no idea.
They justify it by "zellbrigen is for honorable opponents" -- with the enemy getting no say in whether or not they're considered "honorable", of course. Considering how positively eager some Clan forces are to claim breach of etiquette and start a melee at the first flimsy excuse, I think the importance of dueling in Clan culture gets a bit overstated by the player community at large. It is an important part of "proper" battlefield conduct under appropriate circumstances, to be sure, but the Clans have never been exactly shy about taking the gloves off the moment somebody annoys them too much either.
So TAG -- and the artillery that goes with it, semi-guided LRMs still being primarily an Inner Sphere thing last time I checked -- certainly has its uses. They may not be particularly glorious, which is why those units get something of a bum rap...but they do get the job done once called upon to do so.