Inner Sphere RAC5... what's its roll

[Nahuris]

Since theres the base 20 heat sinks, ERPPC only needs 3 crits and 7 tons. Out of the two, its clearly the superior option for lights and mediums, especially if those sinks arent already used by other systems or weapons, basically regardless of whether they want to fight close or far.

Or for the same range bands and to-hits as the RAC/5, 2 Large Lasers for 4 crits and 10 tons. For the same tonnage as RAC/5 plus its ammo you have 80% of the raw damage, 60% greater hit cluster size, no jams, no ammo explosions, no ammo limits, no reason to ever need to dial down firepower, identical effective firepower in raw damage per used unit of mass(in this situation RAC/5 wins by 4%), and theres still 2 tons left to carry, say, a medium laser and a DHS.

Sorry, but there is IMHO no reason to not to hate worthless ballistics, that is, most of them.

And yet, even the Clan PPC cannot cause a PSR by itself..........first time I used a Blade, I got into range 7 behind a Thunderhawk, which was too busy dealing with an Archer and a Sagittaire to the front.....and could NOT turn to deal with me...... and when I put 4 shells in the back, 3 of which hit the most common location, along with an ER Medium, I discovered that 25 damage can faceplant a 100 ton mech..... (ok, I knew this, but since I do normally field light mechs, it doesn't happen often).... and that was the first turn, but I rolled a 4 on my chance for crits ..... it wasn't until the second turn that my ER medium being able to get a Gyro hit, via the now unprotected rear CT.  After that, the poor Thunderhawk wasn't able to get up

Yes, I do love Spectors, and Talons, and have been looking so lovingly at the new Havoc, along with having gotten a pair of Hollander III's, just so I can use the 6/9 variant with the ERPPC and the Targeting Computer. However, when I do need my players to be worried about a design, I tend to go for the Blade, because the thought of a possible 30 point damage burst makes them do all kinds of things to avoid me...... along with it playing absolute havoc with vehicles.

And during the battle that Fallen_Raven is referring to, the Blade tore all the back armor off of an Orion, and then went after the Atlas...... and yes I hit with all 6 shots, 2 to the CT, and 4 to the head. It is not typical, but it did prove that a 35 ton design could face a 100 ton design..... if you had to....as I did manage to get boxed in, a bit.

The Blade was also, very recently, useful against some of that wonderful new battle armor designed for House Kurita, with the reflective armor, since my ERPPC's were reduced to 15 heat / damage 5 hits, and my mediums were only doing 2 damage.......

I have never said that the RAC/5 is ultimate weapon, but when combined with other weapons, it does open some possibilities and tactics on the field, that you don't get with beam weapons. However, as always, your mileage may vary..... although to be honest, I don't rely on my opponent being stupid, I usually assume that he has something up his sleeve, and better tactics than I have.....

Nahuris

[Sabelkatten]

As one of the people he plays against, I'm not a fan of being called stupid. I also understand the difference between probability and possibility. For example it may be unlikely, but I have seen a RAC/5 put 4 out of six shots into a 'mechs head in a single round. That may not be the normal result, but things like that can and do happen. If you never factor in the possibility of statistical outliers you will be caught by surprise when they happen at the worst time..

Sorry, badly written. I meant acting stupid, not being stupid. Smart people act stupid all the time. "Inexperienced" doesn't mean stupid, "Doesn't understand probability" is the common situation (I got top scores in math, I didn't actually get probability until I entered the university).

You're worried about something that happens 1 time out of 12 when a player makes a single to hit roll, where he has a 1 in 6 chance of jamming his gun. And in that case he's causing the terrifying damage of... 6 MLs. Are you running scared of every light mech with 6 MLs?

Now if the RAC had caused all of it's damage to one location it would have been terrifying. It wouldn't even have needed RoF 6 - even RoF 4 gets pretty scary. But since it's just 5-point clusters it's no more dangerous than any other weapon that hits with 5-point clusters. Like the ML. It's a purely psychological fear of "lots of points of damage from a single to hit roll" that makes it seem worse, despite the fact that a similar weight of MLs may well (at short range) have just as good a chance of causing 30 damage!

[Nahuris]

Sorry, badly written. I meant acting stupid, not being stupid. Smart people act stupid all the time. "Inexperienced" doesn't mean stupid, "Doesn't understand probability" is the common situation (I got top scores in math, I didn't actually get probability until I entered the university).

You're worried about something that happens 1 time out of 12 when a player makes a single to hit roll, where he has a 1 in 6 chance of jamming his gun. And in that case he's causing the terrifying damage of... 6 MLs. Are you running scared of every light mech with 6 MLs?

Now if the RAC had caused all of it's damage to one location it would have been terrifying. It wouldn't even have needed RoF 6 - even RoF 4 gets pretty scary. But since it's just 5-point clusters it's no more dangerous than any other weapon that hits with 5-point clusters. Like the ML. It's a purely psychological fear of "lots of points of damage from a single to hit roll" that makes it seem worse, despite the fact that a similar weight of MLs may well (at short range) have just as good a chance of causing 30 damage!

I do not necessarily disagree, but the RAC also has an advantage in range, over 6 medium, or even 6 ER medium lasers....... allowing me to have the benefit of those hits at large laser range. Sometimes, that is enough to tip a battle, and sometimes it isn't. Yes, 6 medium lasers can do the same, if they all hit, same as if all the shells hit, and they don't have a chance to jam, but the difference in heat, of 6, vs. 18 or 30 (standard or ER medium Lasers), especially with Plasma on the field, and the ability to be at medium range, out to 10, meaning that you can stay out of close range on units with Heavy PPC's or AC/20's etc....... that's where the advantage lies. I can be at range 10, and still be medium range, versus needing to be at range 6 (standard mediums) or 8 (ER Mediums) with that cooler heat burden.
At the same time, I do have explosive ammo, and I have to consider the disadvantages. However, if you look at the RAC5 as a variant of the ATM, firing T-Bolt5 missiles, instead of autocannon shells, and use it in that role, it does make a LOT of sense. After my buddies have sanded your armor with various PPC and LRM hits, and you are at single digit, then the RAC becomes dangersous, and in many ways, more dangerous than SRM's..... and that's where it is useful. For those mechs that 23 or 32 armor in a location, where PPC hits will reduce it to single digits, then those Rotary hits become dangerous... you have some decent range, still, and 5 points is enough to go internal, when SRM's either don't have the range, or just not enough damage.

Nahuris

[Erkki]

It doesnt have to be compared to medium lasers. Just look at the guns that have identical range bands: LL, Plasma Rifle and LXPL. Even with just 10 base sinks, for the unit of weight or crit slots invested they all pump more damage in bigger clusters and have none of the HUGE[/u] drawbacks. Exactly the situation you have when designing units like the Blade and selecting the main weapon.

Even the standard IS LPL(for a bit different role as it has shorter range.) or AC/10 with 4 tons of precision ammo is more crit efficient, more weight efficient, more bv efficient, plain better. There is nothing wrong with realizing that the RACs are just plain awful guns. Me and Sabelkatten both want to like those guns but whoever designed them for the game together with the Light ACs and UACs did a bad balancing job and so as they are, using one pretty much equals fighting one hand behind the back. Especially if you balance games by BV.

[Scotty]

It doesnt have to be compared to medium lasers. Just look at the guns that have identical range bands: LL, Plasma Rifle and LXPL. Even with just 10 base sinks, for the unit of weight or crit slots invested they all pump more damage in bigger clusters and have none of the HUGE drawbacks. Exactly the situation you have when designing units like the Blade and selecting the main weapon.

Large Lasers:

3 Large Lasers = 15 tons (6 crits)
2 DHS (heat neutral, movement extra) = 2 tons (6 crits)

Total investment 17 tons for maximum 24 damage.  This is four tons heavier than a RAC/5 with a 'standard' amount of ammunition, and occupies all of the heat sinks where the RAC/5 leaves, at minimum, 12 heat (after movement) before even raising a blip on the scale.  It also takes three additional critical slots.

2 Plasma Rifles = 12 tons (4 crits)
Ammunition = 2 tons (2 crits)

Total investment 14 tons for maximum 20 damage (+2d6 heat) against 'Mechs, admittedly superior damage against combined arms.  Still a ton heavier than a RAC/5 with standard ammunition, occupies all of the heat sinks yadda yadda yadda.  Crit advantage of three crits.

2 Large X-Pulse Laser = 14 tons (4 crits)
4 DHS = 4 tons (12 crits)

Total investment 18 tons for maximum 18 damage at -2 to hit.  Five tons heavier than a RAC/5 with good ammunition, occupies all heat sinks.  RAC/5 has a crit advantage of five crits to this set up.

I'm sorry to say that I find your statement factually incorrect.  None (I repeat, none) of the remotely comparable number of weapon systems mentioned approaches RAC damage with the possible exception of the Plasma Rifle (which is a force unto God, and not saying a whole lot about the RAC).  Bigger clusters, yes, but hole punching is only so much of the battle, and none of these weapons hit the critical threshold for weapons that are dangerous due to their hit size (that being 12 points) and their hit size alone.  EDIT:  And, needless to say, that's all including the base engine DHSs.  You may notice that the RAC/5 with ammo leaves those mostly alone.  That's a large laser you can shove in to match brackets without even worrying about the heat.  If you're feeling rather cheeky, that's two large lasers while only beginning to sweat a little on a running alpha strike.

I also fixed some of my math (IS Large Lasers are not 4 tons.  Amusingly, this makes the comparison even worse)

[Nahuris]

It doesnt have to be compared to medium lasers. Just look at the guns that have identical range bands: LL, Plasma Rifle and LXPL. Even with just 10 base sinks, for the unit of weight or crit slots invested they all pump more damage in bigger clusters and have none of the HUGE[/u] drawbacks. Exactly the situation you have when designing units like the Blade and selecting the main weapon.

Even the standard IS LPL(for a bit different role as it has shorter range.) or AC/10 with 4 tons of precision ammo is more crit efficient, more weight efficient, more bv efficient, plain better. There is nothing wrong with realizing that the RACs are just plain awful guns. Me and Sabelkatten both want to like those guns but whoever designed them for the game together with the Light ACs and UACs did a bad balancing job and so as they are, using one pretty much equals fighting one hand behind the back. Especially if you balance games by BV.

Again, I am not disagreeing, but none of those can be used as a crit seeker weapon to support my Alacorns or other heavy hitters. When it comes to one on one dueling, yes, the more efficient designs might be better, but I rarely, if ever duel. And I don't really play Clan, at all.....

The other reason, though, that I use the design, is that it is NOT a PPC or similar...... if all the mechs were the same, there would be no reason to have anything but 4 optimal designs, one in every weight class.... and the game would get extremely boring, fast. I'd rather my inefficient Blade be on the field, over "I use my type 2 mech to attack your type 3 mech. Since all are armed with the same weapon, we can just dispense with weapon names and note that a class 2 has this many attack dice at this range.... so you roll your attack dice, and I roll mine, and there is no difference, with ranges, etc.  I like inefficient designs..... they make the game different. Yes, certain designs are more mathematically efficient, but I am not playing Algebra Wars.... I LIKE designs like the Jagermech, precisely because I like the idea that I am fielding a sci-fi version of the "Tommy-Cooker"...... not every military design has ever been efficient, or sometimes, designed with the soldiers in mind... but you make do with the equipment.

So, is the RAC efficient, probably not..... is it useful, yes, it can be...... but to sit and constantly disparage any unit that doesn't conform to some idea of "proper efficiency" kind of turns the game into a slightly more fluid version of checkers.... every piece has the exact same attack ability, based merely on tonnage.

So, I field my Commandos and Stingers, and support them with Jagermechs, and use my Blades as backstabbers, and I have fun...... and when I win, it isn't just because I fielded only efficient units, and min/maxed my way to a win.... it's because I was able to find an advantage with a sub-standard unit, and work out a way to make if useful. I may have a Wolverine with the AC/5.... but I used it to good effect, and that makes the game fun.
Yes, I have played with the Hellstar, and other similar, max efficiency designs...... but, after a while, you fall into the same tactics, as the max efficiency in design usually means that there is a max efficiency in tactics..... and it starts to drag. Other people may have different ideas.

Finally, I am answering the question from the OP --- which was asking what the role of the RAC was.... not what is more efficient, or what you would use instead. Yes, other weapons are more efficient, and may work better, but that wasn't the question asked.......

Nahuris

[Diablo48]

Again, I am not disagreeing, but none of those can be used as a crit seeker weapon to support my Alacorns or other heavy hitters. When it comes to one on one dueling, yes, the more efficient designs might be better, but I rarely, if ever duel. And I don't really play Clan, at all.....

If critseeking is your argument, it looses badly to the 10-X and 20-X.  The range is not all that different, and the 10-X is roughly the same size (1 more ton of gun, but more ammo efficient and less DHS needed).  They also have the option to help punch holes with slugs, and the power of a 20-point brick is very much worth the extra bit of mass to get a 20-X.

The other reason, though, that I use the design, is that it is NOT a PPC or similar...... if all the mechs were the same, there would be no reason to have anything but 4 optimal designs, one in every weight class.... and the game would get extremely boring, fast. I'd rather my inefficient Blade be on the field, over "I use my type 2 mech to attack your type 3 mech. Since all are armed with the same weapon, we can just dispense with weapon names and note that a class 2 has this many attack dice at this range.... so you roll your attack dice, and I roll mine, and there is no difference, with ranges, etc.  I like inefficient designs..... they make the game different. Yes, certain designs are more mathematically efficient, but I am not playing Algebra Wars.... I LIKE designs like the Jagermech, precisely because I like the idea that I am fielding a sci-fi version of the "Tommy-Cooker"...... not every military design has ever been efficient, or sometimes, designed with the soldiers in mind... but you make do with the equipment.

So, is the RAC efficient, probably not..... is it useful, yes, it can be...... but to sit and constantly disparage any unit that doesn't conform to some idea of "proper efficiency" kind of turns the game into a slightly more fluid version of checkers.... every piece has the exact same attack ability, based merely on tonnage.

So, I field my Commandos and Stingers, and support them with Jagermechs, and use my Blades as backstabbers, and I have fun...... and when I win, it isn't just because I fielded only efficient units, and min/maxed my way to a win.... it's because I was able to find an advantage with a sub-standard unit, and work out a way to make if useful. I may have a Wolverine with the AC/5.... but I used it to good effect, and that makes the game fun.
Yes, I have played with the Hellstar, and other similar, max efficiency designs...... but, after a while, you fall into the same tactics, as the max efficiency in design usually means that there is a max efficiency in tactics..... and it starts to drag. Other people may have different ideas.

Finally, I am answering the question from the OP --- which was asking what the role of the RAC was.... not what is more efficient, or what you would use instead. Yes, other weapons are more efficient, and may work better, but that wasn't the question asked.......

Nahuris

This is a huge misrepresentation of the game.  While I am not as familiar with IS tech as I am with Clan tech, most weapons have some situation in which they are the best choice.  Within the context of the Clan arsenal (at least up to the Jihad), the one and only worthless weapon is the 10-X because literally everything else has cases where it is the best choice for the job (the 10-X fails because the way Clan weapon ranges line means either the 5-X or 20-X is always a better choice).  I know the IS arsenal is not quite as well put together because the huge mess of weapons available tends to result in more things getting overshadowed, but even with only ultra-optimized customs there will be a huge range of designs and strategies to take advantage of the terrain and opposition in that particular game.

If you want a really easy example of why no one design is the perfect choice, take that Hellstar you mentioned against 1000 BV worth of conventional infantry on a single heavily forested mapsheet.  It will get completely crushed despite costing three times the BV of the infantry and being a highly optimized design for the simple reason that it is optimized to deal with certain types of opponents which leaves it extremely vulnerable to others.

[Erkki]

Again, I am not disagreeing, but none of those can be used as a crit seeker weapon to support my Alacorns or other heavy hitters. When it comes to one on one dueling, yes, the more efficient designs might be better, but I rarely, if ever duel. And I don't really play Clan, at all.....

The other reason, though, that I use the design, is that it is NOT a PPC or similar...... if all the mechs were the same, there would be no reason to have anything but 4 optimal designs, one in every weight class.... and the game would get extremely boring, fast. I'd rather my inefficient Blade be on the field, over "I use my type 2 mech to attack your type 3 mech. Since all are armed with the same weapon, we can just dispense with weapon names and note that a class 2 has this many attack dice at this range.... so you roll your attack dice, and I roll mine, and there is no difference, with ranges, etc.  I like inefficient designs..... they make the game different. Yes, certain designs are more mathematically efficient, but I am not playing Algebra Wars.... I LIKE designs like the Jagermech, precisely because I like the idea that I am fielding a sci-fi version of the "Tommy-Cooker"...... not every military design has ever been efficient, or sometimes, designed with the soldiers in mind... but you make do with the equipment.

So, is the RAC efficient, probably not..... is it useful, yes, it can be...... but to sit and constantly disparage any unit that doesn't conform to some idea of "proper efficiency" kind of turns the game into a slightly more fluid version of checkers.... every piece has the exact same attack ability, based merely on tonnage.

So, I field my Commandos and Stingers, and support them with Jagermechs, and use my Blades as backstabbers, and I have fun...... and when I win, it isn't just because I fielded only efficient units, and min/maxed my way to a win.... it's because I was able to find an advantage with a sub-standard unit, and work out a way to make if useful. I may have a Wolverine with the AC/5.... but I used it to good effect, and that makes the game fun.
Yes, I have played with the Hellstar, and other similar, max efficiency designs...... but, after a while, you fall into the same tactics, as the max efficiency in design usually means that there is a max efficiency in tactics..... and it starts to drag. Other people may have different ideas.

Finally, I am answering the question from the OP --- which was asking what the role of the RAC was.... not what is more efficient, or what you would use instead. Yes, other weapons are more efficient, and may work better, but that wasn't the question asked.......

Nahuris

So now its about what is fun instead of good? I think we actually agree on things!  :) Like I said above, I like ACs and the idea of having different kinds of limited ammo, but the BT's rules make them hard to love if you want to win. I love missiles too, all the versatility. Lasers are boring! I too like inefficient designs and get mad when I post them in custom designs section with some reasoning and/or fluff, and come 5 guys who tell me why it sucks. I think that ultimately BV is a pretty good balancing tool and I like fielding the very flavorful canon designs and trying to make them work together, but there are some things where BV fails, and the worst offenders are exactly the BV values given to RACs, MASC/Supercharger and BAP/advanced sensors in general. First have way too high, second way too low.

But the topic here is about RAC/5's role. It has none. About what you talked about duels: its actually at its best there because there'll be only one opponent so it needs to fire the least. Its unreliable, heavy weight junk that should never be fielded by anyone sane who wants to actually win wars. Its the M16 in Vietnam except much worse. Even its BV value of 247 does not take the jams into account: its simply a 0/5/10/15 ammunition weapon that does 20 dmg.

It would be a powerful weapon if it only didnt jam, or at least jammed on a 2 regardless of shot numbers.

Large Lasers:

3 Large Lasers = 15 tons (6 crits)
2 DHS (heat neutral, movement extra) = 2 tons (6 crits)

Total investment 17 tons for maximum 24 damage.  This is four tons heavier than a RAC/5 with a 'standard' amount of ammunition, and occupies all of the heat sinks where the RAC/5 leaves, at minimum, 12 heat (after movement) before even raising a blip on the scale.  It also takes three additional critical slots.

2 Plasma Rifles = 12 tons (4 crits)
Ammunition = 2 tons (2 crits)

Total investment 14 tons for maximum 20 damage (+2d6 heat) against 'Mechs, admittedly superior damage against combined arms.  Still a ton heavier than a RAC/5 with standard ammunition, occupies all of the heat sinks yadda yadda yadda.  Crit advantage of three crits.

2 Large X-Pulse Laser = 14 tons (4 crits)
4 DHS = 4 tons (12 crits)

Total investment 18 tons for maximum 18 damage at -2 to hit.  Five tons heavier than a RAC/5 with good ammunition, occupies all heat sinks.  RAC/5 has a crit advantage of five crits to this set up.

I'm sorry to say that I find your statement factually incorrect.  None (I repeat, none) of the remotely comparable number of weapon systems mentioned approaches RAC damage with the possible exception of the Plasma Rifle (which is a force unto God, and not saying a whole lot about the RAC).  Bigger clusters, yes, but hole punching is only so much of the battle, and none of these weapons hit the critical threshold for weapons that are dangerous due to their hit size (that being 12 points) and their hit size alone.  EDIT:  And, needless to say, that's all including the base engine DHSs.  You may notice that the RAC/5 with ammo leaves those mostly alone.  That's a large laser you can shove in to match brackets without even worrying about the heat.  If you're feeling rather cheeky, that's two large lasers while only beginning to sweat a little on a running alpha strike.

I also fixed some of my math (IS Large Lasers are not 4 tons.  Amusingly, this makes the comparison even worse)

I'm sorry but you factually seem to not have yet fully grasped the concept of efficiency. Can you please read the posts you reply to more carefully?

damage/mass, damage/(mass+dhs mass), damage/(mass + dhs mass + ammo mass) and damage that hits the target/(mass+dhs mass + ammo mass) are 4 different things. How much it actually takes in tons of crits to have one full "system" is fifth.

When using base heat sinks(case: Blade), just using 2 of the standard LL and a backup laser or two(or a LPPC) is superior option over RAC/5. Only thing you lose is higher max damage(when you roll high on cluster table) when out of ML range. In everything else from cluster size to reliability, RAC loses. Unless you happen to shoot laser-reflective armor. What do you do with a weapon that has, when firing full rate, 35% chance to jam at least once within mere 5 turns? And if you dont fire it full 6 shots, you again waste tonnage and might as well use something else. Pretty much anything else actually.

You are basically ignoring me and Sabel and just talking besides us and declaring yourself a winner when you clearly havent even understood what is being talked or you are misunderstanding deliberately and aren't even discussing the same thing. I have elsewhere explained why X-LPL is superior to LL in efficiency and you must have read it, but you chose you ignore me again.

I will quote myself:

Even with just 10 base sinks, for the unit of weight or crit slots invested they all pump more damage in bigger clusters and have none of the HUGE drawbacks.

Emphasis mine, please read it. For Maths(I failed at Maths in the university) this is actually pretty simple.

edit: lots of typos fixed

[Nahuris]

If critseeking is your argument, it looses badly to the 10-X and 20-X.  The range is not all that different, and the 10-X is roughly the same size (1 more ton of gun, but more ammo efficient and less DHS needed).  They also have the option to help punch holes with slugs, and the power of a 20-point brick is very much worth the extra bit of mass to get a 20-X.

This is a huge misrepresentation of the game.  While I am not as familiar with IS tech as I am with Clan tech, most weapons have some situation in which they are the best choice.  Within the context of the Clan arsenal (at least up to the Jihad), the one and only worthless weapon is the 10-X because literally everything else has cases where it is the best choice for the job (the 10-X fails because the way Clan weapon ranges line means either the 5-X or 20-X is always a better choice).  I know the IS arsenal is not quite as well put together because the huge mess of weapons available tends to result in more things getting overshadowed, but even with only ultra-optimized customs there will be a huge range of designs and strategies to take advantage of the terrain and opposition in that particular game.

If you want a really easy example of why no one design is the perfect choice, take that Hellstar you mentioned against 1000 BV worth of conventional infantry on a single heavily forested mapsheet.  It will get completely crushed despite costing three times the BV of the infantry and being a highly optimized design for the simple reason that it is optimized to deal with certain types of opponents which leaves it extremely vulnerable to others.

Actually, I was trying to say the same thing --- and I love LBX AC's too -- but if you have 3 points of armor left on a location, I need 4 hits to that same spot with the LBX to get one chance at a crit --- with a rotary, I need one hit there, and I get that chance..... and if I am at range 13, my ER medium cannot help me. Now, a light PPC would be great, but if I don't have one...... and sometimes, especially with my Capellan loving buddy on the field, I am rather loathe to utilize beam weapons, because I KNOW the plasma is making an appearance. He uses it like Frank's Redhot Hot Sauce.....He puts that stuff on everything.

And as I also mentioned, I recently got into a battle, where my opponent used some of those nifty new Kurita Battle Armor... the ones with reflective armor..... which rendered my Lament into the support category, while my Blade was sent to hunt Battle Armor.

At the same time, I am not saying that the RAC is a super weapon.....  What I said, is that it is useful in some situations, just as that infantry you mentioned are useful in the forest, against that Hellstar, but would probably not do half as well on a salt flat...... if the Hellstar even decided to bother engaging (I'd just walk away, and wait for the infantry to get way out in the open, and call for Arrow IV inferno, but that's me) --- for that matter, the Hellstar probably wouldn't engage them in the forest.... I'd go looking for a clearing with good fire lanes, and make my opponent come to me.

As for a Blade, I wouldn't use it in heavy forest, because you need to combine mobility with that RAC to make it work, and restrictive terrain keeps you from doing that..... on the other hand, with the Blue Shield tech being published in a printed scenario (Wolf & Blake, on Stacy Church's Zeus), and the number of new designs using Reflective Armor.... my old standby of ERPPC and TC on a 6/9 or better sniper is not as effective, anymore, as it used to be, either.

I do agree that we need better ballistic weapons in the game, but for now, if you are going to use an AC.... it's an acceptable choice for hopefully getting decent damage, and being able to sand armor.
And again, the topic was what is the role for it --- responding to that question with "other weapons are better" doesn't actually add to the discussion.

At the same time, I probably shouldn't try and discuss things while at work, as I get interrupted every other sentence, and things do not come out the way I hope. I do not disagree that there are better weapon combos, but, as the question is about the role for a specific weapon, I am trying to keep it with that weapon. And also, since I prefer to use Canon designs, that are faction specific, for what faction I am running..... I sometimes get combos that are not my first choice.

Honestly, I would love to see a Blade variant with a Heavy PPC.... given a choice.

Nahuris

[Klat]

Honestly, I would love to see a Blade variant with a Heavy PPC.... given a choice.

Nahuris

I was going to recommend the (dirty Panther killing) Wight but then I remembered the 2H Wolfhound

That said I'm a big fan of the Blade

[cold1]

Wow, you guys are really passionate about statistics and math.

I've been running some IS RAC5 designs in MegaMek, Blade included.  It's not as good as the clan version, the range bands aren't there.  But the thing is capable of big damage.  It's not as useless as ultras because you can unjam it at least.  It's a good weapon on a mobile platform.  It's sort of the heavy laser of the ballistic weapons family though.  Not as efficient as others and has a few drawbacks, but it's effective most of the time.

The Vulpes is a scary mech.  Very fast in a burst, fast enough all the time.  Twin Clan ERLL's mean 10 point holes from long range and then the ability to crit seek in 5 point chunks.  It's a great use of the cannon.

[Rage]

I've been running some IS RAC5 designs in MegaMek, Blade included.  It's not as good as the clan version, the range bands aren't there.  But the thing is capable of big damage.  It's not as useless as ultras because you can unjam it at least.  It's a good weapon on a mobile platform.  It's sort of the heavy laser of the ballistic weapons family though.  Not as efficient as others and has a few drawbacks, but it's effective most of the time.

Of course it's not as good as the Clan version. Clantech > equivalent IS tech. The IS version lost range compared to the old Autocannon/5 while the Clan model retained every meter of range from the Clan Ultra AC/5.

[AJC46]

clan rac's have deal breaker in that they eat up more space although this allows the clan rac/5 to be location split thanks to the recent errata that allows items with 8 or more crits to be split unless they are specificity barred from doing so.

which kinda makes it harder to fit them in on more crit packed designs and if you crit split the clan Rac 5 you give up arm firing arcs if it's split between arm and side torso.

[Scotty]

The tradeoff to that is that Clan ES and FF are both half the crits of IS versions, so a 'Mech with a Clan RAC is probably going to have more internal space anyway and it's a wash.

[WarGod]

simple more dakka.  On the other side the chance of raw damage is rather nice, and depending on shot grouping can either breach a hole, or chip away at several locations.  it is a lot of bang in a 10 ton package.  ok 12 tons with ammo.    Great for hitting vehicles, and battle armor.  The twin rac rifle man is scary.  Once again depends what your looking for. if it groups it can punch armor, if not you at least chip 5 points off of a bunch of locations.  which can still be useful.  If your opponent has open locations great you can at least damage more internal structure.