What comes with a 'Mech when you purchase it?

[SCC]

Ok, when you but an Omni-Mech you only get one set of pods, for the configuration you buy the 'Mech in, but what about AXM-6T, -6X and QKD-8X, do you get the Hand-Held weapons they are design with? And are there any other 'Mechs with various extras and what happens in those cases?

[Ian Sharpe]

The original Wraith fluff had it shipping with replacement parts(Eagle fluff mentions they cut into profits).

[A. Lurker]

One thing that you generally don't get with it as per TechManual p. 282 is ammunition. You buy the "empty" 'Mech and then get your ammo separately, to be loaded into the bins only as you get ready to head out into the field.

Whether or not that means that the final unit cost multiplier should even apply to ammo purchases is something I'm fuzzy on. It'd make sense if it didn't -- 120 LRMs are 120 LRMs whether you load them into an Atlas or a Locust --, but then the same logic should also apply to OmniPods, which ought to be similarly interchangeable yet for which the multiplier does pretty definitely seem to be part of the formula when figuring out the cost of a given configuration...

[Ian Sharpe]

One thing that you generally don't get with it as per TechManual p. 282 is ammunition. You buy the "empty" 'Mech and then get your ammo separately, to be loaded into the bins only as you get ready to head out into the field.

Whether or not that means that the final unit cost multiplier should even apply to ammo purchases is something I'm fuzzy on. It'd make sense if it didn't -- 120 LRMs are 120 LRMs whether you load them into an Atlas or a Locust --, but then the same logic should also apply to OmniPods, which ought to be similarly interchangeable yet for which the multiplier does pretty definitely seem to be part of the formula when figuring out the cost of a given configuration...

Better off buying the empty Omni chassis, and buying pods separately or buying weapons and empty pods and fitting them oneself.  Its not a well thought out rule IMO, and there are ways around it.

[BritMech]

I have a question in the Rules section about the multipliers. It is my feeling that they apply to all weapons and equipment, even the aftermarket purchases. Otherwise, as has been said, it is cheaper to just buy the empty Omni chassis and fill it yourself. Which can't be right.

[Moonsword]

It's right.  The pods are interchangeable between designs with different price multipliers, after all.

[Ian Sharpe]

I have a question in the Rules section about the multipliers. It is my feeling that they apply to all weapons and equipment, even the aftermarket purchases. Otherwise, as has been said, it is cheaper to just buy the empty Omni chassis and fill it yourself. Which can't be right.

Its the difference between buying that high-end PC, and building it yourself.  Same components, but it'll cost more for them to do it, including some absurd markups on individual items.  Or how I pass on a 35% markup on materials over wholesale when I bill customers(tax, screw ups, profit). 

[evilauthor]

It's right.  The pods are interchangeable between designs with different price multipliers, after all.

What different multiplier? AFAIK, the only multiplier for weapons is a 0.25% price bump for being podded.

[Moonsword]

I'm talking about the one on the unit it's being pulled from.  The rules don't stop you from pulling an ERSL out of a Fire Moth and then turning around and pod-mounting it in a Dire Wolf.

[BritMech]

I'm talking about the one on the unit it's being pulled from.  The rules don't stop you from pulling an ERSL out of a Fire Moth and then turning around and pod-mounting it in a Dire Wolf.

But the multiplier for construction includes a weight-based cost. That means that the same pod built on a 20 ton Mech costs less than on a 100 ton Mech. It can't be right that an empty chassis can be filled with identical load-outs from aftermarket parts and be cheaper than one put together on an assembly line. Mass production reduces costs, not increases them.

The computer analogy doesn't stand up. High spec machines are niche markets. Mechs are mass-produced, so the market is more like cars. And it is definitely cheaper to buy a BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen or any other than it is to assemble one of identical specification yourself.

Really, the tonnage multiplier is the problem. The 0.25 multiplier for Omniweapons is fine. But the weight multiplier should be on the chassis only, not the chassis and weapons.

I think it is a throwback in the formula to a pre-Omni age. But then again, pre-Omni, weapons had a cost that was partially weight based.

[A. Lurker]

Considering that variable-weight components already tend to have a C-bill cost based on their weights and those whose weights are constant are pretty much interchangeable (even for a non-Omni, spare medium lasers that you buy for your 20-tonner should be perfectly installable on your assault machines if the need ever arises), I'd be inclined to say that it's the weight-based final multiplier itself that's the mistake. It's simply not actually needed -- or wouldn't be if the listed prices for the individual parts were supposed to be accurate, anyway.

It's just basic math; whether you multiply the individual component costs by a given constant factor and then add them together or whether you first add up and then multiply the total by the same factor makes no difference at all. So in order for the final cost multiplier to be necessary the actual component costs must be off, which bodes ill for the prospect of then turning around and using those same costs to figure out the price of spare parts...

[BritMech]

I'm talking about the one on the unit it's being pulled from.  The rules don't stop you from pulling an ERSL out of a Fire Moth and then turning around and pod-mounting it in a Dire Wolf.

But an ERSL on a Fire Moth and a Dire Wolf have different prices coming out of the factory. Why? Because...??

[Moonsword]

I chalk it up to manufacturer markup.

[evilauthor]

I chalk it up to manufacturer markup.

Potato, potahto... I call it straight up graft.  ;)

Really though, one of the theories is that the weight based cost is based on something like man-hours of work needed to install the gun, cost of the software mods to use the new weapon, and other "non-material" costs which IMO should actually be separate from the actual cost of the equipment. After all, the weapon cost isn't actually effected by the weight multiplier until it's actually installed, right? That right there suggests the extra cost is coming from something other than the material cost of the weapon.

[BritMech]

I chalk it up to manufacturer markup.

Seems more that this explanation is papering a pretty noticeable crack. I mean, why don't the individual weapons on the aftermarket have any kind of markup? Same weapons, same price list.

But you can avoid the manufacturer markup by buying the Mech with the cheapest loadout, and then fitting aftermarket parts. Even with the technician costs, it will be cheaper.

What makes it worse is that the Omni markup (which can be attributed to the cost of the pod, weight balancing, etc) scales on the same tonnage formula. A Medium Laser costs 80,000 as an aftermarket part. If you apply an aftermarket Omni cost it is 100,000.

That same ML on a 20 ton regular Mech costs 96,000. On a 100 ton regular Mech it costs 160,000. If you Omni those, 20 ton costs 120,000 (80k x 1.25 x 1.2) whilst 100 ton costs 200,000 (80k x 1.25 x 2).

Same weapon, different costs depending on what you attach it to. And it doesn't make sense.

Now, the formula has components we can look at. Structure, Weapons and Equipment, Omni, Tonnage. Now it makes sense that the Omni cost and the Tonnage cost are applied to the Structure. Tonnage modifier for bigger Structure? Yep, I understand that. OmniMechs are more complex, and so more costly? I agree.

Omni cost to Weapons and Equipment? Absolutely. Again, you pay for the complexity. Tonnage modifier? You pay more for the same equipment depending on what it is attached to? Nope. Don't get it.

Unless the tonnage modifier is paid when you buy aftermarket parts as well, it doesn't make sense to apply it to the build at the time. And since you can swap weapons from one Mech to another regardless of tonnage, without paying for the cost difference, it doesn't make sense for the tonnage modifier to apply to weapons at all.

So I would suggest that a new formula is used where there is a tonnage modifier.

(Structural Cost x (1 + [Total Tonnage / 100]) + Weapon/Equipment Costs) x (Omni Conversion Cost*)

This way the tonnage modifier applies to the structure, and the Omni cost applies to both the weapons and structure.

[BritMech]

Really though, one of the theories is that the weight based cost is based on something like man-hours of work needed to install the gun, cost of the software mods to use the new weapon, and other "non-material" costs which IMO should actually be separate from the actual cost of the equipment. After all, the weapon cost isn't actually effected by the weight multiplier until it's actually installed, right? That right there suggests the extra cost is coming from something other than the material cost of the weapon.

I think it is just a broken formula. Twisting and stretching for an explanation like "manufacturer mark-up" just doesn't seem right. You could order the empty chassis and save money with aftermarket parts. The Successor States certainly buy in bulk enough to want to save the hundreds of millions they could by doing this. They have access to the aftermarket parts, they have technicians to fit them. Paying over the odds when they don't have to? Doesn't seem right.

There is a big push underway to create a better BV formula right now. From the sounds of it, that will be a complete tear-down, page one rewrite. So why not do something similar with Costs? Take the opportunity to have the formulae make sense?

[Moonsword]

I'm not twisting and stretching for anything.  I have a satisfying enough answer for my own games and that's all I'm interested in.  I'm aware of the logical contradiction.  It's one of any number of them in this setting involving the game's economics one way or another.  I simply don't care to get that exercised over this one.

[chanman]

Why are Clan ERSL being denominated in C-bills anyway? Shouldn't their resource and production costs be standardized in hyperinflationary, constantly expiring Kerenskys?  ???

Besides, given constant supply fluctuations, it's my opinion as an economist that any book value price should be run through a random or pseudo-random variation function by the GM in the interests of realism given the setting of a transport-constrained neo-feudal war economy. Say, 2D6 with the results from 2 to 12 representing increasingly extortionate rates for supplies and services.

Say...


Roll            Multiplier
2               10x
3               5x
4               2x
5               1.5x
6               1.25x
7               1x
8               1.25x
9               1.5x
10             2x
11             5x
12             10x

[BritMech]

Why are Clan ERSL being denominated in C-bills anyway? Shouldn't their resource and production costs be standardized in hyperinflationary, constantly expiring Kerenskys?  ???

Besides, given constant supply fluctuations, it's my opinion as an economist that any book value price should be run through a random or pseudo-random variation function by the GM in the interests of realism given the setting of a transport-constrained neo-feudal war economy. Say, 2D6 with the results from 2 to 12 representing increasingly extortionate rates for supplies and services.

Say...


Roll            Multiplier
2               10x
3               5x
4               2x
5               1.5x
6               1.25x
7               1x
8               1.25x
9               1.5x
10             2x
11             5x
12             10x

Now something like that would be a good addition to AToW. Possibly not quite as wild a fluctuation as 10x, but 5x certainly.

[SCC]

The Omni cost multiplier not applying to any podded equipment on the 'Mech when you buy it certainly makes sense

[BritMech]

The Omni cost multiplier not applying to any podded equipment on the 'Mech when you buy it certainly makes sense

I'm saying the opposite: Omni costs should apply to the weapons and chassis, but the tonnage cost should only apply to the chassis. That way the weapons are the same cost no matter what Mech they are put on, and the only difference is the Omni pod cost.

[chanman]

Why are Clan ERSL being denominated in C-bills anyway? Shouldn't their resource and production costs be standardized in hyperinflationary, constantly expiring Kerenskys?  ???

Besides, given constant supply fluctuations, it's my opinion as an economist that any book value price should be run through a random or pseudo-random variation function by the GM in the interests of realism given the setting of a transport-constrained neo-feudal war economy. Say, 2D6 with the results from 2 to 12 representing increasingly extortionate rates for supplies and services.

Say...


Roll            Multiplier
2               10x
3               5x
4               2x
5               1.5x
6               1.25x
7               1x
8               1.25x
9               1.5x
10             2x
11             5x
12             10x

Keep in mind this multiplier only works against PCs. If they are *selling* services or goods, divide by the multiplier instead. Should they happen to find goods being sold at 100x the price they're being offered for the exact same stuff they're selling, suggest they should fix the scorch marks, burnt out wiring, fried fire control boards, chipped focal optics, and while they're at it, put a few more points into negotiation or charisma and remind them that price gouging and the black market are like that. Then make them an offer they can't refuse.

[Diablo48]

The Omni cost multiplier not applying to any podded equipment on the 'Mech when you buy it certainly makes sense

No, in order for a modular omni pod system to work properly you have to have single standardized connectors and mountings.  Stock weapons will generally not have these, so you will have to modify them to fit into an omni slot if you buy them separately.  On the flip side, manufacturers building new omni pods can easily charge more for their product because the only competition involves heavily modifying existing hardware so they can easily charge the difference and customers will have no choice but to pay for it to save on tech hours.

The one that I would really like to see is different tables for Clan and IS tech because the impression I have always gotten is that the Clans have a very easy time building advanced tech like Endo bones, FF armor, and especially XLEs which is not even remotely reflected in the prices.  I would also like to see the cost of a 'Mech shifted so the structure and core systems make up more of the cost and the engine is not so absurdly expensive compared to everything else.  I would also consider adding complexity modifiers for using multiple advanced technologies so there is something of a snowballing effect on cost for loading up on advanced components, however I would keep this mostly confined to the core systems.

[BritMech]

Just as an exercise to illustrate this, I worked out the cost of manufacturer markup for an Omni with all the variants.

Base cost of empty chassis = 10,155,000
Omni cost (manufacturer) = 19,769,375
Omni cost (aftermarket) = 9,884,687.5

So a 10 million saving per Mech. Now I don't care how simpler it is to get the manufacturer to do the work: buying Omni pods from them is way too expensive under the current rules.

The one that I would really like to see is different tables for Clan and IS tech because the impression I have always gotten is that the Clans have a very easy time building advanced tech like Endo bones, FF armor, and especially XLEs which is not even remotely reflected in the prices.

Different cost tables for Clan and IS make sense.

I would also like to see the cost of a 'Mech shifted so the structure and core systems make up more of the cost and the engine is not so absurdly expensive compared to everything else.  I would also consider adding complexity modifiers for using multiple advanced technologies so there is something of a snowballing effect on cost for loading up on advanced components, however I would keep this mostly confined to the core systems.

Well the engine being so expensive kind of makes sense, since Fusion technology is still going to be technically complex, rare and therefore expensive. As for a snowball effect for complex systems, this could be a simple modifier of (1 + [Number of complex systems x 0.1]) added to either the weapons cost, or a portion of the internals.