Register Register

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Still waiting on the DVD release for that tom hanks film Greyhound..
Same here waiting to.
Fan Designs and Rules / Re: Rifle Cannons: What have you done?
« Last post by Grand_dm on Today at 05:54:09 »
New question for the group: what balance issues if any are presented by just ditching the -3 damage penalty?

When answering set aside this idea that Rifle Cannons are using hundreds of years old technology. Forget about TRO 1945.

Instead let's just examine their game stats: weight/range/damage/ammo per ton.

Looking purely at that - are they balanced as an alternative to the Autocannon?
Fan Designs and Rules / Re: Rifle Cannons: What have you done?
« Last post by Grand_dm on Today at 05:46:47 »
I would just like to remind everyone that I created this thread to see what others have done. Including some argument to explain your methodology is fine, but let's make sure it does not get past that. Just a friendly reminder.
BattleTech Miniatures / Re: Return to the brushes
« Last post by marauder648 on Today at 05:39:03 »
I'd go with the wolf grey too.
Whilst Adrian Gideon mentioned that the B&N Wolf's Dragoons Assault Star was not to be taken as an indication
of further faction-specific ForcePacks, I wouldn't mind if CGL were to take that route.

This would enable them to combine existing KS Mechs with new redesigns (example : Blackjack and JagerMech for Davions)..

Another point that needs to be taken into consideration is that all current ForcePacks are Alpha Strike-legal units, so that somewhat limits regrouping faction-specific Mechs.

 :o ;D 8) Well I just did my Urbie's Beer Run at the Cat store this morning. I got the Storm Crow , all set of stickers , 3 set of the lost dice , GD story and RecGuide the latest one. Now I have all sets of the lost dice. Now I wait for the bit bag of mech parts and the Black Knight. Later

If the dots are the new art Scroggins et al keep pumping out ...
I don't if I'm weird but for most part I'd prefer factionally better arranged SKU than more minis. To be sure, there's some mechs I'd love to see but that's secondary.
 Very Cool :thumbsup:
That's cool. It is good work. :thumbsup:

I don't remember the Spartan having myomer bundles but it's been a while since I read the Palladium fluff.
Fan Designs and Rules / Re: Rifle Cannons: What have you done?
« Last post by RifleMech on Today at 04:57:21 »
Were you not paying attention to Herb's formula for the M1's 120mm?  He stated he started the TRo 1945 with BAR 5 as the base point and working backward, and forward, from there.

As for your other suggestions, don't steer those at me.  They're not gonna work for my palette.

Trying to shoe-horn in BT construction rules into something which naturally doesn't follow them is not what I consider an ideal use of my time.  I already tried it and wasn't satisfied with the results.

Yes. I remember. He also that 1900-1960 would be BAR-5-6, that armor from the 1960 to 2020 would be BAR-6 and that BAR-3 armor would what was used on the first Ironclads. After 2020 comes BAR-7 and then BAR-8 and so on.  So I'm still not seeing where you're going with this.  :-\

Are you complaining about Mechs only having 2 choices, BAR-5 and BAR-10? I agree with you. Other BAR armors should be allowed to be mounted on mechs.

Or are you complaining about the AC/5 not being able to get a penetrating critical hit roll against BAR/5 armor? Even though Autocannons are "superior" to Rifle Cannons? I agree that ACs are more advanced than RCs. Advanced doesn't automatically mean better penetration though. A weapon can be more advanced and still not have better penetration as I've pointed out in the previous post. 

As for my suggestions, if you don't think XTRO:1945 works for you, don't use it. I don't know what you'd use but whatever works for you.  :thumbsup: 

About the complaint of units only have a single BAR and the suggestion of Patchwork armor. That sure seems to be what you were wanting but whatever. Again, whatever works for you.  :thumbsup:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10