BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Administration and Moderation => BattleTech News => Catalyst Asks You! => Topic started by: Adrian Gideon on 24 July 2015, 10:17:56
-
Hello,
Welcome to the Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback.
What are we looking for? Pretty much everything.
- Typos
- Continuity Errors
- Game play feedback
- Rules confusions
- Questions
- Requests
Please note that requests will likely be low on the totem pole for IO final. However on the Campaign side (SBF, ACS and ISAW) we already know we don't have every thing in there (we had to cut Espionage because it is practically it's own sub-game and large in size) we plan to have ISAW supplemental rules in future products. So with that, request away.
Cheers,
Joel BC
Catalyst
-
Page 349, "Major Periphery Powers":
The chart looks a bit confusing and could use some tweaking. There isn't much done to differentiate the total number of factories per Periphery power from the number of factory worlds, and the number of factories per world. And the line at the very bottom of the chart lists just the total for the Taurian Concordat alone.
-
Not errata but a thought. Placing the Wars of Reaving in a Jihad "sub-era" akin to the parallel of the Inner Sphere and Clans for the Succession Wars era would probably make the distinction between the two a bit clearer, especially when it comes to the tech used in such
-
Page 38, "Universal Technology Advancement Table"
Armour (Protomech) is not bolded or in a heading; it's in normal text and looks like it's a part of the Armour (Small Craft and Large Aerospace Craft) section
-
Overall I like what I've glanced over but I am a bit concerned about other things.
1. I'm still a bit confused about what exactly it is Hyper Laser modules actually do but that could just be me not having gotten into a deep enough read on them yet.
2. Shouldn't Compact Engines be okay for LAMs as well since they reduce crits rather than increase?
3. Specialty ammunition still has not been clarified for use on LAMs. I know I've previously suggested altering the rule for specialty ammunitions for use in Aerospace games to be along the lines "yeah you can load them but they largely won't provide their specified bonuses and a couple will do nothing at all" to solve the problem without creating logic holes for why LAMs can't use specialty ammunition.
4. Clarification for certain atmospheric conditions found in TacOps that apply damage to VTOLs and WiGE but not mechs that use jumping MP need to be made for LAMs in Air-mech mode(there may be some other atmospheric conditions that may need to have clarifications on how they apply but that specific one came up in a discussion I had a while back).
5. I am rather concerned that there is still far too much book keeping for the Inner Sphere at War rules even at their simplest levels that my glancing can parse them back to. This will be getting the bulk of my attention for the coming weeks as this has been the most anticipated part of IO for me as I've longed for a better/easier ISiF ever since it came out in Combat Operations.
-
p359 Raiding:
"Raids fall into four broad categories."
5 categories follow.
-
Page 350, first paragraph.
"The Starting Mercenary Cpombat Commands Table provides"
should be...
"The Starting Mercenary Combat Commands Table provides"
-
Page 351, the subtitle
"Suply and RP Deficit"
should be...
"Supply and RP Deficit"
-
Page 350, under the Economics and Logistics Phase...
The first sentence,
"The Economics and Logistics Phase consists of the following steps: Banking Resource Points, Supply, Transportation Pool, and Industry Infrastructure and Production."
Does not match the phases listed on page 345 nor the contents of this phase description.
-
p364 Salvage:
"Any result under 6 means all remaining salvage is still available."
Probably should be:
"Any result under 5 means all remaining salvage is still available."
7+: all destroyed
5-6: 1/2 destroyed
4-: all available
-
p365 Repair:
Current: "A Combat Command may r Other Morale Events and Modifiers, epair up to..."
Replace: "A Combat Command may repair up to..."
p365 Retreat:
Current: "(see Surrender beloq)"
Replace: "(see Surrender below)"
p365 Surrender:
Current: "...they may offer the honors of or they may inter the surrendering force."
Replace: "...they may offer the honors of war or they may inter the surrendering force."
-
Page 355.
"Transport Move: Allows a Combat Command to move oneor more Interstellar Map Hexes."
should be...
"Transport Move: Allows a Combat Command to move one or more Interstellar Map Hexes."
-
Alright, I know this is a long shot, but I think it's the last opportunity because if IO gets finalized, it's kinda set in stone. It maybe be too late already but I'd like to try.
I think that Re-engineered Lasers should be better, because it would make more sense and be more fun.
While I recognize that this is ultimately a game about giant stompy robots and the people who drive them, I'm pretty sure we can agree that there is value in things making sense. I would contend that the Federated Suns, which has been able to produce at least small quantities of full-on Clan technology for the better part of a century, should be able to produce something much more capable than the current R-e Lasers. That's the first thing that doesn't make sense to me. The second is that, if it it was the best that they could come up with, they started mounting such an inferior weapon on so many of their high-end designs. Almost anything with R-e Lasers could use pulse or X-pulse lasers instead and be substantially better against the vast majority of enemies, and I think it strains credibility for the Federated Suns to be treating them like the super-lasers that they are not. Deploying them against the Capellans in particular makes no sense, because the Capellans make almost no use of the kinds of advanced armor that would matter.
I think that tweaking R-e Lasers would also make things more fun. As it stands, their utility is almost wholly dependent on what the opponent brings. If you aren't fighting someone with the right kinds of special armor, they are just very hot lasers with a little more damage or very inaccurate pulse lasers with a little more range. If you are fighting someone with the special armors, you will do more damage than usual. Neither is especially interesting and only the latter involves any particular decision-making on the user's part.
On a more meta level, I think it will be disappointing for Federated Suns players if their units are habitually saddled with R-e Lasers. There's precedent; FWL fans still bemoan the Era Of LGRs On Everything. Making them better would alleviate this problem and make for some neat factional differences between designs without making anything quite so outright lackluster.
If any of that sounds reasonable, I've got a couple ideas on how to buff them.
Option 1: Re-Lasers are made from pulse lasers (-2) and heavy lasers (+1). Add them up and give them a -1. That'd at least make them suffer a little less in comparison to standard lasers. Accuracy bonuses are a big deal and losing them is a large part of why R-e Lasers seem so lackluster.
Option 2: They're good at punching through armor, right? Against special types, it defeats the damage reduction, but maybe against other armor types (except Anti-Ballistic Ablative!) they roll TACs like AP autocannons (with penalties based on laser size). This would make the widespread use of R-e Lasers, even against Capellans, make more sense, since they'd have interesting properties against a much wider range of opponents.
Option 3: Go the opposite direction and make them really good against special armor. Right now, their disadvantages make them poor weapons for their tonnage against normal armors, and only marginally better than most other choices against special armor. So, instead of normal damage against special armor, make them do double damage. Make units with hardened armor fear R-e Lasers. There's precedent, with physical attacks and reflective armor.
Those are my ideas; I'm sure you or others might have more. I entirely understand if it's too late to make changes of this magnitude, but I think that as they stand, R-e Lasers are a cool idea, but with too many disadvantages to be worthwhile. This is probably the last chance to make adjustments.
I really hope this kind of thing is what this thread is for.
-
2. Shouldn't Compact Engines be okay for LAMs as well since they reduce crits rather than increase?
Yes. I confirmed this some time ago.
-
I think that Re-engineered Lasers should be better, because it would make more sense and be more fun.
We can take a second look at it, sure, and your post is perfectly fine.
For everyone else: please no discussion on this or any of the errata or suggestions in this thread, unless engaged by any of the developers. Just post your own feedback.
Thanks!
-
Yes. I confirmed this some time ago.
Okay then there is another errata to try and remember for when we do have an errata thread because the text in the LAM construction section made it sound like LAMs could not mount Compact Engines.
We can take a second look at it, sure, and your post is perfectly fine.
For everyone else: please no discussion on this or any of the errata or suggestions in this thread, unless engaged by any of the developers. Just post your own feedback.
Thanks!
Noted Adrian.
More feedback:
Between what Xotl pointed out above as an errata and all the questions I already have LAMs may need a bit of expansion really because they do have a lot of advanced rules to interact with that were written before the return of the LAM. In fact I dare say it may get to a point with some of this that it could be an idea to split some of this stuff into a third book called Tech Manual Companion. At least food for thought for the next time CGL decides to re-do the core book series.
More feedback as I dig in more later.
[edit]
After sleeping on it and coming back and re-reading what I wrote I really need to clarify what I mean a bit better. With all these new unit types and all the rules that they could interact with that were written before these unit types were created could create a situation where there is enough clarification needed where it might be an idea to consider splitting all the construction rules into yet another book.
[/edit]
-
I am a noon when it comes to the jihad and dark age. The following makes me really confused on the importance
-the Faction discussion of the late dark age makes no mention of the splinter factions. The omission makes it unclear if they mattered.
-I have no idea how common retrotech is in these eras for reading it. LAMs get into some detail about their popularity. So do colossus mechs. I feel in the dark about the retro tech.
-
Still no return of dual cockpit rules (unless it's a tripod) :(
====
Is it too late to reorder things?
The way things are laid out in the Alternate Eras units & equipment seems a bit haphazard you skip back and forth between eras, between prototype and experimental equipment (granted, there's not a huge difference between the two), and between basic equipment, and construction rules for new unit types.
Can things be ordered, for instance to group all of the prototype and experimental equipment together, possibly in order of era (multiple era categories can be slotted in the first applicable era), and also have all of the new unit types grouped together.
It might also make sense to have Advanced Piloting Interfaces, Augmented Warriors and Machina Domini proximal to each other in some way, since things like VDNI and EI have components in multiple categories.
-
Thermobaric weapons are currently a bit weird. The Cannons gain increased damage by using them at no cost while in atmosphere, though I'm not sure if that's intentional or not. More importantly, the rules for infantry annihilation on page 166 are currently broken. Infantry fail their test on a 9 or less according to the text, while BA are said to fail on a result less than 7. For consistency, I'd suggest rephrasing so that both use the same method (ie: a 6 or less instead of less than 7, or less than 10 instead of a 9 or less). Additionally, as you currently subtract the distance from the impact hex from the 2D6 result, this currently makes it so that ALL infantry more than 3 hexes from the impact hex die instantly, or all BA more than 6 hexes away. Making it so you add the distance from the impact hex to the 2D6 result should fix this. Currently, firing a thermobaric weapon would kill all infantry and BA on the planet (and logically all the civilians and other people outside of an armored cockpit) that aren't less than 180m from the target hex, which would soundly place them with the rest of the WMDs just a bit further down in the book.
-
pg 45 (numbered 43)
Primitive K-F Core prototype date 2290, production date 2110. Should the prototype be 2090 instead?
pg 39(37)
Conventional Infantry Armor Kit (CC) listed availability BBBB but has a prototype date of ~3045
Haven't noticed any others but I am only skimming over it. Me likely likely so far.
-
Page 343, left hand column: "...also placed the tiny worlds of Hell’s Paradise and Heraklieone on the red list. Marik could not fathom the logic behind some of those deep strikes; he’d never even heard of Heraklieone before..."
Problem: According to other sources, the system has been named variously Herakleion and Herakleione, but not (so far) Heraklieone - although Herak-lie-one might be a deliberate pun/hint.
Page 17, Star League Era Factions List, Age of War Sub-Era (2300-2570)
I like this table (a lot) but it feels like there are a couple of entries missing. I know there's a caveat that there were other, unlisted powers that are absent because they were militarily insignificant, and some of the early history of the Age is a bit of a chaotic, but would it be possible to alter the faction list slightly? My two suggestions are that the Capellan Hegemony should be included, as the Hegemony appeared in 2270, and was responsible for conquering the Ingersoll Concordium in 2272 and attacking the St Ives Mercantile League in the 2280 before ending up at War with the Sarna Supremacy from 2304-2309/2310. It could be included by amending the Capellan Commonality line to read "Capellan Hegemony/Capellan Commonality : 2270-2366"
The other change I'd suggest is to the Tikonov Grand Union. The original Tikonov Union seems to have been a nation in its own right, as well as (later) some sort of mutual defense organization that included the Chesterton Trade Federation and the Chisholm Protectorate, and was at war with multiple factions at various points, including the Terran Alliance. Can I suggest amending the line to read "Tikonov Union/Tikonov Grand Union: 2177-2366" with a footnote stating that the Tikonov Grand Union includes the Chisholm Protectorate (2265-2335) and Chesteron Trade Federation (2193-2357)? That way, both earlier nations are incorporated from the dates they appear to have come into being up until the conquest of the Chisholm Protectorate by the Terran Hegemony and what looks to be the date the Sarna Supremacy had finished conquering the Chesterton Trade Federation (only to then be attacked by the Federated Suns, targetting former CTF worlds).
Page 17, Star League Era Factions List (2571-2781)
The Illyrian Palatinate is missing from the list - although only two of its worlds appear on the 2571 map in Handbook: House Marik, it appears as a nation in the 2596 map in Historical: Reunification War (p. 158) and the maps in the two Historical: Liberation of Terra Volumes. It doesn't appear to have done much of anything, but as the Oberon Confederation gets a mention, despite apparently consisting of just three worlds before falling apart after twenty years, it seems reasonable to include the Palatinate. On a similar basis, Tortuga Prime appears on the map of 2596 in Historical: Reunification War (p. 159), and the Tortuga Dominions appears full-formed on the map of 2765 in Historical: Liberation of Terra Volume 1 (p.11), so it feels like the Dominions should get a mention too - particularly as it seems to have been a bandit kingdom forever.
Page 22, Early Succession Wars Sub-Era (2781-2900)
Again, the Oberon Confederation appears in its early-three world form, but no Illyrian Palatinate or Tortuga Dominions.
Page 22, Late Succession Wars Sub-Era (2901-3049)
Again, no Tortuga Dominions, although the Greater Valkyrate and the new Oberon Confederation both get a mention - maybe the Tortuga Dominions don't have the right press agents?
I'm also not sure what the criteria are for including the various Deep Periphery nations, but it seems a little odd that the Hanseatic League and the Castilian Principalities/Umayyad Caliphate get mentioned from the Early Succession Wars onwards, but the Chainelane Isles doesn't, given that it's been around presumably as long as the Oberon Confederation, at war with itself for most of that era, and in more recent sourcebooks has started appearing on maps of the Inner Sphere.
-
p71, prototype Double Heat Sinks
(This means that either all of the “critical-free” heat sinks provided by the 'Mech's engine, per the rules found on p. 53 of TechManual, must either be standard heat sinks, or must be fully allocated on the unit's Critical Hit Table to be replaced with prototype double heat sinks.)
-
Pg 66 iATM Launchers
3rd paragraph, first line currently reads: "The iATM may also may use of indirect fire rules"
Replace with: "The iATM may also make use of indirect fire rules" OR "The iATM may also use indirect fire rules".
-
Pg 299
League-class Talwar, ........
but on page 231
The Telwar ....
Suggestion:
Change one of the names to match the other
-
Page 356
"There are 3,500 PV Combat Commands are on a planet"
should probably be
"There are 3, 500 PV Combat Commands are on a planet"
The extra space makes a big difference I think.
-
Page 356
"at least 50 percent that of the raiding Combat Command, of if that world’s hex is within range of a Patrol (see p. 357)."
Should be
"at least 50 percent that of the raiding Combat Command, or if that world’s hex is within range of a Patrol (see p. 357)."
-
The "units and equipment" chapter has a full book's worth of content on a single page-edge tab? Really? And the sub-headings are ordered alphabetically? Not split into chapters for each era, or even just sub-tabs by equipment category? REALLY?
-
Overall I like what I've glanced over but I am a bit concerned about other things.
5. I am rather concerned that there is still far too much book keeping for the Inner Sphere at War rules even at their simplest levels that my glancing can parse them back to. This will be getting the bulk of my attention for the coming weeks as this has been the most anticipated part of IO for me as I've longed for a better/easier ISiF ever since it came out in Combat Operations.
This is as designed. The ISW Campaign rules are not designed for "Beer and Pretzel" play. They are designed for players wishing to run highly detailed campaigns. No amount of simplification will do away with the need for some fairly aggressive "paperwork" requirements. Our goal was to make the system more playable and more comprehensive than the original ISIF rules. The ISIF rules were more a loose template that someone could put a game together with a lot of work. We are hoping ISW will allow a large campaign to be played without the players having to make up a fair chunk of the rules to do so.
So while we are absolutely looking for feedback on the ISW rules, "less paperwork" is not on our list. Players wanting less paperwork are encouraged to just use the War Chest system with the SBF or ACS rules.
Thanks,
Joel BC
ISW Developer
-
Not trying to pre-empt Monbvol's response, but:
Players wanting less paperwork are encouraged to just use the War Chest system with the SBF or ACS rules.
It may be worth including a note to that effect, if IO's intro to ACS/SBF does not already.
-
Not trying to pre-empt Monbvol's response, but:
It may be worth including a note to that effect, if IO's intro to ACS/SBF does not already.
Notes to that effect appear in the SBF and ACS rules
-
Sorry.
"SBF or ACS rules"
What are these rules and where are they found?
-
This is as designed. The ISW Campaign rules are not designed for "Beer and Pretzel" play. They are designed for players wishing to run highly detailed campaigns. No amount of simplification will do away with the need for some fairly aggressive "paperwork" requirements. Our goal was to make the system more playable and more comprehensive than the original ISIF rules. The ISIF rules were more a loose template that someone could put a game together with a lot of work. We are hoping ISW will allow a large campaign to be played without the players having to make up a fair chunk of the rules to do so.
So while we are absolutely looking for feedback on the ISW rules, "less paperwork" is not on our list. Players wanting less paperwork are encouraged to just use the War Chest system with the SBF or ACS rules.
Thanks,
Joel BC
ISW Developer
I am hoping to delve into this particular ruleset much deeper as it is the one that interests me the most. It just concerns me that with my initial looks into it so far that it will not be playable without significant computerized aid. That said though I feel I need to repeat that I do need to look at it deeper before I can make any finalized recommendations.
-
Sorry.
"SBF or ACS rules"
What are these rules and where are they found?
Strategic BattleForce- One game piece equals one company of units, one hex is 500 meters, one turn is 3 minutes
Abstract Combat System- One game piece equals one battalion of units, one hex is 750km, one turn is 3.5 days.
Both are new combat systems in IO.
-
I am hoping to delve into this particular ruleset much deeper as it is the one that interests me the most. It just concerns me that with my initial looks into it so far that it will not be playable without significant computerized aid. That said though I feel I need to repeat that I do need to look at it deeper before I can make any finalized recommendations.
We are in the process of designing an automated "Orders Spreadsheet" that will plan to offer for free download. It should aid heavily with the tracking of a players forces.
Absolutely would love to hear what game aids you think will be required. That is certainly in the scope of what we are looking at.
-
For the Inner Sphere at War, I didn't see any values for what would consist as a garrison force.
I'm unsure if that was a oversight or if intended as such; considering how we have descriptions in the Objectives products a while back.
-
Viral Jammers seem insanely overpowered at the moment. 17 hex radius, and opponent's electronics (of the appropriate type) are shut down permanently if they fail a 9+ check if they're inside that range. In particular, the permanent jamming and high target number make it so that generally the "burning out" of the viral jammer is a positive, instead of the negative presented in the fluff blurb. All you need to do is strap one of these sub-300 BV monsters on a small fusion hovercraft, shove it at the enemy, and all of their electronics (probably costing far more than this disposable hovercraft) are going to be down for the entire game. I would strongly suggest reducing the check target number by a few points and allowing the pilots of the effected mechs to try and clear their electronics in the same way one would unjam a RAC (Having to be limited to walking speed and unable to shoot would prevent it being used easily mid-combat, but would give some options against an early viral rush). Otherwise, this thing has rendered C3 even more impossible to use and overpriced than it is already.
Also, the rules do not clarify if the check is made on first exposure, or for every turn inside the radius and in LoS. They also do not clarify when in the turn the check is made, which makes it difficult to figure out when the LoS determination is made. (Is it after the unit with the VJ's move? At the end of movement? The End Phase of the turn?)
-
We are in the process of designing an automated "Orders Spreadsheet" that will plan to offer for free download. It should aid heavily with the tracking of a players forces.
Absolutely would love to hear what game aids you think will be required. That is certainly in the scope of what we are looking at.
I've created such spreadsheets for the Fan Councils that used to run on these boards in the past so I'll be more than happy to take a look at what you put together and give feed back on that and might create my own anyway once I get the rules a bit more digested. I'm nutzoid like that and just insane enough to offer my help in getting something like that created in the first place.
Some initial thoughts on force creation and economics since I'm reading those sections at the moment. If there are limitations on how many new formations you can create in a turn I'm not finding anything besides RP costs. Since this is going to be complex I might suggest expanding on limiting to number of factories and on top of that perhaps making base costs a bit higher so that it would not be so easy for a faction to suddenly produce a bunch of new units. I'll need to do some math to see how much the current setup could be exploited. Likewise I might suggest it using Factory output to upgrade a world with it taking 4 Factories to create a new Factory(1 to be explicit) and perhaps making it a bit clearer in the wording if the RP output for being a Regional Capital stacks with the RP output of being a Minor Industrial World and thus if that makes say New Sytris(if I am extrapolating correctly a Regional Capital that is also a Major Industrial World) more valuable to have than St. Ives(A Reginal Capital that is only a Minor Industrial World).
-
Factories are limited in the amount of RP they can generate in a single turn. And you have to decide between military equipment, supplies and repair parts when you do manufacture.
-
Interstellar Operations covers less than half of the different types of R.I.S.C. equipment WizKids put out. Is Catalyst planning on making BattleTech stats for all of them or just the ones we've seen in IO? It makes sense to me that you guys might not want to invent twenty new pieces of bizarre, rare and/or overpowered equipment that would probably see little use by players. At the same time, I can see Catalyst wanting to flesh out all that R.I.S.C. equipment for the same reason you guys have fleshed out almost all the other old Dark Age stuff. For that matter, is IO even meant to be the definitive guide to R.I.S.C. equipment? Some official clarification would be nice. Thanks!
List of all the R.I.S.C. cards WizKids released:
http://www.warrenborn.com/Search.php?ID=r.i.s.c.
-
Several things come up with my first read through of the book. (Still going through SBF and Inner Sphere in Flames/At War): For one, the tables for the Alternate Era Weapons and Equipment are smack dab in the middle of the book, contrary to how CGL has previously established such material. Not a huge deal breaker, but very awkward. Secondly, as part of the AEW&E, the book has the WoB Super Jump, but not the Interconnectedness Unlimited Super Jump. Oversight, or is the IU Drive merely a one off deal that won't be covered? Even so, I'd prefer to have the IU drive as an option outside of an ISP book.
Next: LAMs. Holy bejeezus, figure out what you want to do. I can understand not giving AirMechs obscene TMMs, and I applaud it. But you're going too far the other way with these nerfs. I'd prefer the base mod be +2, with the AOO modifier added on to that, to make the whole thing competitive but not insanely overmatched. Next is the TH mods that you get in AirMech mode. +3 for Cruise and +4 for flank are, IMO, far too much. +2/+3 would be fine if you wanted to make it difficult for 4/5 pilots to actually hit anything, but good friggin luck with a +4 TH as a regular pilot before movement mods. +1/+2 is probably on the kinder end, but might be a little too nice to LAMs.
RISC Gear: Wot. Most of it is either okay (The ECS and the Super Cooled Myomer), is bad (Hyper Lasers, Laser Pulse Modules), with the Repeating TSEMP being an atrociously bad outlier, APDS being a solid piece, and the Viral Jammer. More on that one by its lonesome. But overall, these feel like designs that left the drawing board too early. Nothing over the top, just merely meh.
Viral Jammer: Holy shit guys come on. The VJ may actually be the most broken piece of gear I've actually ever used. It almost makes LAMs in their prime see slightly balanced. Yes you have to choose what type of Jamming you're putting out, but for 19 points more than a Clan LPL, I can slaughter electronics. The 17 hex radius is nothing to sneeze at either. The weight of 2.5 tons means I can take old C3i mechs, or even GECM mechs with a spare medium laser. And 12 heat is literally nothing. I'd also recommend a PSR to reactivate the affected equipment, otherwise I could just make a pair of 600 BV 12/18 hovers to scoot in and jam the living hell out of c3 and stealth systems for an entire game for less than the price of a modern heavy mech.
-
pg 110. first paragraph of "bombs and bomb bays"
Line is "LAMS may not may not carry"
Should read "LAMS may not carry"
-
Page 361.
"All battles can be resolved either using the Advanced Combat System or one of the detailed combat systems (TW, AS, BF, or SBF)."
Did you mean...
"All battles can be resolved either using the Abstract Combat System or one of the detailed combat systems (TW, AS, BF, or SBF)."
-
Page 362
"If the factor suffered 11 percent–25 percent damage, its output is reduced to 1 RP for the next 2 Game Turns. "
Did you mean..
"If the factory suffered 11 percent–25 percent damage, its output is reduced to 1 RP for the next 2 Game Turns. "
-
Supercooled Myomer needs to be more super
ECS may not do enough to be used over RHS
Viral Jammer utterly broken, nerf now or we riot
-
Holy shit guys come on.
While we appreciate all feedback, delivery of feedback will go a long way to how much we give credence to any particular feedback. As the saying goes, you'll get more flies with honey than vinegar.
Thank you,
Joel BC
Catalyst
-
Page 365, missing space between sentences.
"Combat Units at the Abstract Combat System level.If converting Fatigue to the ACS level,"
Should be
"Combat Units at the Abstract Combat System level. If converting Fatigue to the ACS level,"
-
While we appreciate all feedback, delivery of feedback will go a long way to how much we give credence to any particular feedback. As the saying goes, you'll get more flies with honey than vinegar.
Thank you,
Joel BC
Catalyst
Alright, "Holy cow." The rules are so broken I'm literally stunned.
-
Page 365. A clarification I think. (I've corrected the copy error that was already pointed on on the first page of comments by another user.)
"A Combat Command may repair up to 10 percent its total Armor value each Turn, without impacting the Command’s experience rating. See Experience (see p. 367) for the effect of repairs over 25 percent on the experience rating of the force."
Should this be...
"A Combat Command may repair up to 25 percent its total Armor value each Turn, without impacting the Command’s experience rating. See Experience (see p. 367) for the effect of repairs over 25 percent on the experience rating of the force."
So 25% right?
-
Another clarification I think.
Page 365 talks about Surrender. A unit may be forced to surrender if facing overwhelming force.
Also, on page 367 in the FORCE EXPERIENCE TABLE, it lists a surrender level for each experience.
From my reading are there two ways a unit may be forced to surrender? Overwhelming opposition and unit damage? If so, it may be more clear to list both ways in the Surrender section on page 365.
-
Land-Air BattleMechs, p. 105
Problem: Under the Extinct date, the current text gives 2901 as the extinction date for Bimodal 'Mechs in the Inner Sphere, and 2801 as the extinction date for the same item in the Clans. The problem is that, currently, the only Bimodal LAM project was cancelled in 2688.
Suggested fix: Change both these dates to 2688.
Bimodal LAMs, p. 106
Problem: Tech Base (Ratings) gives a value of E/EEFX. As noted above, in the IO text, and on TR3085 p. 290, only one Bimodal LAM was created. TR3085 also clarifies that only 23 of two different variants of that 'Mech were produced, and that most of the twenty SHD-X2s were just demonstrators. The project was scrapped in 2688, so the only production Bimodal LAM model was theoretically available but very uncommon for a short period in the Star League era, but should be extremely rare afterwards, and seems to be completely gone by the Clan Invasion.
Suggested fix: Change Rating to E/EFXX.
-
Factories are limited in the amount of RP they can generate in a single turn. And you have to decide between military equipment, supplies and repair parts when you do manufacture.
Okay I'm finding more stuff that I was being a bit blind as a bat about not seeing for what constitutes a Minor, Major, and Hyper Industrialized World so that's good.
I would still suggest some clearer language that the modifiers are supposed to stack for Industrial level(Minor/Major/Hyper) and Capital type(Regional/National) as I could only really make that out due to an example text entry for Tharkad on page 348.
Though I'll admit I'm still having trouble finding where it talks about what can and can't be done with Factories themselves. I'm prepared to accept that I'm just skimming a little too much trying to find something specific in a sea of text but that there isn't a clear bolded bullet point/text entry on Factories in the Inner Sphere at War section to grab someone's attention to explain their uses and limitations does make me think either that something didn't get bolded that should have to draw attention or some text didn't get into the beta PDF.
-
Strategic battleforce contains no rules for zellbrigen. I think it should, and here is some ideas.
1) If two formations fight ritually, Units are paired off and attack and damage rolls are made against that pair.
2) If one formation is following zellbrigen, and one is not. The zellbrigen formation has a bonus to their attacking apply damage tactics check, the other formation has a bonus to their attacking apply damage tactics check.
3) If both follow zellbrigen, and one side declares they are breaking it this turn, the cheater resolves a small advantage, but the other formation should be able to break zell also (because turns are 3 minutes).
-
I had a question/comment/note about the ProtoMech listing for the post-Reaving Clans on page 30:
ProtoMechs, tainted by their widespread use during the Wars of Reaving, all but vanished among the Homeworld Clans by the end of the thirty-first century.
This seems somewhat at odds with the material presented in WoR, the Supplemental, and ISP3. The former two indicate that at least two of the Society ProtoMech models were being considered, or even partially adopted, by 3090 among three of the four surviving Homeworld Clans - the Coyotes being an exception, due to a self-imposed ban on the technology (stemming from their entanglement with the Society during the rebellion). While the Imperio seems to have retained the use of ProtoMechs, at least as a means of impressing the Scorpions' presence upon their Castilian and Umayyad civilians.
Or is this reference in IO a hint at that may have been going on out there post-3090?
(From a game perspective, it would be unfortunate if the number of ProtoMech-operating factions was cut down even further. They may not be the most popular of unit type, but they still provide "something different" for those factions which maintain their use.)
-----
Also, would it be possible to include a sample Interstellar Map for use with The Inner Sphere In Flames At War - perhaps of the Inner Sphere c. 3025 - or is that the kind of item that would have to wait for any era-specific expansions to be offered at a later point in time?
And would it be possible to add the Marian Hegemony as a sample 3025 Periphery force in TIFIFAW, alongside the Canopians, Outworlders, and Taurians? (Perhaps a training scenario of sorts could allow for a clash between the MAF and MHAF in the space between the two Periphery powers, though I'm not sure how well the current IO material might account for the Marian Legions' unique force organization structure.)
-
For Inner Sphere at War, the more I dig into it the more I am starting to remember more and more of my conclusions about the Fan Councils that we've tried running on these forums in the past and honestly that is not a good thing.
Like for instance I actually did kind of block out the memories of how it became my responsibility to update ownership changes for planets, also double checking valid deployment of units, and how my skills with spreadsheets just did not present a very easy way to push said changes without having to be e-mailed everyone's sheet every week and sending back out an updated version. And how it was such a major time hog to even deal with all those units and planets, even for the individual players, and that was after I put in some major effort to automate as much as I could.
I know my capabilities with spreadsheets are not absolute but I do know enough to pull off some decent tricks for automation and to say without some easy way to push information to the player's spreadsheets by the GM and in return collect updated information from said spreadsheets, GM burnout is going to be a huge factor too.
And that makes a part of me want to say if it is that complex that each player has to have some capability with a spreadsheet program and a laptop/computer then maybe too much is being asked. Which was my final conclusion about the Fan Councils but re-wording it for Inner Sphere at War because I think I may already be at that point: That something of the scale of Inner Sphere at War may not be possible to do without getting Microsoft on board to get a sufficient level of detail for people to enjoy but still have it play fast enough to not have people burn out or get bogged down.
-
Page 356
"There are 3,500 PV Combat Commands are on a planet"
should probably be
"There are 3, 500 PV Combat Commands are on a planet"
The extra space makes a big difference I think.
Perhaps it should read:
"There are three 500 PV Combat Commands are on a planet."
I don't think the second "are" is grammatically correct.
-
empty
-
@Joe
You might want to break that text block up so that is easier for people to read and follow. ;)
-
Page 365. A clarification I think. (I've corrected the copy error that was already pointed on on the first page of comments by another user.)
"A Combat Command may repair up to 10 percent its total Armor value each Turn, without impacting the Command’s experience rating. See Experience (see p. 367) for the effect of repairs over 25 percent on the experience rating of the force."
Should this be...
"A Combat Command may repair up to 25 percent its total Armor value each Turn, without impacting the Command’s experience rating. See Experience (see p. 367) for the effect of repairs over 25 percent on the experience rating of the force."
So 25% right?
10%- You can't repair a lot without impacting experience.
Perhaps it should read:
"There are three 500 PV Combat Commands are on a planet."
I don't think the second "are" is grammatically correct.
Correct
Another clarification I think.
Page 365 talks about Surrender. A unit may be forced to surrender if facing overwhelming force.
Also, on page 367 in the FORCE EXPERIENCE TABLE, it lists a surrender level for each experience.
From my reading are there two ways a unit may be forced to surrender? Overwhelming opposition and unit damage? If so, it may be more clear to list both ways in the Surrender section on page 365.
Yes, thanks I'll look at a clarification.
-
Land-Air BattleMechs, p. 105
Problem: Under the Extinct date, the current text gives 2901 as the extinction date for Bimodal 'Mechs in the Inner Sphere, and 2801 as the extinction date for the same item in the Clans. The problem is that, currently, the only Bimodal LAM project was cancelled in 2688.
Suggested fix: Change both these dates to 2688.
Bimodal LAMs, p. 106
Problem: Tech Base (Ratings) gives a value of E/EEFX. As noted above, in the IO text, and on TR3085 p. 290, only one Bimodal LAM was created. TR3085 also clarifies that only 23 of two different variants of that 'Mech were produced, and that most of the twenty SHD-X2s were just demonstrators. The project was scrapped in 2688, so the only production Bimodal LAM model was theoretically available but very uncommon for a short period in the Star League era, but should be extremely rare afterwards, and seems to be completely gone by the Clan Invasion.
Suggested fix: Change Rating to E/EFXX.
These are game rules for when things could happen. They are not directly tracked to when things did happen in history. While the only canon BiModel Mech program was cancelled in 2688, the ability to make them still existed. This allows players playing in their own alternate timelines to make their own customs while still being in the technology windows of the main timeline.
-
Strategic battleforce contains no rules for zellbrigen. I think it should, and here is some ideas.
1) If two formations fight ritually, Units are paired off and attack and damage rolls are made against that pair.
2) If one formation is following zellbrigen, and one is not. The zellbrigen formation has a bonus to their attacking apply damage tactics check, the other formation has a bonus to their attacking apply damage tactics check.
3) If both follow zellbrigen, and one side declares they are breaking it this turn, the cheater resolves a small advantage, but the other formation should be able to break zell also (because turns are 3 minutes).
Zellbrigen is a campaign level rule. Strategic BattleForce is primarily a combat system. Rules for Zellbrigen in SBF and ACS level warfare will likely be in a future ISW expansion to cover the play of the Clans. Until then, whatever rules work for your game table apply.
-
-----
Also, would it be possible to include a sample Interstellar Map for use with The Inner Sphere In Flames At War - perhaps of the Inner Sphere c. 3025 - or is that the kind of item that would have to wait for any era-specific expansions to be offered at a later point in time?
It is our plan to offer a downloadable map of the Inner Sphere for 3025 game play with the print release of IO. Future maps are being explored for other eras. How these would be provided will be determined in the future.
And would it be possible to add the Marian Hegemony as a sample 3025 Periphery force in TIFIFAW, alongside the Canopians, Outworlders, and Taurians? (Perhaps a training scenario of sorts could allow for a clash between the MAF and MHAF in the space between the two Periphery powers, though I'm not sure how well the current IO material might account for the Marian Legions' unique force organization structure.)
The Marian Hegemony was still considered a pirate faction as of 3025. As such it is not a standard playable faction in the rules. You are of course welcome to create any factions you wish for your game, provided all players agree.
-
For Inner Sphere at War, the more I dig into it the more I am starting to remember more and more of my conclusions about the Fan Councils that we've tried running on these forums in the past and honestly that is not a good thing.
I have many memories, both fond and frightening, from the Fan Council games. I was one of the people do create a lot of the order sheet automation and keeping track of troop deployments was indeed a huge job.
While we are looking at things to improve this, the fact is ISW scale games are huge undertakings. Adding in the complexity of "Play by Mail" or "Play by Forums" adds to this. We will do what we can. At the end of the day ISW will be only for a small percentage of our die hard detail oriented fans due to the complexity of the rules.
What Catalyst is doing is trying to offer combat and campaign systems at various levels of detail, to allow players to choose their level of detail.
Thanks,
Joel BC
-
It is our plan to offer a downloadable map of the Inner Sphere for 3025 game play with the print release of IO. Future maps are being explored for other eras. How these would be provided will be determined in the future.
Duly noted, thank you.
(I dream of one day seeing a full-sized map including the material from the four Deep Periphery sectors shown in ISP3, with rules showing how to expand one's efforts across the Human Sphere - and how to get around troubling astronomical features like nebulae and whatnot. But I probably shouldn't get my hopes up...)
The Marian Hegemony was still considered a pirate faction as of 3025. As such it is not a standard playable faction in the rules. You are of course welcome to create any factions you wish for your game, provided all players agree.
I see, thanks again.
To clarify, is there a particular era in which the Marians would become "playable" in this sense?
-----
Also, speaking of the Periphery, the note about the DP factions not being available in the Civil War era on page 26 refers to the Clan Invasion era instead.
But on a broader note, it seems odd that the likes of the Hansa and Nueva Castile are considered isolated from the Inner Sphere and near Periphery in all six eras.
Would there not have been at least some limited trade and/or conflict between these powers and their Spheroid and Clan counterparts betwen the late 3050s and the late 3070s?
(There are notes of three Hansa worlds being opened for outside trade, of Blakist machinations in Hansa space, of the RDF being bloodied by Ice Hellion and Diamond Shark, and of long-range Hanseatic connections stretching as far as JàrnFòlk space and the Chainelane Isles.)
Also, while the Hansa and Umayyads appear to be Succession Wars-era entities, I am led to believe that the Castilian Principalities existed in Nueva Castile during the Star League era.
Would it be worth adding the Castilians to the list on page 18, with an asterisk to denote their Deep Periphery status; or were they not notable as a military power at that time, due to their lack of BattleMechs (which were first brought to Nueva Castile by the later Umayyads)?
-
WMD USE CONSEQUENCES TABLE chart has a errata. (pg 168 of the book, 170 according to my pdf viewer)
The ranges go from MoS 1+,MoS 0, MoF 1-3, MoF 4-7, MoS 8-9, MoS 10+
Those last two values should read MoF instead of MoS.
-
Looking over the old MWDA rules for the Viral Jammers on Warrenborn, it seems there it was only effective in stopping electronics for the turns it was active. Simply having that instead of the permanent electronic shutdown would work quite well for bringing it back in line without needing other alternations, and actually allows counter-play by the opponent.
What happens if a unit has a mix of Retro-Streak (page 132) and normal Streak SRM ammo in it's bins? Does it need to declare which one is in use at the start of the weapon phase, or is it assumed to have Retro-Streaks loaded if it doesn't attempt to fire normal Streaks? Or are you unable to mix these ammo types even with multiple bins?
If creating a wheeled Quadvee, does it use it's higher vehicle mode MP to determine OBV and DBV modifiers, or just the base mech mode speed given how limiting wheeled movement is?
Is the lack of non-enhanced Cybernetic Tail rules intentional (ie: they have no notable impact outside of AToW scale games), or an oversight?
-
Fuel Air Munitions (p167-168)
In addition to this, all infantry units must also roll 2D6 and subtract their distance from the FAM’s point of impact (in hexes) from the result. If this modified roll is 9 or less for a conventional infantry unit, or is less than 7 for a battle armor unit, the remaining troops in the unit are also destroyed.
I suggest that this is backwards (the units closer to the FAM's impact hex are in more danger, not less). Should it be:
In addition to this, all infantry units must also roll 2D6 and ADD their distance from the FAM’s point of impact (in hexes) from the result. If this modified roll is 9 or less for a conventional infantry unit, or is less than 7 for a battle armor unit, the remaining troops in the unit are also destroyed.
Example: Conventional Infantry Unit A is 3 hexes away from a FAM impact hex: The dice comes up 2+2 (+3 hexes away)=7, and the remaining troops in the unit are destroyed. Battle Armor Unit B is also 3 hexes away from the same FAM Impact hex and rolls 3+2 (+3 hexes away)=8 and is not destroyed due to being battle armor (although it does take normal damage otherwise)
-
Zellbrigen is a campaign level rule. Strategic BattleForce is primarily a combat system. Rules for Zellbrigen in SBF and ACS level warfare will likely be in a future ISW expansion to cover the play of the Clans. Until then, whatever rules work for your game table apply.
Does that mean no clan scenarios will be accepted for the final product scenario submissions?
-
Does that mean no clan scenarios will be accepted for the final product scenario submissions?
You may submit Clan scenarios.
-
You may submit Clan scenarios.
I'm sorry for bugging about rules on this...but if I go with one of my clan ideas, I want to do a good job. In the special rules section can I make an oblique reference to zellbrigen? Would that be adequate?
-
Page 306 states the following:
"A single ACS turn lasts approximately 3.5 days (84 hours), with eight turns taking 1 month or 1 Inner Sphere at War Turn."
And then on page 317 it states:
"At the end of an ISW Game Turn (4 ACS Combat Turns) "
I'm guessing the correct 8 is the correct value.
-
I noticed that the force creation and solar system generation rules that were tested on the forums a few years ago aren't in the book. Did they get cut completely?
-
Those I believe were split into a second campaign book. Don't remember where the post is about it... but it is somewhere.
-
To clarify, is there a particular era in which the Marians would become "playable" in this sense?
If memory serves me, they are playable faction in 3039 and later.
But on a broader note, it seems odd that the likes of the Hansa and Nueva Castile are considered isolated from the Inner Sphere and near Periphery in all six eras.
For the purposes of the core rules, they are a minor blip in the power games of the Successor States. Even all banded together, the Deep Periphery states are barely a match for some Periphery powers.
That is not to say future ISW supplements might not cover the use of these factions. Just not in the core ISW rules.
-
Page 306 states the following:
"A single ACS turn lasts approximately 3.5 days (84 hours), with eight turns taking 1 month or 1 Inner Sphere at War Turn."
And then on page 317 it states:
"At the end of an ISW Game Turn (4 ACS Combat Turns) "
I'm guessing the correct 8 is the correct value.
Correct, the original ACS turn was 1 week in duration.
-
Thank you for the further clarifications. (Or should I say, Diolch yn fawr iawn!)
One last question for the time being: might it be worth considering adding a note referring to "official", yet non-canonical setting options (such as that shown in the Empires Aflame PDF) as examples of alternate settings which the players would be free to make an attempt of modelling in ISW? Or is it better that any non-generic references and/or scenarios in IO be based solely on the "Prime" timeline, with the likes of EA best left to those who come across that file of their own accord?
-
Page 130
Table: Primitive Kearny-Fuchida Drive Forumula
On Primitive JumpShip rules, I highly urge setting a minimum jump distance. As the rules currently stand at 5% of ship mass + 2%/LY, it reopens the backdoor to allowing "Monitors" back into the game, simply by choosing to limit your jump distance to 1-5 light years (and, thus, 6-20% of vessel mass taken up by the KF core). Once primitive JumpShips start getting to a million tons of mass for their limit, it allows for some truly unbalanced concoctions.
-
Interstellar Operations covers less than half of the different types of R.I.S.C. equipment WizKids put out. Is Catalyst planning on making BattleTech stats for all of them or just the ones we've seen in IO? It makes sense to me that you guys might not want to invent twenty new pieces of bizarre, rare and/or overpowered equipment that would probably see little use by players. At the same time, I can see Catalyst wanting to flesh out all that R.I.S.C. equipment for the same reason you guys have fleshed out almost all the other old Dark Age stuff. For that matter, is IO even meant to be the definitive guide to R.I.S.C. equipment? Some official clarification would be nice. Thanks!
List of all the R.I.S.C. cards WizKids released:
http://www.warrenborn.com/Search.php?ID=r.i.s.c.
Yes, the IO RISC items are the definitive list of what will be seen in BattleTech stats. Some items just weren't deemed feasible, at least in the scope of BT rules, some were deemed redundant. Fun fact: the list of adapted items was originally much shorter.
As for the trepidations towards game balance - there are three balancing factors that RISC worked with, and none of them are comparable to conventional equipment balancing factors. They are a) intrinsic failure, as represented by the rules. There are a few parallels in TO to this; b) space and time, being available to only one faction for roughly a single decade. This can be compared to iATMs, which are vastly superior without drawbacks and limited only by faction and time; c) a few meta-game notions which obviously are outside of all other considerations. In short - the effect of viral jammers are rather deliberate...
-
Dev-level correction, Universal Technology Advancement Table
page 38: Rifle (Cannon) – In the Notes column, change “Ext: ~2825” to “Ext: ~2865”
page 48: Actuator Enhancement System – Change Intro column from “3109 (LC/CJF)” to “3108 (RD)”. Add to the Notes column for this item: “IS Intro: 3109 (CC)”
-
P. 105 states "...Though some Clans (notably the Jade Falcons) experimented with a dual-cockpit version for their own forces..."
Just how does one have a dual-cockpit LAM? The first thought would be to use a Command Console, although there are no slots available in the head. A small cockpit could be used, but they weren't invented by the time we saw canonical examples of dual-cockpits in Freebirth, set in 3059. The small cockpit was prototyped in 3060, and available to the Clans in 30380, (p. 39 on the Universal Technology Advancement Table)).
Perhaps there is a LAM dual-cockpit similar to what QuadVee have... O0
-
I am trying to play with the Primitive aerospace (JS/DS/SC) construction rules and the tables are a bit of a mess. Please abstract them to have only 1 row for each century.
-
Just how does one have a dual-cockpit LAM?
Maybe if we actually had dual cockpit rules
-
Still no return of dual cockpit rules (unless it's a tripod) :(
====
Is it too late to reorder things?
The way things are laid out in the Alternate Eras units & equipment seems a bit haphazard you skip back and forth between eras, between prototype and experimental equipment (granted, there's not a huge difference between the two), and between basic equipment, and construction rules for new unit types.
-snip-
I agree that this area needs a reorder but would suggest by era then by prototype, basic then experimental.
Also could you please add one or two extra columns to the Universal Technology Advancement Tables, Book and page for rules and construction, with now five books to look through things can get a little confusing (unless you are planning to have a master table of equipment and their rules locations)
I also second the revisit to LAM Airmech to hit modifiers maybe to +2,+3 since the average pilot is at 8+ to hit while cruising before any target or range modifiers are applied.
-edited by me because i apparently can not read... -
-
page30
"The Escorpión Imperio, in an effort to upgrade its native manufacturing to Clan standards, has been flooded with lower-quality samples of Clan equipment (see Early Clan
Improved Equipment and Early Clan Prototype Systems"
--
The "UNIVERSAL TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT TABLE" doesn't acknowagle that. All those systems remain extinct on them. They will need a 'Ret: 3080 (EI)'.
page 43
On page 43 the Prototype dates between Compact K-F Core and Primitive K-F Core are switched.
page 72
"a series of breakthroughs in both materials design and power transfer brought the concept of the Gauss rifle to reality."
Sentence is a bit ambigious, suggested change:
"a series of breakthroughs in coil-gun technology brought the concept of the Gauss rifle to reality."
page: 73 & 46
ROCKET LAUNCHERS (RL-P)
Introduced: circa 2250 (Various states)
&
See also the conflict with normal RLs (on page 46).
My suggestion:
RL-P Introduced: Pre-Spaceflight (like rifle cannons)
RL Introduced: 3064 (MH)
-
I withdraw my feedback.
-
p. 229, short story "Falling into Fire"
The Latin motto ad respiratio ultimas is incorrect. There are two instances of it on the page. It should read ad respirationem ultimam. Ad takes the accusative, not the nominative. The case, number, and gender of the adjective ultima should agree with the noun.
-
page 110
"In BattleMech mode, a LAM becomes unable to execute bombing missions. Thus, in
this mode, the LAM may only use TAG and rocket launcher weapons stored in its bomb bays,"
LAM still use fuel for jumping, suggestion:
"In BattleMech mode, a LAM becomes unable to execute bombing missions. Thus, in
this mode, the LAM may not use bombs, only equipment and missiles stored in its bomb bays,"
page 111
Please add required bomb-bay tonnage/slots to the "LAM BOMB BAY ORDNANCE TABLE".
Also for the RL ordnance, please remove "for air-to-air or air-to-ground use" text.
page 350
Cpombat -> Combat
-
I have many memories, both fond and frightening, from the Fan Council games. I was one of the people do create a lot of the order sheet automation and keeping track of troop deployments was indeed a huge job.
While we are looking at things to improve this, the fact is ISW scale games are huge undertakings. Adding in the complexity of "Play by Mail" or "Play by Forums" adds to this. We will do what we can. At the end of the day ISW will be only for a small percentage of our die hard detail oriented fans due to the complexity of the rules.
What Catalyst is doing is trying to offer combat and campaign systems at various levels of detail, to allow players to choose their level of detail.
Thanks,
Joel BC
Seems I need to further clarify.
I have been part of multiple Fan Councils and been the one to demand what turned out to be too much detail and tracking and been the one to automate the spreadsheet for that Fan Council(more than once). So I consider myself one of the more detail oriented fans that Inner Sphere at War should be for and with my recovered memories of the Fan Councils, some of which actually required less tracking that what the Inner Sphere at War demands, I am saying this is too much detail and tracking to be workable at current. Whether that is playing in person, play by post, or play by e-mail.
In other words if it requires more complexity and tracking than I know what I can deal with before burning out then I can't help but be really worried that it is just going to be another interesting rule set that cannot be executed in a reasonable manner without getting a computer game developer on board. Because despite my seeming negativity I do consider these rules to be a vast improvement over Inner Sphere in Flames and some of the Fan Councils we've had on these boards, it is just that with my experiences and best judgment burnout and tedious book keeping are too high for me to think it will be a success but I am prepared to be proven wrong.
-
Seems I need to further clarify.
No, I got it, thanks. I remember the Fan Councils very well. We had several FGC veterans involved in the game design process just for that reason.
I am saying this is too much detail and tracking to be workable at current. Whether that is playing in person, play by post, or play by e-mail.
Without more detail, there isn't much I can do. We are trying to balance the repeated requests for more detail, with the ability to be playable. We're still considering a re-release of the old SW BOx Game, which takes everything to a highly abstracted state and may satisfy players not wanting a lot of detail.
So if you have specific feedback on how to simplify record keeping, without losing game detail, I'm all ears. Feel free to contact me direct at welshman.bc@gmail.com. (Note: People who choose to use my email to spam me with random ideas will be quickly blocked).
Best,
Joel BC
ISAW Developer
-
No, I got it, thanks. I remember the Fan Councils very well. We had several FGC veterans involved in the game design process just for that reason.
Without more detail, there isn't much I can do. We are trying to balance the repeated requests for more detail, with the ability to be playable. We're still considering a re-release of the old SW BOx Game, which takes everything to a highly abstracted state and may satisfy players not wanting a lot of detail.
So if you have specific feedback on how to simplify record keeping, without losing game detail, I'm all ears. Feel free to contact me direct at welshman.bc@gmail.com. (Note: People who choose to use my email to spam me with random ideas will be quickly blocked).
Best,
Joel BC
ISAW Developer
I'll admit that is the 900lb Gorilla in the room for this level of play I haven't ever sufficiently figured out(how to balance sufficient detail to make it fun/interesting for nutbars like me while keeping it simple/fast enough to play). But I'll shoot over some of the potential ideas I've had that may help.
-
In the same way that SBF and ACS are meant to "stage up" to ISAW, perhaps ISAW would benefit from being split into two levels of "staging." Perhaps a single factory world and its surrounding client worlds, with SW Box replacing the top level of staging.
Notes to that effect appear in the SBF and ACS rules
Page ref for those Warchest mentions? Or are you referring to an improved, post-Beta version of the document.
Also, I notice that a bunch of equipment all starts with the word "cybernetic." Don't do that--somebody looking for "myomer implants" will expect to find it indexed under "m," not "c."
-
For the Inner Sphere at War, I didn't see any values for what would consist as a garrison force.
I'm unsure if that was a oversight or if intended as such; considering how we have descriptions in the Objectives products a while back.
Well, the values from the objectives serious are easily converted. Battlemech forces are almost non-existent, the number of local garrison mechs is so small, that it's basically irrelevant; you're better off representing them with a battlemech regiment that is in charge of responding to worlds one or two jumps away, like a "march militia" force. ASFs are similar, though I'm not sure how conventional fighters are registered at ISAW scale; in the objectives series they are almost interchangeable with armor units, so maybe count them as such. Conventional forces are simpler, with most maintain 1:2 or 1:3 ratio between armor and infantry; I'd say one armor regiment per factory on world, is that too much or too little? and of course capitals should have at least a battlemech regiment (probably a lot more). If your nation is wealthy and you don't mind the drain, I'd put one battlemech regiment for every political and industrial rank (so Star league era terra, gets five combat commands.
Absolutely would love to hear what game aids you think will be required. That is certainly in the scope of what we are looking at.
First the long shot: and editable virtual map of the IS. I consider it vital as a GM aid, with the option to remove/add worlds (speaking of which, what are the rules for colonizing new worlds? If I understand the World Values table, it might cost something like 48 RP; sounds reasonable for establishing a dust ball colony.). Especially important to give the GM the capability to change national borders.
Another, would be a GDP budget management aid, that will follow the economics and logistics phase. Maybe with the option to create a multi-year budget, i.e. assign percentage of the RP budget to certain tasks, and see what you can buy with it, sort of like the system for landhold management from ATOW, with each turn you simply click what you buy (and than put it on the map), and than press "next turn" when everything is said and done, and see the new budget.
-
Welshman,
I don’t know if you gents were strictly looking for rules recommendations as the best I can give are a few grammar, usage and style bullets. I hope I’m not wasting your time.
Pg 10, left column, “Another artillery stock pounded at the fortified roof of the bunker,...” Stock doesn’t make sense, perhaps “Another artillery shock...”, or “Another artillery volley...”
Pg 13, right column, “There were a lot of them, thought.” Perhaps should read “There were a lot of them, he thought.”
Pg 15, left column, the Late Succession Wars Era (2901-3049). It struck me odd that the the Late Succession Wars Era doesn't begin in 2866 and effectively splits the Third Succession War (2866-3025). Further, both the Era descriptions would benefit from the a sentence along the lines of “Encompassing the First and Second Succession Wars, the conflicts once Kerensky was...” or “The Third and Fourth Succession Wars in the Inner Sphere...” Given the upcoming products, The First Succession War and The Second Succession War it would tie nicely together.
Pg 25, CLAN INVASION ERA FACTIONS LIST table, “Federated Suns*”, there is not a notation specifically referencing the Federated Suns. The asterisk applies only to the “Lyran Alliance” entry.
Pg 27, left column, JIHAD ERA. “The following describes the factions, unit types, and other game-affecting data that should be used when playing scenarios and campaigns set in the Star League Era.” Should read “...Jihad Era.” vice Star League.
Pg 28, JIHAD ERA FACTIONS LIST table reads as if it belongs to the Dark Age Era. Recommend moving the table to page 27 because “The Republic Age Sub-Era (3086-3130)” comments are directly above the aforementioned table. Likely this is an insurmountable layout issue but tossing in a picture of any prototype Classic ‘Mech miniature would be awesome and appreciated.
Pg 31, DARK AGE ERA FACTIONS LIST table contains two notations marks with the same notation, both symbols ”†” and “§” reference the “Filtvelt Coalition” as “Allied with Federated Suns”. Also the use of BOLD text seems to indicate major powers but is also used to delineate categories so it appears the “Filtvelt Coalition” is a member of the “Regulan Fiefs” in the same manner as “Clan Wolf-in-Exile” and “Clan Nova Cat” are subordinated under “Abjured Clans”.
Pg 34, left column, “...the standard autocannon/10...” should read “...the standard autocannon/10 (AC/10)...” as AC/10 is used without definition throughout the rest of the paragraph. Incidentally, the picture of the Koschei is jarring either through the color scheme or the miniature itself particularly in comparison with the well photographed picture of the two Warg Battlearmor on page 32.
Pgs 35-63, UNIVERSAL TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT TABLE. Great comprehensive work. A bit confusing for two reasons: location of the key (at the bottom of page 63) and the explanations on pgs 32-34. An example entry that bullet points/summarizes the column headers and provides the key before starting the table could aid in comprehension and ease reference at the start of a nearly 20 page table.
Pg 64, the Chapter heading “ALTERNATE ERAS: UNITS AND EQUIPMENT” is missing. Also, a cursory check of 30 pages (pages 35-65) shows that every tabbed/ side-indexed page in the manual contains the misspelling ‘EQUIPMENTS’ vice “EQUIPMENT” with no “S”.
S/F
Matt
-
Lots of terminology to get used to!
ISW Combat Command == Regiment
ACS Formation == Battalion
ACS Combat Unit == Company
ACS Combat Team == Lance
Assuming we intend to use the ACS as our combat resolution method... when we build a ISW Combat Command, we need to follow the conversion rules and build up the Combat Command from Alpha Strike units on up until we have the final ACS formations which we will use with the ACS system to battle over planets.
I'm correct thus far?
-
I would dearly love to take a group through an ISW game but it's lacking the map. I know it was said earlier about releasing a map with the non-Beta version of IO (along with a gameplay spreadsheet), but it's extremely hard to test drive the rules to suggest tweaks without being able to play them.
As I would be running the game play by post, I would certainly be happy to let whomever there at CGL that wants to look over everyone's shoulders and watch the game have complete access. The map though would be a necessity along with permission to distribute it to players. The spreadsheet, well I'm pretty decent with excel and can handle that myself (and if y'all want it afterwards, I'd be pleased as punch to have it used by others).
Anyone here that would be interested in playing PM me, but all of this hinges on getting the map.
-
In the Inner Sphere at War rules I was unable to find the RP cost and construction time for WarShips.
-
I don’t know if you gents were strictly looking for rules recommendations as the best I can give are a few grammar, usage and style bullets. I hope I’m not wasting your time.
Yes, we're looking for all feedback. Thank you for your review.
In the Inner Sphere at War rules I was unable to find the RP cost and construction time for WarShips.
Correct- ISAW rules are set for the Succession Wars. Rules for WarShips fall outside the scope of the Era. Future supplements will include rules for WarShips.
I would dearly love to take a group through an ISW game but it's lacking the map.
We're trying to put something together.
Lots of terminology to get used to!
I'm correct thus far?
No, sorry. We cut the Force Structure Table for space reasons. May need to see about putting it back in. Below is the text version.
<<<Begin Table>>>
Force Structure Table
Term Descriptions
Army: All Forces of a single faction.
Force: Any number of Formations, Commands, or Combat Units of a single faction on a world
Formation: Up to 15 Combat Units
Combat Commands
BattleMech- Up to 5 Combat Units
Vehicles- Up to 9 Combat Units
Infantry- Up to 15 Combat Units
Combat Unit- 3 Combat Teams
Combat Teams-
Inner Sphere* 12 Elements (6 for aerospace Combat Teams)
Clan 5 Elements
Elements-
Inner Sphere* 1 ’Mech, 1 Vehicle, 1 Battle Armor Squad, 1 Infantry Platoon, or 1 Fighter
Clan 1 ’Mech, 1 ProtoMech, 1 Battle Armor Point, 2 Vehicles, or 2 Fighters
*Including Periphery, ComStar, and Word of Blake factions
<<<End Table>>>
-
Correct- ISAW rules are set for the Succession Wars. Rules for WarShips fall outside the scope of the Era. Future supplements will include rules for WarShips.
I assume that rules for Mercs that own factories/worlds (very minor powers) will also be included in future supplements?
-
WMD USE CONSEQUENCES TABLE chart has a errata.
Page number or it didn't happen. You can just edit your post.
-
Page ref for those Warchest mentions? Or are you referring to an improved, post-Beta version of the document.
Search for "Total Chaos"
-
For the Inner Sphere at War, I didn't see any values for what would consist as a garrison force.
I'm unsure if that was a oversight or if intended as such; considering how we have descriptions in the Objectives products a while back.
Accidentally cut. Will be working to get them back in. In the mean time, here is the relevant text.
Garrisons
All worlds have some form of defenses, even if no forces are stationed there. These forces will attempt to defend the world from attacks. They will only use defensive combat orders in combat. If there is a Combat Command stationed on the world, the garrison will never field more than 50% of its force. Garrison Aerospace will not operate beyond the Inner Ring of the Abstract Combat System Planetary Approach Map (see p. XX).
Fixed Garrisons
All standard worlds have a garrison of 250 ground and 50 aerospace. Regional Capitals have 500 and 100 and National Capitals have 1000 and 200.
Fixed Garrisons automatically regain 5 percent of their strength per turn unless destroyed. Provided no enemy troops are on the world, destroyed garrisons can be reconstituted at 50 percent of their full strength by a planet’s controller. This costs 3 RP and the force can make repairs at the normal rate.
Fixed Garrisons are always used when using Fixed Military, Fixed Economy or Basic Economy game detail.
Basic Garrisons
Consult the Basic Garrison Table to determine the garrison of a given world. A world that fits two or more of the world types selects the highest value type as its base and adds 50% for each additional world type. For example, Terra is both a National Capital and a Hyper Industrial World. It has a garrison of 2000 ground and 600 aerospace (Hyper Industrial has 1500 and 500 and 50% of a National Capital is 500 and 100).
Basic Garrisons are used with Detailed Military and Economy rules.
<<<begin table>>>
Basic Garrisons
World Type Ground PV Aerospace PV
National capital (e.g. Luthien) 1000 200
Regional capital (e.g. Robinson) 500 100
Hyper Industrial world (e.g. Terra) 1500 500
Major industrial world (e.g. Hesperus) 1000 250
Minor industrial world (e.g. New Earth) 500 100
Other world (e.g. Lancaster) 250 50
World is in Clan Homeworlds 0 0
World is a Clan Occupation Zone world 150 50
<<<end table>>>
Detailed Garrisons
Detailed Garrisons are not determined until a world is attacked. Once a world has had its detailed garrison the controlling faction records the garrison and this remains the garrison for this world for the reminder of the game. If it is damaged, it will repair back to this originally determined level.
When any faction attacks a world, roll 1d6 and apply the modifiers shown on the Random Garrisons Table. Cross-reference the final roll result to determine the number of infantry regiments, armor battalions, and ’Mech battalions that are on-world. Determine the weight class of armor and ‘Mech units, or the type of infantry regiments, randomly. Except on provincial capitals and other important worlds, garrisons are typically A and B rated forces (as appropriate to the era).
<<<begin table>>>
Random Garrisons Table
Modified Roll Infantry Armor ’Mech
2 or less 2 1 0
3 2 2 0
4 3 2 0
5 3 3 0
6 4 3 1
7 4 3 1
8 5 4 2
9 6 5 2
10 or more 7 6 3
Modifiers
Situation Modifier
World is within 30LY of pre-war border +1
World is a regional capital +2
World is a national capital +4
World is Hyper Industrial +4
World is Industrial
World is Minor Industrial
World is Clan controlled –1
Game is during Age of War +2
Game is during Star League –2
Game is during First/Second Succession Wars +2
Game is during Third/Fourth Succession Wars +0
Game is post Fourth Succession War +1
<<<begin table>>>
<<<BEGIN EXAMPLE text>>>
The DCMS stage a deep raid into the Lyran Commonwealth, striking at Donegal. There are no regular troops on-world, so Pascal must generate a garrison force. The game is set in 3025 so the base modifier for determining garrison forces is 0. The world is a regional capital, adding a +2 modifier, but isn’t within 30 LY of a border. The final modifier is +2. Pascal rolls 1d6 and gets a 4, increased to 6 by the modifier. Cross-referencing this with the Random Garrisons table indicates that the defenders are 4 infantry regiments, 3 armor regiments and a single battalion of ‘Mechs.
<<<END EXAMPLE text>>>
-
I have a question considering RISC tech and MW:AoD. IO have stats for most of the RISC cards, but some are missing (like the special munition). These equipments and special ammo are going to get Battletech rules someday? Some of the cards I noticed that doesn't appear in the book:
http://www.warrenborn.com/Unit.php?ID=VG-G-155
http://www.warrenborn.com/Unit.php?ID=VG-G-144
http://www.warrenborn.com/Unit.php?ID=VG-G-149
http://www.warrenborn.com/Unit.php?ID=WS-G-190
Edit: ScrapYard is talking about the Advanced/Abstract thing in the sentences
-
I didn't see anything about some of the other non-standard organizations. So some notes about the other factions that use non-standard organizations probably should be included for ACS/ISW and how to replicate them if desired.
Like the Clans using 2 ASFs per point and 2 tanks per point for stars of 10 for each.
Or the Taurians having 54 vehicles in a vehicle battalion and using 4 companies for a mech battalion for a total of 48.
Or the Marians.
Society and their Septs.
There is also a Great House that does something different with it's ASFs but now I can't remember who.
-
A typo and a recommendation
pg 339: The last Unit of the Abstract combat system combat unit is labeled as "Fire Lance" and should be labeled "C3 Command Company".
Also, I would recommend using the values from the AFFS Cavalry Company in the SBF formation above, and insert those values in to the ACS example battalion. It could replace the recon company entry.
-
Question: LAM's can use an internal bomb bay, why can't Aerospace and Conventional Fighters?
In essence making a dedicated bomber.
- Shane
-
Search for "Total Chaos"
Hmm. Those references only describe Total Chaos as a way to increase detail, none of them are directed at players who want less paperwork, and they do not appear in chapter intros. Importantly, the Inner Sphere at War chapter does not seem to mention the Warchest or Total Chaos system at all.
Nowhere are players who want less paperwork encouraged to just use the War Chest system with the SBF or ACS rules.
-
Hmm. Those references only describe Total Chaos as a way to increase detail, none of them are directed at players who want less paperwork, and they do not appear in chapter intros. Importantly, the Inner Sphere at War chapter does not seem to mention the Warchest or Total Chaos system at all.
Nowhere are players who want less paperwork encouraged to just use the War Chest system with the SBF or ACS rules.
The Warchest system isn't specifically mentioned, the Total Chaos Campaign system is, p. 234 under Setup. The Warchest system would not work directly with ISAW due to scale.
-
Page number or it didn't happen. You can just edit your post.
Done.
-
The Warchest system isn't specifically mentioned, the Total Chaos Campaign system is, p. 234 under Setup. The Warchest system would not work directly with ISAW due to scale.
Okay, so to refine my original suggestion: the ISAW intro paragraphs should perhaps note that players wanting less paperwork are encouraged to just use the Total Chaos Campaign system with the SBF or ACS rules.
-
Two Errata I noticed on the Technology Advancement Table:
First one:
Pg. 37
Conventional Infantry Sneak Suit (DEST Infiltration Suit).
Prototype (Faction) Date is listed as 3045. This is incorrect. Per The Intelligence Operations Handbook, pg. 141, a version of the DEST Infiltration Suit has been used since the fall of the Star League. Additionally, it states that as of the Intelligence Operations Handbook’s July 3055 in-universe date, “the latest modifications now incorporate the features that existed in the original design.”
This item has been continually in use, since the end of the Star League Era, though occasionally downgraded. However, the downgraded version has not been published as far as I know.
Suggestion: For brevity and to avoid having to create a whole new version of the suit, replace the prototype date with a date near the fall of the Star League (2800 or thereabouts). Note an appropriate “Ext” Date sometime during the First or Second Succession War, then a “Ret” Date of approximately 3045.
Second one:
pg. 61
"Fragmentation LRMs (LRM, SRM, MML)"
This is incorrect, since LRM's shouldn't be available to the other two launchers.
Suggestion: Replace with "Fragmentation Missiles (LRM, SRM, MML)."
Thanks for giving us this chance, guys.
-
I have a question considering RISC tech and MW:AoD. IO have stats for most of the RISC cards, but some are missing (like the special munition). These equipments and special ammo are going to get Battletech rules someday?
Yes, the IO RISC items are the definitive list of what will be seen in BattleTech stats. Some items just weren't deemed feasible, at least in the scope of BT rules, some were deemed redundant. Fun fact: the list of adapted items was originally much shorter.
O0
-
Using the Combat Abstract Rules, is it possible to have Battlefield Intelligence or Combat Force take a critical hit? Such as HQ vehicle is destroyed or initial scout force is destroyed by enemy fire?
-
Question: LAM's can use an internal bomb bay, why can't Aerospace and Conventional Fighters?
In essence making a dedicated bomber.
- Shane
Because LAMs cannot carry external ordinance if they want to be able to transform. So special, dedicated bays were invented for them.
With the conversion equipment and light mass of LAMs, they don't make very powerful bombers.
-
Using the Combat Abstract Rules, is it possible to have Battlefield Intelligence or Combat Force take a critical hit? Such as HQ vehicle is destroyed or initial scout force is destroyed by enemy fire?
I'm not sure I understand the question. There are critical hits in ACS, they use the same tables as SBF.
-
Let me echo the "Uh, yeah, Viral Jammers seem pretty broken." comments. Shutting everything down on an 8 or less on 2d6 is pretty powerful, especially since the effect can last for multiple turns so it can get alot of things. With its insane range and lasting for the rest of the game (even after the device is shutdown/destroyed), it actually seems to stray into not just "Broken" but "Unfun" category. The idea that its balanced because its from a limited time period and theoretically a single faction seems spurious.
But then again, its early in the beta, so maybe people will enjoy having all their stealth armor shut down and c3 systems completely negated by a single 2.5 ton piece of equipment. Time will tell.
On a slightly less subjective note..
pg. 329 of the PDF (actual page 327) under "Transport Movement" in the left hand column it states
Transport Movement: If a Unit possesses any of the Transport Special Abilities ((CK#, CT#, IT#, OMNI, VTM#, VTH#. VTS#, AT#, DT#, MT#, PT#, ST#) then the Unit a Transport Movement rating. Transport MP is determined by only averaging the MP (or Thrust) of the Elements not capable of being transported by another Element in the Unit. So a Unit with a Maxim Hover Transport (IT12), A squad of Ravager battle armor (CAR4) and two Gladius Hover Tanks would have a standard Move of 2 (equal to the Ravager’s MP) and a Transport Move of 8 (the average of the three hover
tanks’ movement).
A question and a bit of errata. The first is does a Unit posses a transport movement value if there's nothing for it to carry (For instance, a lance made up of OmniMechs? Each has the OMNI ability, so fits in, but there's nothing to transport, do you assign it a value anyway?)
The errata bit is bolded in the quote. According to "Standard Movement Ground" just a few paragraphs up, a Unit's movement is based on the average of the Unit's Elements. There's nothing about it being the slowest Element in the Unit.
Next, pg. 329 of the PDF (actual page 327) under "Movement Mode" in the left hand column it states.
Movement Mode: If a Unit has Elements of all the same movement mode, as found on the Movement Mode Table, then record this mode. If the Formation has mixed movement modes, consult the Restriction Rank column and find the Mode with the lowest number. This is the most restrictive movement mode and is listed as the Unit’s Movement Mode.
I assume this means I look at my formation and compare the various movement modes that I have. So if I have a unit that has a mixture of `Mechs with standard movement and jump movement, I would consult the table on the next page and see that "Ground: `Mech/Proto" has a 6 value, and "Jumping: `Mech/Proto" also has a 6 next to it. What do you pick when your two movement modes have the same value?
-
About ISW interstellar movement: it fails to account for charging stations, which are present in every even minor industrial worlds (they're pretty vital for trade), and drastically reduce charging time. I suggest that moving through hexes with friendly/allied industrial (or capitals, though they tend to be industrial too) will cost no MP (especially since military transports will likely receive precedence). I hope it's not game breaking.
The availability of the charging stations limits their use, though. Charging the ships of an entire RCT in a single station would likely take a week by itself... But some systems have dozens of stations. Still needs some hammering.
-
I really liked the option for simple resulotion of raids in ISW. Any chance for something similar for invasions? It would really help, as trying to recreate the 4SW with ACS will likely still take longer than the actual succession war...
-
Keep seeing references in ISAW to factories generating RPs independently from the planet industrial rating... Where are the rules for their construction and production?
-
Keep seeing references in ISAW to factories generating RPs independently from the planet industrial rating... Where are the rules for their construction and production?
Some last minute changes were made to the rules so they would fit into the page count. I'm still sorting out what was done as we didn't have time for author review. You'll need to wait for some errata.
I really liked the option for simple resulotion of raids in ISW. Any chance for something similar for invasions? It would really help, as trying to recreate the 4SW with ACS will likely still take longer than the actual succession war...
Thanks for the feedback. BattleTech is ultimately about combat so we wanted to be careful to not turn it to much into RulesTech. Also, in our experience, simple combat systems for invasion level battles usually end up being "He with the biggest stack wins" and we are also not trying to build RiskTech.
About ISW interstellar movement: it fails to account for charging stations
First you're giving more credit for recharging stations then they are due. During the early Succession Wars, they were major targets so not as many exist as they once did. Second, Interstellar Movement is abstracted out for simplification. Perhaps we will add such options in future expansions.
pg. 329 of the PDF (actual page 327) under "Transport Movement" in the left hand column it states
A question and a bit of errata. The first is does a Unit posses a transport movement value if there's nothing for it to carry (For instance, a lance made up of OmniMechs? Each has the OMNI ability, so fits in, but there's nothing to transport, do you assign it a value anyway?)
If you have infantry in the game that can be carried, it is best to calculate this in case they end up carrying them. If there is no infantry, don't bother.
The errata bit is bolded in the quote. According to "Standard Movement Ground" just a few paragraphs up, a Unit's movement is based on the average of the Unit's Elements. There's nothing about it being the slowest Element in the Unit.
Yes, good catch. However, I am adjusting the rules to make infantry an exception. Any formation with infantry has an MP equal to the slowest infantry.
Next, pg. 329 of the PDF (actual page 327) under "Movement Mode" in the left hand column it states.I assume this means I look at my formation and compare the various movement modes that I have. So if I have a unit that has a mixture of `Mechs with standard movement and jump movement, I would consult the table on the next page and see that "Ground: `Mech/Proto" has a 6 value, and "Jumping: `Mech/Proto" also has a 6 next to it. What do you pick when your two movement modes have the same value?
That may be a typo. If not, you'd go with the more "common" mode or in this case, Ground.
-
Feedback from IO Beta:
First, thanks for the chance to send in some feedback. As a player who hasn't tracked IO during development, I can at least offer some fresh eyes.
My expectation for the sourcebook contents were set by the sourcebook's description:
"Marshal your forces and prepare to conquer the Inner Sphere! Interstellar Operations is the next long-awaited rules installment to the series begun with Total Warfare and carried through the award-winning Tactical Operations and Strategic Operations. The former focuses on a whole new level of excitement directly on your gaming table while the later focuses on moving from a single scenario to a multi-part campaigns and how to take an entire solar system. Interstellar Operations zooms up to the final level, allowing players to assume the roles of House Lord or Clan Khans and dominate the galaxy."
This caused a good deal of confusion as I read through the material, and found myself passing through chapters full of tech charts, without seeing any of the rules for taking solar systems or assuming the role of a House Lord. I humbly suggest that re-ordering the book may be helpful; presenting the rules for campaigns and planetary conquest (supported by abstract combat) first, followed by the chapters of supporting material for various tech levels and special equipment and other eras. Starting off with 'Alternate Eras' seems backwards; it feels more like the book should start with Inner Sphere in Flames, followed by Abstract Combat and Strategic Battleforce. But that's just my two C-Bills.
The segments on broader level combat are interesting and are the primary attraction to the title, at least for me. After reading them. however, these rules are detailed to a bewildering level for strategic and front-level combat. In their current form they are probably un-playable by anything but the most dedicated grognards. I can't imagine getting together with a group of players at the FLGS and fighting the Succession Wars; this would take weeks or months of dedicated play with extremely detailed tracking of data. If this is the product the Battletech community has demanded, then so be it, but this feels like the exact opposite direction taken by successful releases like Alpha Strike.
If I might suggest, the Inner Sphere in Flames rules feel like they need a clear, Basic Game laid out, which can then be supported by add-on Advanced Game modules which allow the players or gaming group to add more detail. I would suggest laying out the basic game in the first chapter, following on with supporting chapters which allow more detail for movement, combat, guerrilla warfare, tracking unit XP, etc; and finally the reams of supporting material for the various eras and specialist bits of equipment.
Finally, I'd like to speak up in support of a re-release of an abstract game like Succession Wars (boardgame). That's really what I suspect I'm looking for in a House-vs-House level game, and it simply may not be possible to deliver it in the IO product as currently drafted.
Thank you.
(Reference: As a longtime Battletech player, I prefer the 3025 era; play TT, the computer games, and Alpha Strike)
-
Pages 68 & 69
SLDF ADVANCED NEUROHELMET
Query
This helmet is supposed to be the helmet that uses virtual reality, so that the pilot effectively feels as if they are flying unaugmented (I'm superman...)?
It however makes no mention of the fact that we have multiple references to the FWL issuing a related ASF helmet, in the 3060+ time frame.
See Page 24 of the FWL 3059 Field manual (which mentions it was expected to be ready for field use by 3060).
And on page 105 of the 3067 House Marik Handbook mentions the same item but indicates that it's in use.
In both books it mentions the SLDF system as the V-12.
Theirs probably a few more references but they elude me, though the ASF movement fluff for Total warfare seems to indicate the clans still use the helmet in the 3060s.
Accidentally cut. Will be working to get them back in. In the mean time, here is the relevant text.
Garrisons
All worlds have some form of defenses, even if no forces are stationed there. These forces will attempt to defend the world from attacks. They will only use defensive combat orders in combat. If there is a Combat Command stationed on the world, the garrison will never field more than 50% of its force. Garrison Aerospace will not operate beyond the Inner Ring of the Abstract Combat System Planetary Approach Map (see p. XX).
Fixed Garrisons
All standard worlds have a garrison of 250 ground and 50 aerospace. Regional Capitals have 500 and 100 and National Capitals have 1000 and 200.
Fixed Garrisons automatically regain 5 percent of their strength per turn unless destroyed. Provided no enemy troops are on the world, destroyed garrisons can be reconstituted at 50 percent of their full strength by a planet’s controller. This costs 3 RP and the force can make repairs at the normal rate.
Fixed Garrisons are always used when using Fixed Military, Fixed Economy or Basic Economy game detail.
Basic Garrisons
Consult the Basic Garrison Table to determine the garrison of a given world. A world that fits two or more of the world types selects the highest value type as its base and adds 50% for each additional world type. For example, Terra is both a National Capital and a Hyper Industrial World. It has a garrison of 2000 ground and 600 aerospace (Hyper Industrial has 1500 and 500 and 50% of a National Capital is 500 and 100).
Basic Garrisons are used with Detailed Military and Economy rules.
<<<begin table>>>
Basic Garrisons
World Type Ground PV Aerospace PV
National capital (e.g. Luthien) 1000 200
Regional capital (e.g. Robinson) 500 100
Hyper Industrial world (e.g. Terra) 1500 500
Major industrial world (e.g. Hesperus) 1000 250
Minor industrial world (e.g. New Earth) 500 100
Other world (e.g. Lancaster) 250 50
World is in Clan Homeworlds 0 0
World is a Clan Occupation Zone world 150 50
<<<end table>>>
Detailed Garrisons
Detailed Garrisons are not determined until a world is attacked. Once a world has had its detailed garrison the controlling faction records the garrison and this remains the garrison for this world for the reminder of the game. If it is damaged, it will repair back to this originally determined level.
When any faction attacks a world, roll 1d6 and apply the modifiers shown on the Random Garrisons Table. Cross-reference the final roll result to determine the number of infantry regiments, armor battalions, and ’Mech battalions that are on-world. Determine the weight class of armor and ‘Mech units, or the type of infantry regiments, randomly. Except on provincial capitals and other important worlds, garrisons are typically A and B rated forces (as appropriate to the era).
<<<begin table>>>
Random Garrisons Table
Modified Roll Infantry Armor ’Mech
2 or less 2 1 0
3 2 2 0
4 3 2 0
5 3 3 0
6 4 3 1
7 4 3 1
8 5 4 2
9 6 5 2
10 or more 7 6 3
Modifiers
Situation Modifier
World is within 30LY of pre-war border +1
World is a regional capital +2
World is a national capital +4
World is Hyper Industrial +4
World is Industrial
World is Minor Industrial
World is Clan controlled –1
Game is during Age of War +2
Game is during Star League –2
Game is during First/Second Succession Wars +2
Game is during Third/Fourth Succession Wars +0
Game is post Fourth Succession War +1
<<<begin table>>>
<<<BEGIN EXAMPLE text>>>
The DCMS stage a deep raid into the Lyran Commonwealth, striking at Donegal. There are no regular troops on-world, so Pascal must generate a garrison force. The game is set in 3025 so the base modifier for determining garrison forces is 0. The world is a regional capital, adding a +2 modifier, but isn’t within 30 LY of a border. The final modifier is +2. Pascal rolls 1d6 and gets a 4, increased to 6 by the modifier. Cross-referencing this with the Random Garrisons table indicates that the defenders are 4 infantry regiments, 3 armor regiments and a single battalion of ‘Mechs.
<<<END EXAMPLE text>>>
Humm Some feed back on this.
The Last sample text mentions Armor Regiments, but the Descriptor of the unit type is Battalion
You may also want to take a look at the Basic fixed Garrison RP allotments unless you guys are happy with the potential garrison sizes they can potentially generate, unless im missing something...
-
There are two different SLDF helmets though. The IO fluff states that the last one released was not even used by the Clans. All the fluff I can remember only really mentions an advanced SLDF helmet rather than the new hyper-advanced helmet of nightmares. There is also the VR helmet mentioned elsewhere that was created by the mad scientist from the FS in the 40's.
Got page numbers on the FWL stuff? Wouldn't mind reading over it.
-
Gentlemen, a few things need to be said about the LAM rules.
1] LAM’s can hover per the rules. Great. With the change to the defensive modifiers, an LAM can hover and being airborne, gain an automatic +1 and may be targeted by a mech from the LAM’s side arc for a +2. This generates a total +3 defensive modifier. [HOVERING] The same LAM screaming across the open plain moves 20 hexes and generates a +1 mod for airborne and the same mech shooting at the LAM’s side generates a +2 for a total of +3 defensive modifier [SCREAMING]. So +3 hovering and +3 flank.
Does anyone see the problem here?
2] A Nightshade VTOL has 14/21 cruise/flank movement. In cruise mode, the Nightshade attacks a mech and has a +1 modifier for cruise [ie walking] movement. Say that the Nightshade moves 10 hexes at elevation 4, it generates a +5 defensive mod. In flank mode, the Nightshade attacks a mech and has a +2 modifier for flank [ie running] movement. Say the Nightshade moves 18 hexes at elevation 4, it generates a +6 defensive mod.
So, here we are.
Defense [with similar airspeed 14/21 vs 15/23]
VTOL cruise +5; flank +6
LAM cruise +3; flank +3
Attack
VTOL cruise +1; flank +2
LAM cruise +3; flank +4
Do TPTB really want to go there?
Additionally, WiGE vehicles also have attack mods of +1/+2 for cruise/flank and the traditional defensive mods of +1 [airborne] and +x for # hexes moved.
I agree with others that the +2/+3 cruise/flank attack mod is a worthy compromise and actively promotes flying the LAM at slower [more hittable] speeds. I know that I have done so, having run LAM’s in campaigns for the last 3 years with the express purpose of play-testing the new rules.
Here is a proposal that may ruffle a few feathers. Instead of airmech cruise speed being determined by #JJ x 3. How about cruise mp = #JJ x 2? All other movement rules would stay the same. This will immediately slow the LAMs down from "ludicrous speed". A Phoenix Hawk will return to it's original flank 15 mp. A Stinger would be 12/18 instead of 18/27.
Here is a question. IO Beta, page 106 states, “During the turn of conversion the LAM maintains its previous type, but at half the normal movement rates (rounded down).” For a fighter mode LAM changing to airmech, are we to assume that “half movement rates” is [engine thrust rating]/2? [i.e. a 6/9 Stinger LAM in fighter mode has 3/5 available thrust when transforming to airmech?] What about the LAM’s current fighter mode velocity?
One other thing: Iron Wind Metals have finally begun producing the complete set of LAMs for sale. It is possible that a significant rule change could have an impact on the sales of these miniatures.
I would be happy to discuss my opinions and experiences piloting LAM’s with any of TPTB at Gencon this week. I will be up there on Wed and will be participating in the Bloodright Tourney and hope to squeeze into the Masters & Minions game. I will be running 2 Battletech games on Thursday afternoon & evening. Other than Thursday, I will make time available whenever TPTB would like to meet. I hope to see you there.
-
Having just gotten the book, I have only a few bits of feedback at the moment.
First, thermobaric weapons seem frighteningly effective. My benchmark for this is that the thought of loading them in an artillery cannon makes me cackle madly. Since they inflict half damage against armored buildings, perhaps the same should be true of other units equipped with BAR 10 armor.
Second, I can't echo Gio's previous concern about primitive jump drives enough. Not only does it threaten to re-ignite the monitor wars, it also bends the "reality" of battletech spacecraft into a pretzel allowing the creation of vessels that will be inexplicably tougher than any modern competitors simply by including the bare minimum primitive drive. The poor spacecraft construction rules are already squishy as it is, we shouldn't make it worse.
-
pg. 333 of the PDF (331 actual). The 3rd bullet point in the left column under "Step 5A: Converting to Strategic BattleForce Units"
UA column has an X:
However, the chart starting on the next page has a column labeled "U" not "UA". Correction: Change the column to UA.
pg 333 of the PDF (331 actual). Left column under "Special Abilities Details"
If a special ability is listed on the Strategic BattleForce Special Abilities Table but does not appear on this list, its rules are covered elsewhere. Consult the Rules column of the table for instructions."
Problem is, there's no Rules column. Suggestion...put them in. Of course, since this is a beta, that might be problematic since the layout isn't complete, but don't forget it in the final product :)
-
Hi,
A couple questions/requests. There was talk about external stores cargo pods in the forums a while back and I was wondering if there were going to be rules for them and if so can LAMs carry them?.
http://cdn.kaskus.com/images/2014/02/25/519363_20140225020459.jpg
http://spitfiresite.com/2012/01/modification-xxx-beer-carrying-spitfires.html
How about Gun Pods? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pod Machine Gun pods used to be available in Battletechnology. Will they ever make a come back and if so can LAMs use them?
Electronic Warfare Pods?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALQ-99
I was also wondering if LAMs can use External Consumables Pods: mentioned in TechManual page 195. I asked about this before but I don't know if that answer has changed or not with the official Beta release.
Will there be any rules concerning the Clans LAM Cockpits? The only thing I can figure is that they used Tripod cockpits and still were able to have a Rumble Seat. That or some kind of combination of Small and Dual Cockpits. It'd be nice to know for sure though. Fluff for why no torso cockpits for LAMs would be nice, too
Fluff for why LAMs can't use Fission Engines. Jump Jets require Fission or Fusion Engines to work and since LAMs need Jump Jets to fly/wige/VTOL/hover, Fission should work. At least in Atmosphere.
Fluff for why Quad LAMs and Tri-pod LAMs aren't legally possible. Beyond they just gave up. The Scorpion LAM seemed like it'd work just fine in space and limited gravity surfaces.
I'd love to know the answers to the other LAM questions mentioned by Monbvol and Joe already.
Will there be rules for the water bombs mentioned in the Torrent Heavy Bomber fluff page 124 TRO:VAr?
Will FrankenMech rules be updated to include all the new unit types?
Concerning Aerospace Bombers Acolyte asked about. Aerospace Fighters can mount cargo bays and then use them as internal bomb bays using the quirk, right? If so, that would make dedicated Aerospace Bombers an entirely legal possibility, right? Which makes me wonder why LAMs can't carry cargo? Mechs can. Aerospace Fighters can. Why not LAMs? ???
It'd also be nice if the original single critical slot Double Strength Heat Sinks using caustic chemicals that were dangerous to the user would get official rules instead of being errataed out of existence. (I can hope.)
Thanks :) O0
-
Feedback from IO Beta:
Really excellent feedback, thank you. The format and tone were very engaging and makes me want to take a look at your feedback.
In regards to the level of detail. You are right that ISAW goes the opposite direction of Alpha Strike. This is on purpose. There is a portion of the BT community that wants the level of detail we are trying to reach. That said, I like your comments about basic and advanced. We will also have, "even more advanced" being offered in future supplements or part of other products in the game line.
-
Gentlemen, a few things need to be said about the LAM rules.
Does anyone see the problem here?
VTOL cruise +5; flank +6
LAM cruise +3; flank +3
Yes, this is the current intent. This is based on.
Hovering- The LAM isn't sitting in one place when it is hovering. It is jinking all over that 30 meter hex. Hence why it is better than Flying.
Vs. VTOL- When hovering, the LAM is still in one hex, so that limits its movement. When flying, it is flying at ASF speeds of super sonic or near super sonic. At those speeds you fly really straight and limit your lateral movement. Combat VTOLs are ALL over the place when they fly, so are much less predictable in their "straight" line flight.
We will double check the attacker to hit modifier.
Thanks,
Joel BC
-
I was also wondering if LAMs can use External Consumables Pods: mentioned in TechManual page 195. I asked about this before but I don't know if that answer has changed or not with the official Beta release.
I'll admit, I haven't looked at the rules in about two years, since I helped write them. At that time LAMs were going to be allowed to carry external stores only when in ASF mode and would have to ditch them to transform. So very limited application, mostly fuel for making a stealth run into the planet.
Will there be any rules concerning the Clans LAM Cockpits?
Failed experiment that didn't even get out of prototype stage. Like the Quad LAM, it never worked so no rules.
Fluff for why LAMs can't use Fission Engines. Jump Jets require Fission or Fusion Engines to work and since LAMs need Jump Jets to fly/wige/VTOL/hover, Fission should work. At least in Atmosphere.
Because Fission engines are a primitive engine for BattleMechs and are much more fragile. When the entire vehicle is changing shape around you, having a reactor that can leak deadly radiation is not really desired. They are also much bulkier and so take up more internal "space". LAMs have limited "large" space inside and so most everything has to be small and compact.
Fluff for why Quad LAMs and Tri-pod LAMs aren't legally possible. Beyond they just gave up. The Scorpion LAM seemed like it'd work just fine in space and limited gravity surfaces.
They failed. They tried them, then never got past the first crash test dummy stage so they stopped. We're not going to give much more fluff than that. Catalyst has no plans for these kind of LAMs to be in the game. LAMs barely fit the game universe, Quad and Tripod LAMs don't fit. This is the stage where savvy players who really want them write their own rules for use in their games.
Best,
Joel BC
IO Developer
-
Second, I can't echo Gio's previous concern about primitive jump drives enough. Not only does it threaten to re-ignite the monitor wars, it also bends the "reality" of battletech spacecraft into a pretzel allowing the creation of vessels that will be inexplicably tougher than any modern competitors simply by including the bare minimum primitive drive. The poor spacecraft construction rules are already squishy as it is, we shouldn't make it worse.
I suggest having it tonnage dependent, the larger the ship, the larger the minimum KF % is. It is quite understandable that larger ships need larger core structures.
-
Page numbered 92, "Emergency coolant system failure table": the footnote says to reduce the fialure check to a minimum of 2, but the best value on the table is 3. (C&P error from the Radical HS failure table?)
Continuity error: page numbered 174, description of Elias, "an explosive yield of just 0.05 kilotons (50 decatons)", but 0.05 kilotons is 50 tons or 5 decatons, not 50. (The kiloton value matches the one given in the Standard Nuclear Weaponry Table.)
-
I suggest having it tonnage dependent, the larger the ship, the larger the minimum KF % is. It is quite understandable that larger ships need larger core structures.
A simpler solution may be to have a minimum Jump distance, and thus a minimum required drive size.
-
A simpler solution may be to have a minimum Jump distance, and thus a minimum required drive size.
True, but that could be a severe problem for low end primitive jumpships, while the possible problem mainly exist with the high end tonnages.
And we already have fluff/tables showing that ships became larger and able to jump further as the technology developed. Linking those two together provides a fluff friendly solution that also keep a good balance between tonnage ranges.
-
P.168:
Second column, third paragraph begins "Because of the morale and legal complexities..."
probably should be:
"Because of the moral and legal complexities..."
The previous paragraphs talk about crimes against humanity, etc., which suggests that moral is more appropriate, although there would certainly be morale implications if a WMD was used against a unit.
-
Yes, this is the current intent. This is based on.
Hovering- The LAM isn't sitting in one place when it is hovering. It is jinking all over that 30 meter hex. Hence why it is better than Flying.
Vs. VTOL- When hovering, the LAM is still in one hex, so that limits its movement. When flying, it is flying at ASF speeds of super sonic or near super sonic. At those speeds you fly really straight and limit your lateral movement. Combat VTOLs are ALL over the place when they fly, so are much less predictable in their "straight" line flight.
We will double check the attacker to hit modifier.
Thanks,
Joel BC
Thanks for the reply, Joel. Examples in my previous post dealt with LAM airmech mode not fighter mode. A Stinger LAM in airmech mode at max flank [27 hexes] is only going 181 mph. Hardly "near supersonic". Fixed wing craft are capable of signicant juking at low speeds. Would love to talk about it at Gencon....
-
I suggest having it tonnage dependent, the larger the ship, the larger the minimum KF % is. It is quite understandable that larger ships need larger core structures.
I shared an equivalent thought with Gio, though expressed oppositely: the smaller the LY range, the lower the maximum ship mass.
-
I shared an equivalent thought with Gio, though expressed oppositely: the smaller the LY range, the lower the maximum ship mass.
That would work as well.
-
HFluff for why LAMs can't use Fission Engines. Jump Jets require Fission or Fusion Engines to work and since LAMs need Jump Jets to fly/wige/VTOL/hover, Fission should work. At least in Atmosphere.
In addition to what Welshman said, fission engines on a LAM would reduce specific impulse in fighter mode to the 1000-5000 range, depending on the type of fission reactor used. Using simplified fuel construction rules like canon fighters, a 30-ton LAM would then end up getting only 1-5 thrust points per ton of fuel. For a 50-ton LAM, it would be even worse.
-
Again regarding ISAW:
Suicide missions are said to reduce national morale. Do I understand correctly that meaning is that every single combat command of the faction receives a penalty to moral, regardless of the size of the force used? A single infantry regiment being sacrificed will reduce the moral of hundreds of regiments across the faction?
If so I'd recommend that such penalties wouldn't be cumulative. Sacrificing four distinct LAGs style commands across a front of dozens would decimate the entire military.
-
Yes, this is the current intent. This is based on.
Hovering- The LAM isn't sitting in one place when it is hovering. It is jinking all over that 30 meter hex. Hence why it is better than Flying.
Vs. VTOL- When hovering, the LAM is still in one hex, so that limits its movement. When flying, it is flying at ASF speeds of super sonic or near super sonic. At those speeds you fly really straight and limit your lateral movement. Combat VTOLs are ALL over the place when they fly, so are much less predictable in their "straight" line flight.
But shouldn't that apply to WiGEs as well then? You can make a WiGE that moves as fast or faster than a LAM in Airmech movement but it'll will still get a +6 to +7 modifier to defense even though WiGEs aren't really capable of doing more then just fly as straight as possible, just like LAMs. I can understand and agree with capping the defense modifier of LAMs so people don't abuse them, but forcing them to face sideways to their targets to get the best defense they can, while WiGEs seem to get a magic bubble all around them, when compared to LAMs who only have the +1 if you get behind them, just doesn't make sense to me.
If this sounds rude, I'm sorry, but it's just that I can't understand the thinking behind this. Once again I do agree with capping the defense modifier for LAMs, I just think that +1 due to movement seems too low.
-
Welshman
The only time I can remember LAMs carrying external stores was in the original rules. All the newer stores have them carrying them in bomb bays. Which is cool. I'm just wondering if they have the same range of types of stores as aerospace and VTOLs. And if they'll be any more types?
Well...whether it worked or not can be debated but House Rules it is. :)
I can see not wanting a radiation leak. And I can see that Fission engines being really heavy isn't good either. But I've never seen anything that says that they take up more internal space. ??? Where is that? The only engines that take extra space that I can find are large (various), and the more advanced Fusion engines. S'okay if I put it down as technologically possible but why would anyone want to?
So House Rules it is. O0
Thanks :)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Giovanni Blasini
So in addition to Fission Engines being really heavy, only having 5 standard heat sinks, and possibly leaking radiation all over, their flight ranges is severely restricted as well? I guess that's be a big, "Why would anyone want to?" ???
But why would Fission Engines have less fuel while ICE Engines (on Conventional Fighters) have twice as much fuel as Fusion Engines?
_____________________________________________________________________________
I'm confused about all the LAM Movement Modifiers. I thought AirMechs moved like Mechs, on the ground, WiGEs at elevation 1 and like VTOLs at 2 elevations or more. Shouldn't LAMs receive the modifiers for whatever movement type they are using at the time?
I also don't understand the need for a defensive cap. If the AirMechs is on the ground it's super slow. If it's WiGEing it has all the movement and terrain restrictions of WiGEs. It it's flying it has all the restrictions of VTOLs plus costing 2 MP per hex effectively losing half it's speed. An old Locust can run faster than a Phoenix Hawk LAM can fly and almost as fast as a Stinger LAM. And that's without any atmospheric conditions effecting them. Do LAMs need more nerfing? :-\
Thanks :)
-
Found an easy one:
Page 9, under Player Adjudication:
"almost by defi nition," --> "almost by definition,"
Also, later in the same paragraph:
"dozens of diff erent sources" --> "dozens of different sources"
and
"to great eff ort" --> "to great effort"
-
P 67 Fusillade Launcher question: In the text it's referred to as a fusillade launcher with a lowercase F. Should that be an uppercase F as on p. 199 of The Wars of Reaving?
p. 87 Hargel repair systems: Do they ever run out of "ammo" or will they keep working forever?
p. 91 Advanced Point Defense System:
• If engaging a missile attack made against its own unit (or against a friendly unit in its own hex), the APDS applies a –4 modifier to missile attack’s roll on the Cluster Hits Table (Streak launchers are presumed to have made a base roll of 11 for the purposes of this rule.) This modifier increases by 1 for every hex away from the APDS-equipped unit that the system attempts to defend. Thus, if defending an adjacent friendly unit, the APDS applies a –3 Cluster Hits modifier; a –2 modifier if defending a friendly unit 2 hexes away; and a –1 modifier when defending a friendly unit 3 hexes away.
• Battle armor squads equipped with an APDS use this system as a group, but reduce the range 0 Cluster Hits effect to –3 if only 2 or 3 troopers are active in the squad; and –2 if the squad has only 1 active trooper remaining. (A squad of 4 or more troopers receives the normal –4 Cluster Hits effect at range 0.) All other effects for range remain as indicated above.
Just to be clear, players should apply the lowest modifier to the Cluster Hits roll, correct? For example, if the Aegis battle armor squad has two troopers and is two hexes away from an Ares, is the Cluster Hit modifier -3 (for squad size) or -2 (for distance)?
• Each APDS may only engage 1 missile attack per turn, regardless of how many APDS items the unit mounts in the same arc. (Battlesuit squads with APDS equipment are always counted as a single APDS for the purposes of these rules, and thus can only engage one missile flight per squad.) It is therefore up to the player controlling any unit with multiple APDS mounts to identify which APDS is engaging which missile flight.
So if my Timber Wolf Omni mounts forward facing APDS in the Left Torso and Right Torso and is attacked by an MRM-40 flight from the front, only one of the APDS can intercept the MRM flight? This seems odd considering the next rule.
•The defensive abilities of an APDS may be combined with that of a different anti-missile system type (be it standard, Clan, or laser-based). In this case, a single missile flight may only be targeted by 1 APDS and 1 AMS in the same turn. In this case, the Cluster Hits roll is modified by the effective modifiers of both systems together, imposing a modifier as servere as –8 against the attack. Once more, an effective Cluster Hits roll reduction to less than 2 will indicate the
complete destruction of the entire missile flight.
So if my Timber Wolf Omni mounts forward facing APDS and a Laser AMS in the Left Torso and is attacked by an MRM-40 flight from the front, both the AMS systems will interact and reduce the Cluster to hit roll by 8?
LAM Construction
Gyros: Only standard, compact, and heavy-duty gyros may be employed by LAMs.
Does this mean that the Machina Domini interface system cannot be used on a LAM as it replaces the gyro?
Edit: Nevermind. Found the answer on the next page.
The BattleMech interface cockpit weighs 4 tons and takes one extra Cockpit critical slot. The Interface can only be installed in BattleMechs, and may not be mounted in a Torso location.
The fact that it says it can only be used by BattleMechs makes it clear, and the extra Cockpit crit would (I think) take it out of the running as well.
-
All pages, right side section headings, third heading.
Alternate Eras: Units and Equipments
Equipments isn't appropriate. Suggested fix: Replace with Alternate Eras: Units and Equipment
Edit: Just discovered this is a duplicate post.
Double Heat Sink (Prototype) Rules
Game Rules: These function as Inner Sphere double heat sinks per the standard heat sink rules with the following exceptions. However, because they cannot be mounted “in” an engine, they may be combined with single heat sinks on the same unit. Players therefore need to carefully record which heat sinks are standard and which are prototype double-strength sinks.
In this case "However, because" makes no sense. Suggested fix:
Double Heat Sink (Prototype) Rules
Game Rules: These function as Inner Sphere double heat sinks per the standard heat sink rules with the following exceptions. Prototype Double Heat Sinks cannot be mounted “in” an engine, but they may be combined with single heat sinks on the same unit. Players therefore need to carefully record which heat sinks are standard and which are prototype double-strength sinks.
Also suggest removing the double quotes around "in". If you feel this is still confusing, substitute inside for in:
Prototype Double Heat Sinks cannot be mounted inside an engine,...
• The defensive abilities of an APDS may be combined with that of a different anti-missile system type (be it standard, Clan, or laser-based). In this case, a single missile flight may only be targeted by 1 APDS and 1 AMS in the same turn. In this case, the Cluster Hits roll is modified by the effective modifiers of both systems together, imposing a modifier as servere as –8 against the attack.
Suggested Fix: Replace servere with severe.
RISC EMERGENCY COOLANT SYSTEM
R&D Start Date: 3135 (Republic of the Sphere)
Prototype Design and Production: 3136 (Republic of the Sphere)
The Federated Suns’ “Radical Heat Sink” s...
No other equipment has double quotes around it in the text. Suggested fix: Remove these double quotes.
IMPROVED AUTOCANNON
Introduced: 2818 (All)
Extinct: 2833 (All)
Early Clan ballistic weapons tech also benefited from advanced metallurgy and construction techniques hat rendered these classics of warfare lighter and more compact. But these weapons enjoyed only a brief service life before more significant advances to the Ultra and LB-X autocannon types rendered standard-model cannons obsolete.
Replace hat with that.
Replace But with However. (It sounds like this was a longer sentence at one point and it was split into two parts. That's fine but the use of the word but at the beginning of the sentence is odd. However sounds better in this case, but you could remove it entirely and just capitalize these and it would work just as well.)
During the Fourth Succession War the St. Ives Compact fielded several BJ-3X Blackjacks that showcased...
As a BattleMech name, Blackjacks needs to be italicized.
p 110 LAM Combat Phase Rules, Bombs and Bomb Bays section, third paragraph.
In Fighter mode, LAMs may carry and use, and jettison any items in its bomb bays as a normal aerospace fighter would...
The two "ands" in this sentence are confusing. This first and can be replaced by a comma, as it is in the next paragraph describing AirMech mode.
Page 111, LAM Bomb Bay Ordnance Table: All sourcebook title abbreviations (TO, TW) need to be italicized for consistency with other tables.
page 304, first column, second paragraph
Players can use these rules as a standalone system, as a supplement to any existing campaign, or as part of a the Inner Sphere at War (see p.
344).
Suggested fixes:
1. Remove a the from sentence so it reads:
Players can use these rules as a standalone system, as a supplement to any existing campaign, or as part of Inner Sphere at War (see p.
344).
2. Remove a from sentence, add system after at War so it reads:
Players can use these rules as a standalone system, as a supplement to any existing campaign, or as part of the Inner Sphere at War system (see p.
344).
page 304, second column, Combat Commands section, first full sentence
Combat Commands can range from a single Battalion (e.g. The Death Commandos) to multiple regiments of mixed forces (e.g. A Federated Suns RCT).
"Battalion", "The", and "A" should not be capitalized in this sentence as they are part of the sentence itself and not part of a proper name.
Page 356
There are 3,500 PV Combat Commands are on a planet
This is confusing with the 3,500 and double verb. Suggested fix:
There are three 500 PV Combat Commands on a planet
-
This also begs the question of Flak specialty ammunition and Cluster munitions fired from LB-X guns. Then there are the quirks of Anti-Air targeting, Accurate Weapon, and Short/Long/Variable Range targeting.
So I tend to agree that putting that kind of cap on LAMs does create a logical disconnect and makes them overly vulnerable to readily available countermeasures.
-
Having read through the rules for the construction of Primitive and Retrotech units, would it be possible to add notes or a symbol to the Universal Technology Advancement Table to indicate that the various Primitive components and units returned to availability during the Jihad/early Dark Age years? At the moment, the construction rules indicate that Retrotech appeared during the Jihad, but the table has Primitive BattleMechs, Industrial 'Mechs, AeroSpace Fighters and Cockpits going extinct in 2520 and Primitive DropShips and JumpShips going extinct in 2500, with no reintroduction date for the ground-based units to reflect Retrotech's appearance. As Primitive Cockpits are listed, it would be useful if some of the other primitive-level items like Primitive Gyroscopes, Primitive Armor and Primitive Engines could be listed in the Universtal Technology Advancement Table too, for consistency.
-
P.312
First example paragraph, second and third sentences:
"Harry is defending Loric with the Stealthy Tigers, Seventh Lyran Regulars and Fourteenth Lyran Guards The Formation's of the Marik Militia uses Transport Move orders to arrive on the world, while the Formation's of the Free Worlds..."
should read:
"Harry is defending Loric with the Stealthy Tigers, Seventh Lyran Regulars and Fourteenth Lyran Guards. The Formations of the Marik Militia uses Transport Move orders to arrive on the world, while the Formations of the Free Worlds..."
There should be a period after Lyran Guards, and the proper way to pluralize formation is 'formations'.
-
All pages, right side section headings, third heading.
Equipments isn't appropriate. Suggested fix: Replace with Alternate Eras: Units and Equipments
mbear, I posted this error in Post #91, however, yours is written more clearly. I do suggest you correct your suggested fix because it repeats the manual's misspelling.
Yes, we're looking for all feedback. Thank you for your review.
Happy to help, here's a couple more.
Pg 91, left column, change “The Republic Institute of Strategic Combat was a short-lived...” to “The Republic Institute of Strategic Combat (RISC) was a short-lived...” for clarity. I’m unclear on Dark Age material so some definition is requested. Understand not changing the header as it would be clumsy.
Pg 230, left column, “Strategic BattleForce: Standard Rules”, it seems a bit late in the manual to get to an actual playable game. The previous information is critical to gameplay and scene setting but is not a rule set per se. Recommend moving the encyclopedic information to the back and moving the SBF rules forward. Please, get us into the 'fight' sooner.
Pg 232, left column, “Scale”, each element of this section could be summarized in a table, particularly when the paragraph idea is to compare with Battleforce and Alpha Strike.
Pg 236, right column, “Formations with the IT#, MEC or XMEC special abilities are capable of carrying infantry using the IT# ability or battle armor using the OMNI ability.” Recommend to delete this sentence, it is confusing and incorrect. MEC and XMEC don't confer the capability to carry but denote the ability to be carried.
S/F
Matt
-
Okay folks, we have people trying to engage in conversation in this feedback thread.
Considering how the author of said thread instructed us not to, unless specifically engaged by developers, please respect those wishes.
We can take a second look at it, sure, and your post is perfectly fine.
For everyone else: please no discussion on this or any of the errata or suggestions in this thread, unless engaged by any of the developers. Just post your own feedback.
Thanks!
So just post your feedback, thank you.
-
Observations:
Prototype improved jumpjets (as described in XTRO succession wars 1) seem to be missing. Was this intentional? They would seem to qualify.
On page 136 at the bottom of the list of M-series drones in the "MAN’S NEVER-ENDING DREAM FOR ARTIFICAL LIFE" sidebar it mentions the M-11 Da Vinci. In the earliest pre-beta alternate eras document there were specific, all new rules written that covered the hybrid drone system it was supposed to use, which are now absent. Should the reference to the M-11 be removed, or is it there to torture us? (you monster).
(I, of course, would prefer those rules to see print alongside the caspar III rules, but I can accept that it's already a nearly four hundred page book, and each technology is about as niche as you could get, I guess.)
also, in the sidebar heading MAN’S NEVER-ENDING DREAM FOR ARTIFICAL LIFE, ARTIFICAL should probably be ARTIFICIAL. :P
-
And a conflict in the smart robotic control system rules:
The first paragraph under the heading "smart robotic control system (SRCS) construction rules" (pg 140) indicates that units under 10 tons need allocate no mass beyond what is required for the normal control system. However, in the following "Smart Robotic Control System Table", there is the following footnote (tied to the mass portion of the table).
*Round all weights up to the nearest .5 tons for units 5 tons and over; for units under 5 tons, round up to the nearest kilogram."
almost every part of this footnote is contradictory with smart robotic control systems being essentially mass free for units massing less than ten tons.
-
An editing comment, rather than a rules matter: at the top of p.131, discussing the ‘armour’ phase of constructing a Primitive JumpShip, it appears that there was a bit of a cut-and-paste problem. As shown by the red box in the attached image, there’s an extraneous passage referring to the armouring of Primitive DropShips which needs to be trimmed out. ;)
-
Page 28, "Jihad Era Factions List":
The Duchy of Oriente is missing from the list of Free Worlds League subfactions, and given that it's one of the major FWL subfactions it should probably be mentioned on the list.
-
Okay folks, we have people trying to engage in conversation in this feedback thread.
Considering how the author of said thread instructed us not to, unless specifically engaged by developers, please respect those wishes.
So just post your feedback, thank you.
And most of the conversation has been removed. Folks were not paying heed to the reminder so I've removed most of the posts not following the posting guidelines.
There is an IO thread in Strategic Games where you can all feel free to discuss the rules.
-
The tables on pages 127, 128 and 129 for determining the Primitive DropShip Maximum Weight and Primitive DropShip Engine/Controls and the Primitive JumpShip Maximum Weight and Primitive JumpShip Engine/Controls Weight aren't entirely consistent with each other in each case. The tables for the Primitive Engine/Controls calculations in both cases start at the year 2100, but the Maximum Weight tables both start at 2110. I'm not sure what to suggest, but after checking DropShips & JumpShips and The Star League, I think the earliest JumpShip was the prototype constructed before the TAS Pathfinder, as a part of Project Deimos; the building of that prototype was apparently authorised in 2103, and the first jump made in 2107, with the Pathfinder jumping to Tau Ceti in December 2108. The completist in me wants the JumpShip tables to go back to 2103, so that I could in theory say that the prototype and the Pathfinder must have had a maximum weight of 100,000 tonnes, but I think pushing the dates for the JumpShip construction back to 2100 could invite annoying questions about the maximum potential weight of JumpShips built before the first prototype JumpShip was launched. Setting them to 2110 pushes the Pathfinder outside the scope of the rules again though, and that feels like it would be a great shame.
I like that the rules now effectively allow for the creation of JumpShips as old as the Pathfinder. In some ways, I feel it would be nice if the table for constructing small craft went back as far as 2020, so that it could sweep up the Altair class interplanetary craft, but on the other hand those ships are so early - and the potential for actually fighting battles at that early a point so slight - that it would push the rules back for those further than for anything else, which interferes with my sense of consistency.
-
IO page 108
Please add the Hovering option to LAMs in BattleMech Mode.
-
I started with wanting to look at an SBF game where you conquer a base. I started with pg 289, and I found the references confusing.
Pg 289 for capturing a fortification
"an attacking player may attempt to capture a fortification using the boarding action rules (see p. 262)
pg 262 Aerospace boarding actions
"just as exceptionally large ground elements can be boarded (see boarding actions pp 277-278)"
AND
resolving boarding combat
"the process of resolving a boarding action in space proceeds in the same manner as a boarding attempt against any other exceptionally large element (see p 282)"
It seems like the reference on page 289 should be changed to page 277-278 and skip the reference to page 262.
-
Marked page 250, document page 252, under "Calculating Resource Points":
"based on border changes, or infatructure improvements"
Recommend changing to "infrastructure"
Marked page 345, document page 347, under "Playing the Game"
"4. Commerce and Diplomacy Phase
a. Diplomacy"
As there is no "commerce" sub-phase, change the header to "4. Diplomacy Phase".
Context - the section only contains definitions of treaties. There is no actual economic component - economic treaties made in this phase have no immediate impact until the next Economics and Logistics phase.
TO that end, some recommended clarifications:
under "Calculating Resource POints", marked page 350, document page 352:
"The base amount of Resource Points (RP) that each Faction produces per Turn is determined in the game’s starting setup (see Starting Economy, pp. 347-348). This value may change each Game Turn, based on border changes, or infatructure improvements made during the current Economics and Logistics phase."
to
"The base amount of Resource Points (RP) that each Faction produces per Turn is determined in the game’s starting setup (see Starting Economy, pp. 347-348). This value may change each Game Turn, based on
* capture or loss of worlds (see Worlds Value Table, p. 351, and Pacification and Integration, p.363)
* infrastructure improvements made during the current Economics and Logistics phase (see Infrastructure, p. 351)"
* economic treaties (see Diplomacy Phase, p. 354).
* Factional abilities and flaws affecting RP (see p.p. 346-347."
Yes, it's longer, but more complete. I would also recommend making some statement along the lines of "RP should be calculated in this sequence", because it makes a heck of a difference to (say) a House Marik player whether he/she applies that 20% reduction in RPs to the base factory output, before adding in infrastructure improvements and economic treaties.
On a related note, for added clarity, change under "Economic Treaties", marked page 354, document page 356: change
"In an economic treaty, the participating factions receive a boost in their RP earnings per Game Turn as long as the partner Factions agree to maintain the treaty."
to
"A faction receives a boost to to their RP earnings during the Economics and Logistics phase for each economic treaty that exists at the beginning of that phase, for as long as the partner Factions agree to maintain that treaty."
under Infrastructure, marked page 351, document page 353:
"Worlds can be improved incrementally; an Other World can be improved to a Minor Industrial World, which in turn can be improved to a Major Industrial World."
and the related example
"Josh wants to improve a normal world such that it becomes a Regional Capital that is also a Major Industrial World. In turn 5, he spends 1,536 RP to improve the world to a Regional Capital that’s also a Minor Industrial World. In turn 6, he spends 960 RP to improve it to a Regional Capital world that’s also a Major Industrial World."
The example shows an Other World moving to Minor Industrial AND then to Major Industrial all in one turn (turn 5).
Question: Is it possible to perform multiple upgrades in a single gameturn, as shown in the example? Is there a limit, eg. could Josh have made the world also a regional capital on turn 5, if he had chosen to spend even more RP? Or should each separate improvement require a separate gameturn?
Personal opinion, this should not be possible. You should only be able to perform one "improve infrastructure" action per world per gameturn.
Which leads to another observation: you have two tables called "World Values Tables", with similar contents:
- top right of marked page 348, document page 350, with world types, indicative factory numbers, and RP outputs, and
- middle right of marked page 351, document page 353 with world types, descriptive text, RP outputs, and upgrade costs.
Recommended action: update the table on p. 348 with the additional information from p. 351, and recover some valuable column inches on p. 351.
Alternatively, change the name of the table on p.351.
under "Assault Move", marked page 355, document page 357:
"This Command must pay In Combat supply costs next turn (see p. 351), even if no battle occurs"
I think that's an auto-correct error, suggested change
"This Command must pay Combat supply costs next turn (see p. 351), even if no battle occurs"
Marked page 357, document page 359, "Fortify (Defensive)" and "Dig-In (Defensive":
There's little difference between these two commands, except you have to do a "fortify" once (with one fatigue point cost) and then "dig in" subsequent. Why not just have one command when 75% of the rules text is the same? There's also room for confusion with the Fortifications rules on p.353, with people thinking that the Fortify order somehow affects Fortifications, when it doesn't.
Suggested change: remove "Fortify (Defensive)" order and recover valuable column inches.
Change "Dig-in (defensive)" introduction from:
"A Combat Command that used the Fortify or Dig-In order in the previous Turn may continue to use the protections they built using the Dig-In order. Every Game Turn in which a Command uses the Dig-In order, it must pay RP equal to its “Not In Combat” RP supply cost to maintain the fortifications"
to
"This order creates field defences for the unit, reducing damage to the force while not impeding its ability to inflict damage. This order costs equal the Command’s Combat Supply RP cost. A Command may not use the Dig-In and Rest orders in the same Game Turn. Once a unit has dug itself in, it may continue to be issued the Dig-In command on subsequent turns. A Combat Command may not Dig-In in a Fortification."
Remove references to Fortify, leaving just "Dig In", on the following:
* under "Scatter (Defensive)", marked page 357 document page 359
* under "Formation Modifiers" in the ACS Master Modifier table, marked page 308 document page 310.
There are no other references.
-
On the Late Dark Age Sub-Era chart on page 31, the Regulan Fiefs are listed separately from the (neo-)FWL, and as surviving through to the year 3150.
However, according to the Notable Units write-up for Major Shardae Nangwaya on page 198 of Technical Readout: 3150, Regulus seems to have surrendered to the League in July 3148 - the result of a war triggered by the assassination of Jessica "Marik".
While the full details will likely not be made public until the publication of IlClan, would the data in TRO:3150 be enough to warrant an errata adjustment in the Regulan portion of the chart listing in IO - or at least an asterisk or other note specifying the apparent loss of Regulus' independence?
-
LAM bomb bay critical hit table, pg. 111:
It says the RL 10 will explode for 10 damage when hit. Is this correct? RLs do not explode when hit or as a result of overheating when mounted on other units.
-
I'd just like to echo what others have said: that the Alternate Eras section could do with a reordering.
Would suggest breaking it down by Era, then each Era by IS/Clan, then further by Prototype/Standard/Experimental.
Also, would it be possible to include the Incendiary AC ammo from FM: AFFS (p. 159), it's the only equipment/specialty ammo I can find that hasn't made it's way into one of the core rule books yet. Maybe put in a note that it was too volatile and too situational to have found much use.
Anyway thanks for the great book! O0
-
Digging into the Inner Sphere and Abstract Combat System rules a bit more I have been thinking back on my earlier feedback and have realized in a way it is too negative.
I still stand by them being too complicated and demanding too much book keeping for being a reasonable way to resolve any free for all conflict amongst the 5 great houses involving their full armies and territories.
Though if you were to limit the scope and induce some restrictions/sensible simplifications(like take out the planetary improvement rules, a month seems way too short to massively change your economic output anyway) and the rules could prove reasonably workable.
This will require some actual play testing to find the reasonable upper limit of scope though. Something I still intend to do and even indeed look forward to despite my seeming negativity.
-
There's a good chance I just overlooked the answer to this question, but here goes: I was one of the lucky few who was able to get the physical copy of the book at Gen Con, when the final version is released, how do I go about updating my PDF?
-
All pages with tabs
The next to last tab says "INNER SPHERE IN FLAMES"
Should match the rule set name "INNER SPHERE AT WAR", or, alternatively, rename the rule set to match the tab.
-
A few points of confusion I found while reading the SBF rules in depth during my trans-pacific flight. Mind you, I'm a bit jeg-lagged so maybe I missed something. Additionally, these may shake out when I actually do the playtest tomorrow or Friday, but here's what I found.
1) Engagement Control: The Engagement Control Roll rules on pages 237-238 seem to be mixing Target Number Modifiers and Die Roll Modifiers in the same table (only in the rules description). The table has standardized on TN Modifiers, but at several points in the text, the sign of the modifiers conflicts with the table.
Specifically: Forced Engagement says at the end of page 237 that "the Formation applies a +3 to their Engagement Control Roll target number. Similarly, Evade says "it may declare an attempt to evade and add a +3 to their Engagement Control Roll target number. In both cases, that seems like they wouldn't want to do that (that's in the first rules paragraph for the Evade rules description on page 238. I suspect the signs on both of those modifiers should be flipped to match the table, which (I believe correctly) show both as -3. That would also cause them to match the rules for Overrun which do apply a negative number to the Engagement Control Roll target number (unless you're dumb enough to attempt to overrun someone larger than you).
2) Forced Withdraw (specifically it's interactions with Engagement Control): It seems clear that units suffering from degraded morale (Shaken or lower) much choose "RUN AWAY!" if forced to make an Engagement Control Roll. Is this also true for units operating under Forced Withdraw? Units which are suffering from Morale effects have modifiers to their Engagement Control Rolls, does Forced Withdraw confer such a modifier as well or is it a straight roll?
That's all for now, but I'm sure some new stuff will fall out once I actually take the ruleset out and beat on it a bit. In fact, I'll be doing a bit of unit creation on my layover!
-
One more Engagement Control Roll question.
Assuming I have a Size 1 Formation (Let's call it the Light Brigade) meeting the criteria for Overrun against a Size 3 Formation (We'll call them the Battery Company) and the Light Brigade attempt an overrun, how does that modifier go into their Engagement Control Roll TN? My feeling is 1-3 = -2. So TN - (-2) == TN + 2, meaning I'd be applying a +2 to their TN (Increasing my odds of failure) by attempting an overrun.
It's my feeling that's what should happen (hence why I picked those names for my example units). Am I reading that correctly? In that case, should I assume the Light Brigade's optimal choice should they wish to bypass Battery Company to proceed to an objective behind the enemy is an Evade maneuver? Is there a more aggressive way for Lights to bypass heavier opponents? Perhaps a "Swarm" that reverses the formula from Overrun and applies some other modifiers to combat similar to the other options? In this case, the Light Brigade could not use an Evade to bypass Battery Company to engage the Logistics Train behind him because the Evade rules specifically state that you cannot force an Engagement Roll later in the round after having Evaded.
-
Found another one...
Davy Crocket Type 1a weapon entry, pg. 174.
The range for the Davy Crockett Type 1a is not listed. All other nuclear weapons that have a delivery system describe the range of the weapons in particular (such as the surface to surface version of the Santa Ana) or state that it is based on the weapons they emulate (such as the Davy Crockett M fired from an Arrow IV or Long Tom).
The Type 1a describes how it uses artillery rules for on or off board fire, but does not list a range in mapsheets for the special launcher that is used. Nor is that found anywhere in the accompanying tables that I can see. Since other fluff sometimes describes the Davy Crockett as having only a 1-2km range, perhaps a range of 4 mapsheets would be appropriate.
Thanks.
-
Very confused right now. Please help me understand exactly how ACS combat is supposed to work. I'm really trying hard to warp my mind around this monster.
ACS Formations are represented by playing pieces on the game board. They are the things that get moved around.
All combat rolls occur at the Combat Unit level. Formations get one standard attack per Combat Unit.
Attacks are declared against an enemy ACS Formation. It says to apply Strategic Battleforce rules for applying damage. Strategic Battleforce uses a Tactics roll to determine what Unit takes the damage (or optionally random if players decide for quicker resolution).
The thing that gets me is that ACS Formations do not have a TMM. Are attacks supposed to be declared from an ACS Formation to a Combat Unit? Is the TMM missing from the ACS Formation?
Sorry for my confusion. I hope I am just missing something obvious.
Thanks!
-
First: thanks for the Beta file; interesting and long awaited...
Now, back to the topic.
p. 348: Paragraph (and Example) Abstracted Economy Values (see below)
Abstracted Economy Values: If playing outside the major eras, an
abstracted approach to computing a Faction’s economy is to assign
each realm a capital, 2 to 5 regional capitals. Furthermore, 2 percent of
its worlds are Major Industrial Worlds (up to 6 worlds total, regardless
of nation size), 8 percent are Minor Industrial Worlds (up to 20 worlds
total, regardless of nation size) and the rest are “other” worlds. Major
and Minor Industrial worlds must be clearly identified on the map and
in each player’s Faction Orders Sheet at start of game play.
Playing in a game set in 3025, the Lyran Commonwealth would
gain 1802 Resource Points per turn: 120 for Tharkad (Capital and
Major Industrial World), 200 for Donegal, Skye and Tamar (Regional
Capitals; Donegal and Skye are also Major Industrial Worlds), 64 for
Hesperus (a Hyper Industrial World), 360 for nine additional Major
Industrial worlds, 144 for six Minor Industrial Worlds and 914 for
the 457 other worlds.
Using the Abstracted Full Economy approach, in a game set in 3025
the Federated Suns would gain 1958 Resource Points per turn: 120 for
New Avalon (Capital and Major Industrial World),
160 for other regional capitals (New Syrtis and
Robinson, both of which are also Major Industrial
Worlds), 240 for the 6 Major Industrial Worlds (2
percent of 509 is 10 Major Industrial Worlds, but the
maximum allowed is 6), 480 for the 20 Minor Industrial
Worlds (8 percent of 509 is 40, but the maximum
allowed is 20) and 958 for the 479 other worlds.
Two remarks:
1.) In the example (first paragraph) Hesperus is noted as a Hyper Industrial world. On the table at the following page (p. 349), Hesperus is marked as a major indutrial world. The text on p. 347 (last paragraph) marks Hesperus as Hyper Industrial World in the Star League Era only.
So either the table (p. 349) or the example at p. 348 should be corrected.
2.) using Abstract economy, only six Major Factory Worlds are allowed per faction. Nevertheless, in the example (second paragraph) the FS receive nine major Factory Worlds, as the national and two regional capitals are also Major Factory Worlds.
So my suggestion would be either to reduce the number of (additional) Major Factory Worlds in the Example to three (according to the rules) or adjust the fix maximum number or insert an additional condition for (not) counting Major Factory worlds, which are also regional/national capitals.
-
Initial reaction: Squeee!!!!
Secondary reaction: Squeeee!!!
Tertiary reaction: grrr Why is the ADDITIONAL ALTERNATE ERA WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT Table hidden in the middle of the book? I expected it to be at the back or at least after the Alternative Weapons and Equipment section. Not hidden behind the Battle Value section. Bookmarks would have helped but there aren't any. I imagine that'll be fixed in the next version though along with getting the page numbering fixed. The readers puts them off a couple pages.
I'm a little disappointed that not all the tech and ammo has made it in so far. But I'm still looking, and finding. :) And hoping those missed items will appear in the production version.
I'm also disappointed that eras and technology for Pre-Age of War aren't covered but I kind of expected that. It would still have been nice though. I know going that far back isn't ideal since there's no big stompy robots but there are worlds at those tech levels which can interact with big stompy robots during the various eras. Like the Outworlds Alliance during the Age of War.
It'd of been nice if the Quirk Rules were improved and expanded but I suppose that's a job for the next edition of Strategic Ops.
I'm guessing the same with FrankenMechs. Right now I'd really like to make a halftrack QuadVee. I don't know why. I just want to. Is that possible?
Errors/Questions???
The Prototype Remote Sensor Dispensers list 60 sensors per ton. Page 216/(218) That's technically correct, only Remote Sensor Dispensers weight .5 tons each, limiting each Dispenser to 30 sensors. That's also how they're listed in TechManual.
The other thing is The Prototype Remote Sensor Dispenser has an introduction date of 2586P. TechManual lists Remote Sensor Dispensers having an introdate of PS (Pre-Spaceflight). There is fluff to support older tech larger sized sensors in TRO3026 but no rules for them so I'm not sure there's an error in the introdates or if there are "Primitive" Remote Sensor Dispensers and the TechManual's introdate reflects them. If I may suggest? Change the introdate in TechManual to 2590 as given in Reunification War. Then add a Pre-Spaceflight Primitive Remote Sensor Dispenser covering only the basic fire control sensors and having less sensors per dispenser.
Anti-Aero Targeting page 298 has a -1 to hit all units on the ground. This isn't seen in the AA Quirk in Strategic Ops. Is this just for BattleForce or does it replace the SO Quirk?
SPECIAL PILOT ABILITIES Table page 297. Are these available for regular Battletech or just BattleForce? Cause they look really cool. :)
Cross-country; does the ability to go through water depend on being amphibious or not?
FUEL-AIR bombs aren't listed in the LAM BOMB BAY ORDNANCE TABLE even though the rules say that they may be used from internal bomb bays. Is this an oversight? I would have though FAM bombs and Arrow VIs would be useable by LAMs.
Davy Crocket aren't listed in any bomb bay ordnance but couldn't ArrowIV's with Davy Crocket Warheads be carried in bomb bays?
Edit:
I'm also wondering about Chemical and Biological weapons. The Rules say unguided Arrow IVs. IS there more than one type of unguided air dropped/launched Arrow IV? If there's just explosive, why haven't the other Arrow types been adapted to air dropped/launched versions?
Why is it that LAMs can't carry cargo? :-\
Just wondering out of sheer curiosity, will there be rules to design prototype weapons and equipment or will that be left to the realm of House Rules?
Edit
Rocket Launchers. Interstellar Ops lists Prototype Launcher (RL-P). The Pentagon Powers Rocket Launchers are mentioned but not noted that they're listed as (RL-PP). Also the Hurricane Fighter from XTRO:Primitives 1 mounts Primitive Rocket Launchers. They all work the same but maybe there should be a note saying that they're listed under multiple names or errata'ing XTRO:Primitives and Operation Klondike so they all say Prototype? That or have multiple listings for each of them.
Also the introdates for the Rocket Launchers are a little confusing. The Universal Technology Advancement table lists Rocket Launchers as being Introduced ES (Early Spaceflight) (Page 46). A couple pages further down under ammunition, the Rocket Launcher Pod has a Prototype date of 3060 and a production date of 3064 (Page 60). Page 73 though gives an introdate of circa 2250.
So when was the Rocket Launcher Prototyped? ES, circa 2250 (technically ES but more specific) or 3060? ???
Can Prototype, Primitive, Improved, and Production weapons share ammo? I know Improved Weapons can use all the various ammo types but could an IAC/5 use prototype ammo if that's all that was available? Or could a 2240 built tank mounting a PPAC/5 use the newly introduced production AC/5 in 2250 ammo and Flak Ammo in 2310? If yes, how much ammo per ton would I have for the new ammo types, 15 or 20?
Would an UAC/5 using UAC-5P ammo function normally or would it have the penalties of the prototype version? Would a prototype function better with production ammo or no?
Also are there any modifiers for going between Weapon types the way there is for Inner Sphere Weapons using Clan Ammo? And are there modifiers for the Clan using new IS ammo?
Thanks for the great work! O0 I'm really looking forward to the production version. :) Now to go make more stuff. >:D
Edit note
added more questions here since some were related to others already asked. Thanks :)
-
Critical Hits table on Page 241.
(Reads)
*The third Targeting Damage critical renders the Unit unable to fire. If the Unit is
possess the LEAD ability treat the third critical as killing the leader for morale
purposes (see Morale, p. 242).
(Should Read)
*The third Targeting Damage critical renders the unit unable to fire If the Unit
possesses the LEAD ability, treat the third critical as killing the leader for morale
purposes (see Morale, p.242).
-
Just a quick suggestion. All of the SBF/ACS unit sheets seem to only take into account ground forces. There's no place for things are are aerospace-centric, like extreme range and thresholds. May want to rework the sheet to allow such information, or provide aerospace-centric sheets.
Edit
Actually, looking at it, the ground sheets seem a little odd too. For instance, page 329 of the PDF (327 in the book) states under transport movement "If a Unit possesses any of the Transport Special Abilities, then the unit a Transport Movement rating."
First of all, it should be "then the unit has a Transport Movement Rating." Missing the "has". Second, the record sheet on page 376 of the PDF doesn't have a space for the Transport Movement rating in the SBF Unit section, only in the overall Formation section.
/edit
Edit 2
Type seems to be missing from the Unit section of the record sheet as well.
/edit
-
Typo on pg. 303, last paragraph of the story 'Pressure play'.
“Jawhol,” Romante answered
Should be: 'Jawohl'
-
Great book so far. Looking forward to playing ISW with my group. Are there any maps with a 30 LY hex? I looked under downloads and didn't find any.
Errata:
page 348 (on pdf) Under Faction Abilities and Flaws - Closed State - 1st sentence - ..all signs of disssent -> all signs of dissent
is there a way to buy off a faction flaw? or buy a faction ability? via RP?
-
I was hoping to use the equipment advancement table to help determine what amount of standard and intro tech the houses fielded during the era. It lists when the Terran hegemony reached production, and when it became common after the helm memory core, but it does notention when it became common in the star league era. I would recommend two years listed in the common column to identify both periods.
-
Page 352 (on the pdf) 3rd line in -> The Starting Mercenary Cpombat Commands -> Combat
-
On pg 331 of the PDF (329 for the actual page), "Step 2I: Determine Formation Point Value."
For all the other Steps, when the Step involves both the Combat Team and the Formation, the Step is simply titled "Determine Movement Stats." and doesn't reference the Team or the Formation in the step name. Since Step 2I involves both the Combat Team and the Formation, it should follow the same naming convention and simply be named "Step 2I: Determine Point Value."
On the same page, under the "Create ACS Combat Units" section, Step 3B is "Determine Type." It tells you that the Combat Unit's Type is determined by the Predominant Type among the Component Combat Teams."
However, nowhere in the previous section "Create SBF Formations or ACS Combat Teams" does it ever tell you to determine the type of the Combat Team. A step needs to be added where the Type for Combat Teams is determined.
-
Just an observation but is seems the Strategic Battleforce Formation Record Sheet pg.376 and the Advanced Combat system Combat Unit Record Sheet pg. 377 have way to many inputs for the previous levels and not enough for the level they are intended for.
exc. Strategic Battleforce Formation Record Sheet has has 24 spaces for alpha strike stats which are not used at that level for anything but getting the SBF stats but only 4 spaces for SBF stats, this seems more like a unit worksheet then a game play record sheet.
The problem i find here is that it leads to having to use to many sheets at the game table, where one sheet would work just fine (Using the Advanced Combat system Combat Unit Record Sheet as the game record for SBF)
-
First, it's really good to see IO out in Beta form; I really appreciate the hard work that has gone into this book! O0
A few things to comment on:
1) I'd second the call for Re-Engineered lasers (p. 89) to be re-examined. IMHO, at the moment they're obviously quite good against the specialty armours, but are very lacking against standard armour compared to other lasers. I'd suggest making them a bit lighter and less bulkier; perhaps the same weight and size as Inner Sphere-tech pulse lasers. Or, as units mounting RE-Lasers have already been published and changing the weight and bulk might mean lots of errata, an accuracy bonus might be a simple way of improving them (this is fitting as RE-Lasers are fluffed as being based somewhat on pulse laser technology.) Perhaps a -1 to-hit to reflect the pulse technology, along with a risk of explosion on a critical hit to reflect RE-Lasers also being based on Heavy laser technology.
2) RISC Equipment (p. 91). I was really anticipating this section. Being a fan of MW:AOD, I was curious to see how RISC tech would be adapted to fit BattleTech rules.
i) The Viral Jammers are very powerful. They have a very good chance of disabling most electronic equipment on the battlefield; I suggest lessening the range of the devices.
ii) I think the Laser Pulse Module is over-BV'd. The table on p. 196 calls for a Pulse Modules-equipped laser's BV to be multipled by 1.25. However, I actually calculated what the BV (8))of each laser would be if it had the -1 to-hit modifier, and none had a BV near a 25% increase over their standard BV. For example, the standard ER Large Laser has a BV of 163. With a -1 to-hit modifier, it would have a BV of 187, not the 203 it would have with the rules as they stand. Perhaps calculating the BV of each laser/Pulse Module combo would be more accurate.
iii) Again concerning the Laser Pule Module, I think they're a fairly balanced piece of equipment even without the explosion risk on a critical hit or an attack result of 2. When all laser/Pulse Module combinations are compared to other existing energy weapons, they don't appear to be overpowered or render any other weapon useless. For example, the standard Medium Laser with a Pulse Module is very similar (and IMHO, slightly inferior) to a Medium X-Pulse laser. They have the same weight and range, but the X-Pulse laser does 20% more damage, is less bulky, is even more accurate, doesn't have and explosion risk, all at the cost of one extra heat point. I suggest that, as written, the Laser Pulse Module should grant a -2 to-hit, making it rather nasty but balancing the threat of explosion. A later version with the -1 to-hit but without any threat of explosion could then be developed.
iv) The same also applies to the Hyperlaser (p. 93). It appears to be wonderfully over-the-top, yet generating 24 points of heat is a good way to balance such a potent weapon without the need for an explosion risk every time it is fired. Again, perhaps this represents an early prototype, and a slightly better version might be developed later that only explodes on a critical hit, but not on a bad attack roll.
3) A subtle thing that I noticed a long time ago concerning Exoskeletons and Space Operations Adaptation gear. P. 51 states that Space Operations Adaptations became available to the Inner Sphere in 3011. This gear would have been mounted on exoskeletons, which were the only available form of Battle Armour to the Inner Sphere at this time. P. 168 of TechManual states that an Inner Sphere exoskeleton must mount extended life support equipment and one point of armour to be considered sealed for use in hostile enviroments (ie. space). The Armour (Infantry) table on p. 36 implies that no armour was actually available to the Inner Sphere until 3050, when Prototype Standard Armour was developed. The development of Space Operations Adaptations in 3011 implies that there was some armour available to the Inner Sphere between the years 3011 and 3050. (Unless the Taurians invented Space Operations Adaptation equipment for pressurised environments, although I'd much prefer to see Taurian Marines zipping around in space and mining asteroids!) I actually raised this point in the Rules Questions section of the board a few years ago. See http://bg.battletech.com/forums/techmanual/(answered)-when-were-sealed-exoskeletons-possible/ (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/techmanual/(answered)-when-were-sealed-exoskeletons-possible/) for reference.
Again, I really appreciate the work done on IO, and also appreciate the chance to give feedback. I hope this helps!
-
Trying out the SBF formation creation rules, and assigning specials has me confused. In my sample SLDF company, unit one has two units with IF1, unit two has two units with IF2, and unit three has one with IF1, and one with IF0* on their AS cards. What should the final IF values be at the Unit and Formation levels?
-
Trying out the SBF formation creation rules, and assigning specials has me confused. In my sample SLDF company, unit one has two units with IF1, unit two has two units with IF2, and unit three has one with IF1, and one with IF0* on their AS cards. What should the final IF values be at the Unit and Formation levels?
Unit one: (1 + 1) / 3 = 0.66 rounds to IF 1
Unit two: (2 + 2) / 3 = 1.33 rounds to IF 1
Unit three: (1 + 1 + 1) / 3 = IF 1
Formation: (1 + 1 + 1) / 3 = IF 1
-
I think you misread unit three's part, but I got the gist, thanks.
Does this sheet look correct to you?
-
I think you misread unit three's part, but I got the gist, thanks.
Does this sheet look correct to you?
Command and Striker should both get Jump 1. (3 + 4 + 0 + 0 = 7 / 4 = 1.75 / 2 = 0.875 rounds to 1) Other than that, it looks correct.
-
I'm a bit confused about BAR armor's new introductory dates and how it applies to TechManual. Actually, I'm kind of confused about it all really.
The dates for BAR 2-4 armors are PS, BAR-5+6 ES. (IO page36?) Tech Manual lists BAR 5 armor under the Tech B column. (TM page 134). If I understand things right, that means Tech B can build BAR 5 armor but not until after 1950. Is that right?
If that is right, I'm wondering about all the tanks and other combat vehicles that predate 1950. They're now limited to BAR 4 armor and don't need to have the armored chassis mod to mount it? Or will BAR 4 Tech B Armor receive the * note indicating it needs an armored chassis to be mounted? And what about advanced support vehicles? TacOps page 253 has the same scale that was used in the first edition of TechManual. So I'm kind of confused.
Would the 1904 Swiftsure-class battleship with Tech B BAR 6 armor be considered Tech C because her armor is ahead of her time, as mentioned on page 32 in IO? Or would she still be Tech B because all her parts are labeled Tech B?
What makes things even more weird is that Primitive small craft and large aerospace craft can have Primitive Armor (BAR10) in Early Spaceflight. But Support Vehicle armor can't reach BAR 7 until 2250. Can the "Liberty-class spaceplanes of 1988" (HS:Terra page 139) really have better armor protection than an Iowa Class Battleship? ???
Sorry. I'm just confused by the dates and tech levels thing.
Edit
Would support vehicles like Hover and VTOL having a Tech rating of C yet being introduced Pre-spaceflight be an example of they're ahead of their time? And would their Combat versions being Tech rating B be examples of finding an easier simpler way to manufacture them?
Sorry just saw this.
Interstellar Ops lists structural and drive components for Combat Vehicles as Tech D and C for the control components. (IOpage 48?) TechManual lists those items as TechB. (TM page 279). Will Tech Manual be errata'd to correct this?
Thanks
-
pg 37, the infantry armor kit (FS/LC, 3030-3066) has a prototype date of ~3035 and production date of 3030.
The 3030 production date seems consistent with TO, so I would suggest changing the prototype date to pre-date this. Or maybe switch the dates.
-
On Overwhelming Force...
How is this measured? Armor points? Number of Combat Teams/Formations/Combat Units?
This may need to be clarified if it only costs an extra sentence.
-
I am not sure if this has already been brought up here, but, as there s a bit of a discussion
thread on it already, i figured it would be worth bringing up here.
The new LAM rules seem to overcompensate for complaints on LAMs from the quick-start
rules for them. They are now the only ground unit that uses angle of attack as their sole
modifier on the ground. Sure, it is easy to get a LAM that is 18/27 in airmech mode. However,
they have plenty of sinks for those Movement points, such as taking off, landing, climbing,
maintaining elevation, as well as turns. The likelihood of them getting the +6 TMM for 25 hexes
of movement is not that high.
If I were to make any changes to standard movement penalties to represent that LAMs are
a slightly different movement mode in Airmech than a WiGE? I would drop the +1 Airborne
TMM bonus from their movement modifier, and give the unit they attacked a bonus to
hit them, maybe allow that unit to make Flak Attacks with all weapons, not just those with
munitions that allow for it?
-
The Turn Mode rule for LAMs in AirMech mode (p109) is causing some confusion:
Turn Modes: A LAM using AirMech movement must follow the rules for WiGE turn modes (see p. 25, TO).
One reading is that AirMechs must always use the optional Turn Mode rules, even if they're not being applied to vehicles in the same scenario.
The other reading is that AirMechs have to use the optional Turn Mode rules if they are in play, even though they normally only apply to vehicles.
A clarification to the wording may be desirable.
-
Another thought on LAMs, I might recommend instead of retaining half the movement of the mode they are converting from they perhaps they should instead gain half the movement modes of the forms they are converting to.
At the very least I would recommend that when converting from ASF mode to another mode that ASF velocity must be reduced to zero before converting to help minimize potential overflying map boarder issues.
-
Word of Blake superjump drive: The writeup seems to reflect the information first presented in ISP2 rather than the later writeup in jihad hot spots 3076. This means that the maximum range limit imposed in the later writeup is absent from the one in the IO beta text. Whether or not this was intended, I would suggest re-imposing the range limit from jhs3076, which add an additional layer of interesting weaknesses to the text while simultaneously protecting the Inner Sphere from invasion by extragalactic blakists. :P
-
Random question. Was living legends not counted as part of current BattleTech canon? The Manassas was equipped a Star League era Super Jump, that arguable was similar or forerunner to the Blakist's Super KF-Jump System. It malfunctioned for sure. I was disappointed it wasn't mentioned.
-
Page 9:
"Finally the forums on www.classicbattletech.com are an excellent resource"
Should be updated to the current address of bg.battletech.com
-
To expand on my earlier thought for LAMs I think more specific examples of converting from ASF mode to Mech mode would be helpful as I am finding it a little confusing to ascertain certain aspects, especially if using ASFs on ground map rules.
For instance I'm trying to work out how feasible "Super Sonic Punch" would be.
[Super Sonic Punch]
LAM in ASF mode using ASF on ground mapsheet rules converts to Battlemech mode and "lands" next to a valid target for using punch attack that survives until physical combat phase.
[/Super Sonic Punch]
And it is leading me to these additional suggestions:
-I would suggest that likewise to prevent issues the skill roll probably should use skills of the mode converted to rather than from.
-or at the very least make a note that physical attacks always use Battlemech skill.
Might have to look through to see if there are any other special cases where no matter the mode converted to a different skill then indicated may be required.
-
related to LAM's and summing up the reasons why the changes have caused so much high emotions.. posting here since the non-feedback threads are closed.
the problem with the IO-beta rules is it's written from a stance that is a disconnect from how the LAM's are actually flying.
the dev's talk about how in airmech mode LAM's are "speeding around at near supersonic speeds"
but when actually plotted to the tabletop distances, the fastest LAM is only about 180 kmh. which is actually around the landing speed of a F-15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEREAfquvsw
it's also about half the max flight speed of an AH-64 Apache.
the speed of sound at low level (under 1000ft) is about 1225 km/h, so LAM's aren't even close.
it's also wildly inconsistent.. they get the same mod hovering as they do moving flat out. the dev's claim that's because the pilot is jinking around while hovering.. which doesn't follow because they've put a bunch of stuff in to reduce the airmech's agility in flight, and a VTOL that hovers gets a much smaller TMM despite the fact that it should also be able to jink around within the 30 meter hex. if anything, a VTOL should get a better mod because it's generally physically smaller and have more room to move around within that hex.
and the VTOL or WIGE, at the same speed in forward flight as an airmech, generate upwards of double the TMM the airmech can get. so somehow despite both using the same movement rules, the airmech is much easier to hit. it makes it seem like LAM's have some sort of reality warping bullet magnet or something built in.
it's a complete disconnect from the fundamental way the game has been set up.
add in the high gunnery mod the pilot gets saddled with and you get a situation that is rather unbalanced in the opposite of the old tactical handbook rules. you can't hit anything, and you can't avoid being hit either.
the high pilot gunnery mods make more sense if the TRO3085 TMM rules are in use.. airmechs become very hard to hit when moving like a WIGE, but with the gunnery mods they're not gonna hit anything while doing it. combined with the revised TMM system, it just leaves the airmech almost useless in actual tabletop play. and with the mech mode so hindered and the fighter mode so slow and fragile, you start wondering what the star league thought was so impressive about the unit type.
my recommendation is keep the high gunnery mods (flying a battlemech with wings in WIGE or VTOL flight is gonna make it hard to aim guns at the same time) and have the TMM's be determined like any other ground unit. so hovering it gets none beyond the +1 for being airborne, but moving it depends on distance covered.
then unless you put a super elite pilot in it (driving the already high BV even higher) airmech mode becomes primarily a mobility mode.. mech mode becomes the preferred combat mode because it gets the lower gunnery mods. it also avoids disconnects with the fundamental 'physics' of the game rules.
-
I don't like LAMs, but I think not giving them a TMM rule consistent with other units is... an unfortunate decision. LAMs should not be a Push To Win button, but they also shouldn't be hindered by a rules exception. They should operate as standard battlemechs in mech mode, standard ASFs in ASF mode, and very maneuverable... somethings... in Airmech mode.
What about...
At the End Phase of a turn, a player must declare whether or not a LAM is changing modes. If a player elects to change the mode of one of his or her LAM units, that unit will spend the duration of the next turn transforming and will be unable to move or attack.
A LAM in Battlemech mode operates under all of the rules as a standard battlemech.
A LAM IN ASF mode operates under all of the same rules as a standard ASF.
A LAM in Airmech mode operates as a higly maneuverable scout but with some restrictions.
-A LAM in Airmech mode is assumed to be hovering several meters off the ground at all times, therefore a LAM in Airmech mode may ignore all terrain penalties other than light woods, heavy woods, and buildings.
-Keeping a 20+ ton Robot Space Plane hovering in the air requires a herculean amount of Space MagicTM, therfore a LAM in Airmech mode can only move at the walking speed of its Battlemech mode.
-A LAM in Airmech mode can increase and decrease in elevation as a VTOL.
-For the purposes of combat, a LAM in Airmech mode accrues TMM exactly like a VTOL.
-A LAM in Airmech mode also recieves a +1 to-hit modifier for being, as veteran mechwarriors have described, "a zippy son-of-a-*CENSORED*".
-A LAM in airmech mode is subject the same Flak rules as VTOLs, owing to the fact that it is an extremely gangly mess of limbs and wings.
-A LAM in Airmech mode is also subject to Control rolls as if it were an ASF, owing to the fact that there are a lot of bits and pieces that don't react well to bullets.
-A LAM in Airmech mode may declare that it is exiting hover mode. A LAM in Airmech ,ode that is not hovering no longer ignores terrain penalties, cannot move as a VTOL, is not subject to Control rolls, but is still restricted to Battlemech walking speeds and is subject to Flak damage.
-
Glitterby, that is a gd pnt. That s what was tryng to articulate, but people are obsessed that if LAMs had high
speeds, but were still having a hard time hitting, that they are too powerful.
On top of that, there is the issue that: a LAM that moves 1 hex, or that moves 20 is still just as easy/hard
to hit. Finally, the Angle of Attack modifier? It is very hard to maneuvre where someone is hitting you in
the side arc. There is an extremely narrow band that coomes into the side arc on a 'mech while most
shots are going t come through the front arc or rear arc. S, this means against most shots, a LAM is going
to have a +1 TMM and a +1 Angle of Attack Penalty, RARELY getting the +2 Angle of Attack Penalty.
Now, if they wanted to keep the TMM lower than +6? I would say do away with the "airborne unit" modifier
to represent that it is a more predictable because of their method of movement, and outright say that they do
noot generate additiional movement penalty for movement beyond a certain point. That way, there is no
disconnect from the 'the faster it moves, the harder it is to hit', AND it doesn't matter where a unit is facing.
If there was some sort of limit of +3 or +4 (which would make sense: Not generating a penalty higher than
its AMM penalty, but also keeping it SIMPLE as the existing angles of attack rule is also needlessly complex.)
-
Clarification Needed in LAM construction, BTW:
The only prohibited cockpit is torso mounted. This implies that a LAM can mount an Interface Cockpit.
If a LAM mounts an Interface Cockpit, can it get away with NOT mounting a Gyro, per the Interface
Cockpit rules?
-
What about calculating the TMM as normal, but having the AMM equal TMM, as caused by the instability of that mode?
-
please no discussion on this or any of the errata or suggestions in this thread, unless engaged by any of the developers. Just post your own feedback.
People, we're getting to beta test an entire rulebook. The least you can do is to follow the rules set forth for that beta test. Dragging in a discussion from a thread that was just recently locked does not help.
To sum up:
Knock. It. Off. [copper]
-
In the name of the "kitchen sink approach" to rules gathering, I would request a line or two in the LAM construction rules to allow for the dual cockpit (or rather cockpit command console) used by the Jade Falcons in their brief LAM experiments. Perhaps by optionally relocating the avionics critical in the head to the center torso.
That this would also permit an interface cockpit to fit would be an added bonus. :D
-
This is something that I had been somewhat unsure about when reading the two Historical: Liberation of Terra volumes - but since there are rules governing the Caspar drone system on pages 142-143 of the IO beta, it seemed apt to ask about it here:
From what I gather, the "current" drone and SDS Jammer rules in H:LoT1 (and the Prototype Jammer rules in H:LoT2) are mainly aimed at dealing with the "standard" SDS systems found across much of Hegemony space. But are there any additional notes or exceptions that may be needed to cover the operation of the more advanced Reagan SDS system to be found in the Sol system itself?
And on a related note, could the SDS Jammer rules on page 148 be modified to incorporate the prototype jammer rules from H:LoT2 as a sub-option?
-
I was complaining about some problems with factories, industrialization levels and fortifications in another thread and when I made this post, worktroll said to post it here, so here it is:
OK, New Earth is listed as a Minor Industrial World in the samples given, I pay 960 RP to upgrade it to Major. Now on a later turn I want to put my new factories into fortifications to protect them (I've already put it's starting factory into fortifications to protect it) but how many new factories do I have? According to the WORLD VALUES TABLE on page 350 (That's the PDF index) anywhere from 2 to 6
Now this isn't the only problem with the industrialization system. The way the WORLD VALUES TABLE on page 353 works I don't seem to get a discount for upgrading from Minor Industrial to Major to Hyper, meaning you want to hold out on upgrading them until you pay the Hyper cost.
Suggested fix: Players may build Factories on world at a cost of 288 RP, each produces 12 RP per turn and adds that to the 2 base production for a world (Another issue) and any capital bonuses
-
IO Beta, p. 108 (110 in the PDF)
Under Gaining Elevation: "As with normal WiGE movement, any AirMech moving at more than 1 elevation level above its underlying terrain must spend 2 AirMech MPs per hex of movement to do so."
Problem: This neither makes logical sense, nor is it required for game balance. While AirMechs use the WiGE rules for convenience, they cannot be using the actual wing-in-ground-effect phenomenon. Their wings are too far off the ground and they have most of a giant robot hanging underneath them, disrupting the smooth air movement required. Therefore, they must be using their rockets and wings in a rather brute force fashion to fly. Altitude would only matter once they start to reach thinner air high in the atmosphere, and the difference between 1 elevation level off the ground or 25 would be negligible. In addition, a unit on a ground mapsheet at a higher altitude is usually only making itself an easier target as it rises above intervening terrain, something a LAM in AirMech mode should be striving to avoid, given its relative fragility and lack of a proper target movement modifier, but this a "tactical" decision best left to the players.
Suggested Fix: Replace the above-quoted line with the following: "In addition, any AirMech moving at more than 1 elevation level above its underlying terrain spends 1 AirMech MP per hex of movement to do so." Adjust other rules that refer back to this one accordingly.
-
I'm more interested on wether you can upgrade a world several times in each turn. Like, turning a minor world intoa hyper industrialized throneworld.
P.S.
It's my understanding that you have to upgrade a world in order, right?
-
sillybrit beat me to it. O0 For AirMechs are Turn Modes mandatory or optional?
And yes. More on Clan LAMs and all the tech they use please. :)
Page 108 says that LAMs may only carry external cargo in Battletech mode. This rule seems intentionally designed to nerf LAMs as goes against all the fluff about LAMs being excellent raiders, especially that of the Stinger LAM fluff from TRO:3025 where the Stinger LAMs get the cargo out in AirMech mode. Raiders do have to be able to get their cargo back to their own lines or they're not very effective raiders. And if all the LAMs actuators are working the AirMech should be able to at least pick up and carry cargo in it's hands. This seems especially true since AirMechs can not only make physical attacks but they can follow all the optional rules in TO for physical weapons including dropping and picking them up.
Since physical attacks are reduced to half while using AirMech MP, I would suggest AirMechs ability to pick up and carry likewise be limited, not eliminated all together. It wouldn't alter the continuity with LAMs being great raiders while at the same time it would be in keeping with their reduced strength while moving with AirMech mode MPs.
-
pg 358, 3rd paragraph under Training, "The Command Commands in training must pay their In Combat Supply..."
should be "The Combat Commands in training must pay their In Combat Supply..."
-
Also about training, it requires two commands, for some reason. I assume one is the "trainer"? Do both commands get the XP from training (I'm guessing yes)?
-
pg 363, last paragraph under Interstellar Hex Control
"If two or more Factions control worlds in the hex, then control is determined by total planets controlled and ties are broken based on the original and current ownership. The Faction which controls the most worlds in the hex is considered the owner of the hex. In the event of a tie, the original owner (the Faction which controlled the hex at the start of game play) controls the hex."
It looks like current ownership might play a factor in tie breaks, perhaps when neither faction was the original owner, but no explanation was provided. If it is good as is, may I recommend shortening it to the following:
"If two or more Factions control worlds in the hex, then the Faction which controls the most worlds in the hex is considered the owner of the hex. In the event of a tie, the original owner (the Faction which controlled the hex at the start of game play) controls the hex."
-
After some discussion in another thread to help refine some of my ideas about LAMs I am ready to formalize a final proposal.
-Allow ASF mode to carry external ordinance/cargo like a normal ASF(including associated speed reductions) with the limitation that said external stores must be expended/jettisoned before conversion can be allowed. Given the LAMs low speed there should be no issue with this as it further reduces speed and thus increasing vulnerability in this mode.
-Allow Airmech mode to use the arms to carry off cargo using lifting rules but still reduce speed as if using external cargo rules. This should sufficiently reduce the speed of any LAM in Airmech mode trying to carry something off to acceptable levels and even possibly allow combat to be stretched out.
-Instead of Cruise being Jump *3 for Airmech mode it should be Jump *2. This allows Flank speed to match previous rules LAM's "super jump" and helps prevent Airmech movement abuse.
-Remove hover movement options for Airmech.
-Remove angle of attack modifiers for Airmech.
-Allow normal TMM calculation in line with other units but apply a -2 to hit modifier to represent reduced ability to evade enemy fire for Airmech mode. This has the side benefit of allowing Precision Ammunition and Semi-Guided LRM ammunition to actually be more effective against an Airmech.
-Reduce Airmech AMM to +2/+3 to compensate.
Everything else I think is fine as is.
-
SLDF Advanced Nero helmet page 68-69. This thing looks fun until your relize that you can't use the item at all past 3070 and have any real chance for it to work.
-
The rules for LAMs on page 105 have largely eliminated the Airmech's TMM, but the Battleforce and Strategic Battleforce rules on pages 204 and 292 respectively continue to have Airmechs build up a TMM like other ground units.
Recommend adjusting the BF and SBF rules to follow the same pattern as the standard-scale rules.
-
Actually found something else for LAMs that may at least need a notation.
LAMs actually need a minimum of 6 Jump MP in mech mode to actually be able to change mode from Mech to Airmech to ASF(or Airmech to ASF if Airmech starts the turn "landed" at 0 Elevation.
Reasoning unless I'm missing something in the rules:
5/8/5 in mech mode LAM changes to Airmech which is thus limited to 3/5/3 as LAMs retain half the movement of the mode they change from. This turn the Airmech cannot gain sufficient elevation and cannot actually take off to even gain 1 elevation as it lacks the appropriate movement mode to do so.
Converting again to ASF mode the movement is now 1/2|8/12 and since the Airmech must either expend 5 MP to hover or fly 5 hexes to avoid landing as a WiGe. It actually does not have sufficient MP to gain enough elevation to turn into an ASF this turn as it started the turn 0 elevations above the ground.
[edit]
To clarify further on this while I know I recommended earlier that to prevent certain issues I suggested perhaps it would be better to have half movement of the mode converted to instead of mode converted from, I'm not suggesting that the half movement portion be changed or that this is actually a problem. Just something that I think deserves mentioning and quite possibly an example in the rules of exactly how this conversion is supposed to work.
All three possible ways probably should get an example:
1. If there is sufficient movement to perform from elevation 0 to ASF mode flight(from either Battlemech or Airmech).
2. If there is not enough movement but delaying sufficient turns in Airmech mode to achieve sufficient Elevation.
3. If there is not enough movement but the player still persists in converting to ASF mode without gaining sufficient elevations.
-
ACS Question:
Can you attack a radar blip? How is damage resolved in that case?
-
Strategic Battleforce: As currently written it notably complicates the use of Protomechs. Since each protomech is an independent alpha strike element, to fill out even a single star would require more than is possible with a single formation.
Recommendation: include a rule that allows users of protomechs to group multiple points (or Uns as the case may be) into a single unit, thus allowing a formation to contain a full binary or trinary of protomechs, just as you can with other units.
-
It was suggested that I post here in regards to the new LAM rules and share my thoughts. Reading up on the thread I noticed that monbvol had a similar suggestion recently, at least in part.
When I first considered the new LAM rules I missed the part where the hexes moved part of the TMM did not apply for Airmech mode. My first thought was that the new LAMs were ridiculous, they could easily be moving 20-30 hexes a turn and generating a +6 or +7 TMM with the airborne +1, and on top of that could increase to a +9 or +10 with evasion. That's not fun to be on the receiving end of. It was pointed out to me that I missed an important section, namely that the only modifiers were the airborne +1 and the angle of attack, resulting in a max TMM of +2 or +3. This is not enough for something that lightly armored and vulnerable to crits. Airmech mode would not be viable in combat, I would never use one if I had the choice.
I was concerned that Airmech mode needs to be combat viable, and there needs to be some middle ground between ineffective and impossible to hit. I don't think removing the hexes moved modifier is the answer, so the only alternative to that is to reduce the total movement available. Cutting the base Airmech Cruise speed from Jumping MP x 3 to Jumping MP x 2 might do this. For example, the Phoenix Hawk LAM going 5/8/5 would become a 10/15 Cruise/Flank. This would usually be generating a +4 or +5 TMM, while incurring a +3 or +4 penalty on itself. This is perfectly acceptable to me since it falls in line with the modifier/penalty ratios of the vast majority of canon designs, generally 1 or 2 more TMM generated than AMM penalty generated.
There are already a ton of mechs in modern battletech that can jump 7+ hexes to make a +4 modifier while incurring a +3 penalty, so I see no problem with a LAM doing +4/+3 or +5/+4. A 10/15 moving Airmech mode LAM is still plenty fast considering it's essentially a 10/15 WiGE mech. The TMM is not an insurmountable thing here, considering that the LAM is not going to be taking advantage of partial cover, woods, etc. I feel that this achieves the goals of Airmech mode without going too far in either direction, it's fast and it's maneuverable, yet also simplifies the rules for LAMs.
Adjust Airmech base Cruise MP to Jumping MP x 2, keep the +1 airborne modifier, use the already existing hexes moved modifiers the same as every other unit in the game, and drop the angle of attack modifiers.
-
I bought the IO Beta book and i have some questions, perhaps i just missed something somewhere(?)
I will be using the ISW system to run a RPG campaign, my questions are the following.
1. Is there a conversion between C-bills and RP (this is for using technology and the ability to research). i know that they talk about research on page 35 (marked 33 in the pdf). but i cant find any system HOW to evolve the actual technology.. or am i missing something? There is no way for me to construct things ingame or rules for research as far as i can see? (Ie they want to research AC-10 cannons, this will cost x and take y time. and they will field as prototype for z amount years before they can put into regular production).
2. as far as i can see ALL mechs cost the same? (24 RP for a regiment doesnt matter what kind of mechs i take?) Now i have not read up on the SBF or ACS but im currently trying to understand those rules. I might be way off when it comes to understanding something here and if someone can point me in the right direction here aswell id be really happy (or is this missed?).
Other than my two points a very great book and im looking forward to the finished product! :)
Kind regards.
Jimmi
-
Page 351.
"Applying a -2 to the roll if it was in combat during the previous Game Turrn."
should be ...
"Applying a -2 to the roll if it was in combat during the previous Game Turn."
-
And on that note, on page 351 it looks like the modifier is backwards. I am assuming that it is harder to keep supply lines open the longer a command is in combat, correct? So the modifier should be positive since it is affecting the die roll?
It seems like it is very hard to keep supply lines open. Was it really the intent to have a 6 or higher on the first ISW turn of combat result in broken lines?
On the first turn this would mean only a 27% chance of staying supplied.
On subsequent turns, the probability drops to a mere 8%.
This seems highly punitive to attackers. Perhaps that is the intent. Is there any way to mitigate supply issues? Perhaps by a LR mod or maybe even allocating additional RP to the supply attempt to increase the chance of staying in supply?
-
Just a quick clarification.
In the ACS rules, if a formation is using Standard Tactics, then there is no reason to roll to-hit. The formation will default to delivering standard damage at the range bracket determined by the maneuver roll.
I've got that right?
-
2. as far as i can see ALL mechs cost the same? (24 RP for a regiment doesnt matter what kind of mechs i take?) Now i have not read up on the SBF or ACS but im currently trying to understand those rules. I might be way off when it comes to understanding something here and if someone can point me in the right direction here aswell id be really happy (or is this missed?).
Force composition means a lot in the ACS system. All your assault companies are meaningless if you can't engage your opponent in a fight. Light units can literally run in circles around you if they are actively trying to evade you.
So you need some fast light and medium batallions to chase them down and keep them tangled up so that you can bring your heavies and assaults to bear.
In essence, using the ACS rules, you need both a hammer and an anvil to conquer a planet. I hope this answers your question and I haven't crossed the boundary into too much discussion in this thread.
-
The nature of ProtoMechs as individual elements that are still found in large numbers within a single Star makes them awkward to organize into Units and Formations.
My advice is to make a Proto Element a full Point instead of an individual Proto. This way, Units would still be Stars, Formations would still be Binaries/Trinaries, and so forth. Include a note requiring players to use the Unit creation rules beginning on page 326 to create individual Elements, and then going through those rules again to combine those Elements into Units.
On a completely different note, the SBF record sheet has no place to record a Unit or Formation's type.
-
My apologies if this has been asked before but why do engine hit effect a LAM's airspeed? Their airspeed comes from the number of jump jets they have which are independent items. No other unit reducing Jump MP with engine hits. Mechs don't even lose MP with engine hits. So reducing a LAM's Jump MP seems like forcing 2 free critical hits against it's jump jets. Add in the extra heat to an already hot running unit, plus everything else they have to deal with seems like overkill.
It's even worse for LAMs built with the minimum Jump Jet requirements. One Engine crit makes take offs in Fighter Mode impossible with a 3/5 LAM. A second engine hit eliminates AirMechs taking off. The -2MP per engine it is too much. LAMs essentially aren't able to retreat if they take damage.
-
Page 17. "see www.masterunitlist.com..." should be "see www.masterunitlist.info...".
Page 148 "SLDF SDS JAMMER SYSTEM " title/heading probably needs a gray background with white letters like other item headings.
-
Chart Major Factory worlds page 351 in pdf 349 on the book number
Section Major Periphery Powers
The Periphery Powers have a number next to them that should be ignored. It is like saying Free Worlds League 5 So either they need to be bolded differently or at the very least removed since they are not part of the totals and probably should just be removed.
-
It is probably too late to ask for more clarafication regarding Jumpships and dropships in ISAQ scenarios. The book kind of hand waves it away.
There is no way to build them since they are pretty unique.
I am planning on running a FFA small faction game in the Outworlds Alliance region. The players are going to be warlords who own the corners of the region and the current Alliance leader dies and so they are going to get free reign to expand. They hold the Capitol world for 6 turns straight then they control the region. But given that it is the dark ages and well Draconis and the Suns are just sitting there if they want to expand that way they can too.
In planning for this campaign I have a few questions / issues.
1) Dropships and Jumpships. The book says 50 percent so what does that mean in game play? I can jump in a formation and then I got to wait a month to jump in another or I can only have half the group fighting at a time while the rest rests?
2) The Region is supposedly really good an building aerospace assets. But not enough I assume for Dropships and Jumpshps. Is there a way they could build these given the right tech? is "building" jumpships and dropships as simple as spending the RP to make them have "Assigned Jumpships?"
3) What is the difference between Medium heavy and light and assault regiments in Mech Formation creation? or any of the subcategories for the aerospace and vehicle assets. There doesn't appear to be one when creating formations. Is this just because it is too abstract at this level?
4) Can a Faction buy off their disadvantages via RP?
5) New Training Centers can be built at the cost of 50 RP. A Faction may
have no more than double its starting number in Training Centers. and just above it says Teritiary Powers start with none. So does that mean that there is never a training center in the Periphery?
6) What is the difference between an all Aerospace Formation and an All Land based one? I.e. do you get any bonuses for approaching the planet? does the mixed version usually mean the Aerospace split off to attack when approaching the planet but then rejoin once they are on the ground for support?
-
I'm currently working on an Omni and discovered something... disconcerting. Both FM:3145 and IO:Beta state that HarJel 2 and 3 cannot be pod mounted. However, TO states that HarJel 1 can. Additionally, HarJel 1 is superior in terms of checking for breaches, as its rules state thus: "When operating underwater (see p. 121, TW) or in a vacuum (see Vacuum, p. 54) a unit equipped with the HarJel system is not required to check for hull breaches for any location that features a BattleMech HarJel slot and has any armor remaining in that location." While 2 and 3 state: "In addition to providing a +2 modifier to all rolls made when checking the unit’s hull integrity in hostile environments or underwater..." So based on this information, if HarJel 1 can be pod mounted while making your 'Mech ignore breach rolls, then I would think that 2 and 3's "bonus to breach check rolls and self repair function" would be as well.
-
Possibility for Airmechs. Have them work as both mechs and aerospace, but at reduced effectiveness. Except a slightly better jump.
Five movement modes.
Walk/Run, as mech -1.
Jump, as mech +1 (or as partial wing).
Aero space at half aerospace mode?
Attack and Target modifiers would be as whichever movement mode was selected. Aero movement can strafe, strike, etc.
-
Another piece of technology we could use: Configurable transport bays.
Something to bring the old fluff abilities of craft like the Leopard and Seeker into the rules, while simultaneously ending arguments of just how you're supposed to get destriers from one battlefront to the next. My thought: treat the bay as a semimodular omnibay, able to be configured to fit different numbers and types of units or general cargo. Impose a restriction that prohibits aerospace bays from being reconfigured to ground unit bays and vice versa, even if first configured to cargo bays. Don't allow them to be configured as dedicated infantry bays at all (though let the infantry camp in the cargo bay under standard rules). Don't mix different configurable bays, or allow them to gain or lose bay doors.
-
Economies & industrial output, involving both Starting Setup (p345+), and Infrastructure, p.351.
As per startup, and as per the "Major Factory Worlds (3025)" tableon p349, the status of a world's industrial output is categorised on the basis of number of factories:
0 - "other world"
1-2 - "minor industrial"
3-7 - "major industrial"
8+ - "hyper".
While the Infrastructure rules apply at these levels of industrialisation, and the RP output does too, other rules - specifically:
* Disruption/Industrial Raid outcomes (p360)
* Infrastructure Disruption (p.361-362)
* Pacification & Integration (p.363)
deal with effects on Factories.
Is it the intent of the rules that this damage may result in changes to the industrial status (other/minor/major)?
Example: Irian has 3 factories. As a result of its capture by the Draconis Combine, one factory is destroyed. Irian now has 2 active factories; is it considered "minor industrial" from now on?
Example: Oliver has one factory, and is considered "minor". It's upgraded to "major". How many factories does it have - 2 or 3?
Example: Hesperus II has 6 factories. It's considered "major". Is the only impact of the 6 factories the ability to "lose" 3 factories, and still be considered a "major" industrial world?
Recommended simplification: remove tracking of factories, and just track world industrial status. It's a level of detail which doesn't add significantly, because the only impact of individual factories is to determine industrial status. Re-write the relevant quoted rule sections in terms of world industrial status; damaged worlds produce 50% of rated RP for listed durations, destroyed factory results become drop one industrial level. Redo the Major Factory World table in terms of world industrial status, not number of factories.
Cheers,
W.
-
Further clarification on world industrial status, & infrastructure upgrading (IO Beta, p351).
Under "Infrastructure", it says this:
The following rules cover the creation a Faction’s industry and
infrastructure. Worlds can be improved incrementally; an Other
World can be improved to a Minor Industrial World, which in turn
can be improved to a Major Industrial World.
On the World Values table, it lists a cost to upgrade a Major Industrial world to a Hyper Industrial world.
Question: should one be able to perform such an upgrade? Text says no, table says yes (albeit at ruinous cost).
Recommendation: it should be outside ISW scope to upgrade a Major Industrial world to a Hyper Industrial world. Seems most sympathetic with canon, particularly with no Hyper worlds in 3025. If a Hyper world ever gets reduced to a Major, it shouldn't be possible to get back there.
Cheers,
W.
-
A couple of questions. I posted them in another thread but it was recommended I post them here to get official answers:
1) If you big RP on a Mercenary Combat Command and your bid fails, do you lose the RP?
2) Is the cost to upgrade worlds an incremental cost? So for example, going from an Other World to a Minor Industrial costs 576 RP (payoff in about two years) and going from there to a Major Industrial world is a further 960 (payoff in 960/16 = 60 turns, 5 years)? Seems like a very major jump in payoff time from minor to major. It looks like the table is designed to have a 2-year pay-off time for upgrades, but that works only if the cost next to the Major world is the total cost, not the incremental upgrade cost.
-
The costs are "separate" - eg. you pay 576 to go from "other" to "minor", and another 960 from "minor" to "major".
Given that a minor world has 1-2 factories, and a major world 3-7, the greater cost of the second "jump" is justifiable. I do have some personal issues on the speed with which a world can be upgraded - eg. I'd rather have the player pay (say) 55RP per turn for 10 consecutive turns for the other-to-minor step - but that would require more book-keeping, and I see why the devs didn't go down that path.
-
Something I have thought of, and that needs clarification in the LAM rules:
Does AirMech mode still get the +1 bonus to its Target Movement Modifier for being an Airborne
unit? Or is that the +1 TMM they get? There is nothing that says that they do NOT get it in the
modifications listed to WiGE movement.
-
The costs are "separate" - eg. you pay 576 to go from "other" to "minor", and another 960 from "minor" to "major".
Given that a minor world has 1-2 factories, and a major world 3-7, the greater cost of the second "jump" is justifiable. I do have some personal issues on the speed with which a world can be upgraded - eg. I'd rather have the player pay (say) 55RP per turn for 10 consecutive turns for the other-to-minor step - but that would require more book-keeping, and I see why the devs didn't go down that path.
That's the thing, I don't think the greater cost of the Major world is justifiable. It would cost me 960 RPs and I would get paid back at 16 RP per turn. This would take 5 years to pay back. For that price I could upgrade two other worlds to minor worlds, and they would pay me back 44 RPs per turn.
Did the devs really intend for the payback time for other->minor to be 2 years, but the payback for minor->major to be 5 years?
That just seems like a math oversight.
-
There's some granularity missing by concentrating on just the industrial status. As per the existing IO Beta, a major industrial with 4-7 factories can absorb far more damage (raids or conquests) than a minor world with 1-2 factories, without dropping its output. In addition, in real life there's the concept of the law of diminishing returns - doing X produces an improvement of Y%, doing X a second time produces only a fraction of Y% increase.
While I didn't write that, it seems that this was seen as a way of providing a "quick" method for upgrade. You'll probably need to bank RPs over successive turns before investing, as opposed to the way I'd have done it with investment over time. This also means you can decide at the last minute to spend the banked RP on other uses, should you choose to - my way, if you failed to keep investing, the RP spent would have been wasted.
So at the end of the day, it's just granularity imposed by the need to keep the rules from requiring several volumes. I can say - hopefully without being hit - that there's an intent to revisit some of the rules which didn't make the cut for the beta; but I can't say how, when or in what format this might happen.
(Let's hope we get the leather-bound seven-volume coffeetable set of ISW for the 50th anniversary ... :D )
-
How do Factories figure into the RP calculation?
I am working on the background of my Outworlds Alliance campaign - set in the Dark ages but also in the forgotten planets in the original Alliance.
I am figuring on starting them each with a minor industrial planet but what exactly does that mean in terms of how many factories are on the planet? Does type of factory matter?
Does light / medium / Heavy / assault mech / aerospace matter in terms of combat command creation?
-
In the movement example for LAMs on page 109 there are two issues.
1: If Turn modes are indeed not optional then the example needs to be changed to reflect the use of turn modes.
2: He may either continue moving
at Elevation 3 (at a cost of an additional 2 MP per hex) or he may descend to one elevation
above the underlying terrain
(putting him at Elevation 1).
Needs to be changed to either reflect the earlier rules of 2 MP total for flying higher than normal or the previous rules need changed to say 2 additional MP.
-
It is left ambiguous whether or not pain shunts will work with prototype DNI. That particular flavor of the technology is not specifically mentioned (for that matter, neither is clan EI) in the rules, but nothing about the text gives the impression at first glance that it wouldn't work the same way.
Since the Artificial Pain Shunt has such a broad availability (all eras, all factions), a more specific ruling on the subject would seem advisable, either for or against.
-
There's some granularity missing by concentrating on just the industrial status. As per the existing IO Beta, a major industrial with 4-7 factories can absorb far more damage (raids or conquests) than a minor world with 1-2 factories, without dropping its output. In addition, in real life there's the concept of the law of diminishing returns - doing X produces an improvement of Y%, doing X a second time produces only a fraction of Y% increase.
While I didn't write that, it seems that this was seen as a way of providing a "quick" method for upgrade. You'll probably need to bank RPs over successive turns before investing, as opposed to the way I'd have done it with investment over time. This also means you can decide at the last minute to spend the banked RP on other uses, should you choose to - my way, if you failed to keep investing, the RP spent would have been wasted.
So at the end of the day, it's just granularity imposed by the need to keep the rules from requiring several volumes. I can say - hopefully without being hit - that there's an intent to revisit some of the rules which didn't make the cut for the beta; but I can't say how, when or in what format this might happen.
(Let's hope we get the leather-bound seven-volume coffeetable set of ISW for the 50th anniversary ... :D )
The thing is that that factory number is fluff for that part of the levels. And more to the point the upgrade costs are 24 times the RP output of that upgrade/world type, which does kinda suggest that costs are incremental, if they weren't a different cost calculation would be used
-
The thing is that that factory number is fluff for that part of the levels. And more to the point the upgrade costs are 24 times the RP output of that upgrade/world type, which does kinda suggest that costs are incremental, if they weren't a different cost calculation would be used
They're 24 times the total RP value of the world, not 24x the incremental value of the improvement
Which suggests that the costs should be non-incremental.
If the costs were intended to be incremental, I would have expected that the cost would be a constant multiplier on the incremental value of the upgrade, not on the total value of the planet.
-
please no discussion on this or any of the errata or suggestions in this thread, unless engaged by any of the developers. Just post your own feedback.
Thanks!
-
For Quadvee construction there are no tech limitations beyond must use Clan technology base.
Is this correct?
Would mixed tech be possible?
-
Page 319, Under Planets.
"Planets to not change zones during game play."
Should be..
"Planets do not change zones during game play."
-
Page 319 and 358, Pirate Points
Page 319 talks about using pirate points to jump into the Middle Zone or the Outer Zone of the SSRM. Middle Zone pirate points are referred as "Near Orbit Pirate Points" and are considered much more dangerous than using pirate points in the Outer Zone.
However, the rules for Pirate Point usage on page 358 make no mention of "Near Orbit Pirate Points" and make no distinction between jumping into either the Middle or Outer zones. Pirate point usage dictates rolling a 4+ no matter the zone used.
-
Does the ACS system use Engagement Maps as described in the SBF rules on page 255?
-
I don't understand how Evasive is supposed to work for AirMechs. IO says it's similar to Aerospace Evasive which costs 2 Thrust Points. AirMechs don't use Thrust Points. There is the Evading Movement on pages 18-19 in TacOps but I don't understand them either. Those rules say that
A unit’s Evading MP equals its Running/Flanking MP
That doesn't leave MP to go anywhere unlike Aerospace Evasive. So other than they have to be in the air, how does Evasive/Evading work for AirMechs? Or other units? ???
Also it looks like there a conflict between Evading and Turn Modes. Evading uses all the LAMs MP which would give the AirMech the highest possible Turn Mode for it. And while Turn Modes are for turning the AirMech is at least moving violently about the hex it's in. I would think it could slip out of it. Even if AirMechs are continuing forward I would think they could still fail the roll and slip and possibly crash. So if you take evasive action and fail the turn mode you could end up not moving at all which would nullify the +3 modifier for Evasive. Wouldn't it?
-
Hey folks, just a reminder that we've got until September 1 to get all the playtest comments and questions in.
I've slowly been working my way through this thread (and others) looking for questions to answer, so far I've only made it half way (and so far Welshman or others have address the questions I've come across).
Thanks again for you participation and support!
-
Hi there,
The Raid system in ISW doesn't seem to explain what happens if there is no force opposing the raid - i.e. no-one patrolling or in the system. Does the raid automatically succeed?
Vandervecken
-
Hey folks, just a reminder that we've got until September 1 to get all the playtest comments and questions in.
I've slowly been working my way through this thread (and others) looking for questions to answer, so far I've only made it half way (and so far Welshman or others have address the questions I've come across).
Thanks again for you participation and support!
Ending the comment period at Sep 1 seems like a very short window for such a massive tome...
-
I would love to see a few additional variations for record sheets to aid play with the ACS system.
1) Formation and Associated Combat Units. Similar to how the Combat Unit / Combat Teams record sheet is designed but one level up. Since we don't interact with Combat Teams at the ACS/ISW level (after conversion of course) I don't see the the Combat Unit/Combat Team Record Sheet being that useful as designed.
-
Just to confirm and perhaps this needs some additional clarification in the tables, but I am assuming that Recon formation damage modifiers do not stack with each other or engagement modifiers.
Example,
A Recon formation that Failed an Evade would be at -0.5 Damage received and NOT -1.0 damage received (-0.5 for Recon Formation and -0.5 for Failed Evade).
Similarly, A Recon Formation executing a Recon Strike receives damage at -0.5L. It does not stack the benefit of being a Recon formation for a total of -1.0 damage received.
I hope I have this correct. Thanks.
-
Page 319, Missing articles "a" when describing Moons. Two places.
Also,
"If an engagement occurs a zone with a secondary planet, the center zone of the engagement map is treated as being Moon and follows..."
should be...
"If an engagement occurs in a zone with a secondary planet, the center zone of the engagement map is treated as being a Planet and follows..."
-
How does the Airmech's Evasion ability work if the Skilled Evasion rules are in effect? Is there a modifier to the chart or is it a flat this is all you ever get and skill doesn't matter.
-
QuadVees. p. 133.
1. There is nothing to preclude Tracked QuadVees from using their tracks in mech mode. Could a Wheeled QuadVee use its wheels in mech mode, and if so, what would the effects be compared to tracks?
2. Under "Movement Phase (Vehicle Mode)" it states that a QuadVee may not use jump jets in vehicle mode. There is nothing to preclude a QuadVee from mounting UMUs; could a QuadVee use UMUs in vehicle mode, and if so what would the effects be? Would it gain the +3 to-hit modifier if it did use UMUs?
3. Can a QuadVee make use of Smart Robotic Control Systems as per p. 140? P. 134 states that a Quad must use the special 4-ton cockpit, with no other cockpit type allowed. However, SRCS are not exactly a 'cockpit' per se, more a modification.
4. Hover QuadVees? Please? ;)
-
Smart Robotic Control Systems (SRCS) p. 140
1. Are these systems compatible with units mounting small cockpits and torso-mounted cockpits? If so, do they incur the +1 Piloting Skill modifier from these cockpits?
2. It may be a good idea to state how the Improved Communications Qurik from p. 195 Strategic Operations might affect the vulnerability of SRCS-equipped units to electronic interference. This quirk strikes me as a too-cheap way of dodging a large weakness of SRCS units.
-
I'm very late to this party, but the Beta was released the month I'm transferring from overseas back to the U.S. I don't know how much time I'll have to find more, but I spotted the below on my initial skim of the LAM rules (hopefully they're not duplicates).
On page 106, under the LAM conversion rules, in the second sentence of the sixth bullet, "to from" should be just "from".
On page 114, under Prohibited Technologies, Extra-Large Weapons, the last line of the first sentence should delete "normally". Leaving that word in implies there's an "abnormal" but legal situation where it could be done, and the rule reads more clearly without it.
-
Page 254 gives instructions on how to calculate movement rates on the SSRM (per the reference given in the ACS section). Under these calculations a Union or Overlord Dropship would never have more than a single point of movement. This would give a minimum time to travel to the planet surface from a jumppoint of 4 ACS turns, which equates to roughly 2 weeks.
Page 358, Movement in the ISW system gives 4 IMP per turn, and 1 IMP required to travel to a planet surface from a jumppoint. This would give a travel time of roughly 1 week.
Can these be reconciled?
-
When firing flak ammunition at a LAM in ASF or Airmech mode I understand it gets the -2 modifier but from what I can tell it would still take damage as a mech. A clarification on this as well in the rules would be useful.
Edited for spelling but while I'm here I'll also repeat that it may be a good idea to clarify use of specialty ammunition by LAMs and how that is supposed to work.
-
Most things I've noticed or thought about have already been mentioned, but I believe a few other clarifications may be required in the LAM rules.
Turn modes; the text states they must be used, but is this only when they are in effect for all other vehicles, or at all times regardless?
Evasion; I believe this is a subset of the standard ASF evasion in Total Warfare (as implied by the text). If so this could be made clearer to further differentiate it from the optional evasion movement mode for ground units in TacOps.
TMM's when using AirMech MP; two points arise to do with this. The first is some kind of explanation of why the AirMech MP TMM's are so different to every other ground unit in the game. After carefully reading the rules several times I personally feel that it is implied that the AirMech MP is a hybrid version of ASF movement represented by modified WiGE rules (using the aerospace skill for piloting rolls, the evasion and hovering rules, travel at any elevation and the TMM being so close to ASF TMMs) but if this is the case it is not obvious at first reading.
Secondly do LAMs using AirMech MP gain the additional +1TMM for being airborne? All attacks that gain a bonus against airborne targets do so, but nowhere does it state the LAM gets the airborne +1
Heat dissipation; in the combat example (p. 113) it describes gaining an extra 3 heat dissipation due to the AirMechs wings, is this correct as it is mentioned nowhere else in the LAMs AirMech rules?
Finally I would consider altering the AMMs when in AirMech mode as this is one of the most common points to be raised in the discussions I have seen and taken part in. Whilst I understand why they are +1,+2/+3,+4 (AirMech mode being that much harder to pilot and fight at the same time), perhaps altering them to something along the lines of +1,+2/+2,+3 may be fairer. Then you are still able to represent the difficulty in piloting and fighting a LAM in AirMech mode but without the penalty of AirMech flank MP being the only running/flank movement in the game to receive a +4 AMM as standard. This instead brings it inline with the jumping AMM which most players are used to dealing with regularly.
-
Autonomous Tactical Analysis Computer (ATAC) p. 145
1. Under the construction rules, the ATAC is available to only WarShips and Space Stations. However, on p. 171-172 of Historical: Liberation of Terra 1, the Model 96C Howdah DropShip mounts an ATAC.
2. The Direct Tactical Analysis Control (DTAC) System is explicitly available only to WarShips, Space Stations, and Mobile Structures. Whilst there are no canonical examples of the DTAC being mounted on a DropShip, there are canonical examples of the ATAC being mounted on a DropShip as above. Given this, might the DTAC also be mountable on a DropShip?
-
Primitive Conventional Fighter Construction p. 125
Primitive Conventional Fighters are built using the Fixed-Wing Support Vehicle Rules in TechManual. According to Total Warfare p. 54 Fixed-Wing Support Vehicles cannot use Special Maneuvers. I suggest an explicit statement as to whether Primitive Conventional Fighters can or cannot use Special Maneuvers.
-
Sorry to jump in so close to the wire, but there are a couple of points that have been bugging me. I haven't been able to game them out, so I might be missing something.
1. In ISW, banking RP yields 5% interest per turn (month). Factories and world promotion yield a 100% return every 24 turns. In 24 turns, banking RP yields 990%.
The magic of compound interest appears to make construction moot, unless there's a planet you *really* want to be able to spawn new units on.
2. Also in ISW, there is only one fixed cost for each unit type. As others have pointed out, this means that a Lyran Scout Battalion of Banshees and Zeuses costs exactly the same as a Capellan one made with Ravens.
3. In SBF, artillery appears to have advantages over "normal" BT, because the time scale and distance remove the shell flight time but still keep the arty out of range. I suspect a company of Apaches--err, Yellowjacket-A4s--would do quite well at this level, as long as enemy aerospace didn't eat them (and even then, can you load AAA in a VTOL's Arrow launcher?).
Meanwhile, in ACS, the time scale and distance remove the remoteness of the artillery units and essentially place them on the front lines. Unless I'm missing something, artillery looks like a dead duck in ACS.
4. Designs built around crit-seeking weapons appear to lose out in general to damage-dealing designs when the level of abstraction increases. I doubt that there's any real way around that, but I thought I'd note it for posterity.
Edit: I got my numbers confused. The 990% is for 48 turns, where the world upgrade is returning its first 100% profit.
-
Well also going over the ISW rules one last time, as other pointed out that the cost of unit creation is perhaps a bit to generic, a Regiment of Stinger Light mechs has the exact same cost as a Regiment made out of Clan Kodiak Assault mechs, Like wise an Infantry regiment regardless of type and equipment is only 6 points, and ranges from a foot only regiment with out body armor and only equipped with pistols, to a Front line Battle Armor Regiment.
The Previous Strategic Game(s) (I.e. the one found in Combat operations) did have some capability for having different unit types of the same class having different costs, for example a battalion of light 3025 era light mechs costs 120 ground points for the entire unit, but a "battalion" of Clan Assault mechs would of cost 540 ground points (to built said Btlns would of taken 1.5 and 18 Resource points respectively).
-
Page 315
"However Recon Formations may not engage in standard combat. See Recon Strikes, p. 316"
Page 316
"Recon formations that have been engaged by a Combat Formation are treated as Combat formations"
Perhaps the first line can be changed to...
"However Recon Formations may not engage in standard combat if not engaged. See Recon Strikes, p. 316"
.. to avoid possible confusion.
-
When playing with the Strategic Aerospace rules and multiple engagements are involved how is range determined?
The rules on page 247 are written only in terms of two squadrons being involved. In a situation where multiple squadrons from each side are involved it is not clear how maneuver rolls for the engagement are intended to be resolved. An example would be a lot of help I think.
I'm inquiring also for the sake of the ACS system with uses this section of the rules for engagement control.
-
Myself and everyone I've been able to play the ACS system with has noted that the Planetary Combat Map is just the right size. The size feels roomy enough for maneuvering but claustrophobic enough to generate a suitable amount of combat.
-
Quirks,
I was wondering if any of the new unit would be having quirks exclusive to them. There seem to be some in the fluff such as the 105 Wasp LAM's faster conversion process, and the HK2 Phoenix Hawk LAM's protected actuators. There's also the Quadvees divided and unified style cockpits.
Also because LAMs and QuadVees have more than one mode, are they eligible for quirks not available to standard mechs? Such as Atmospheric Flyer, Atmospheric Flight Instability, Trailer Hitch, Weak Undercarrige and such?
Thanks :)
-
Prototype Specialty Missiles (Clan Invasion) p .131
With Tactical Operations and now Interstellar Operations including most of the tech from the old Unbound adventure scenario, the prototype Thunderbolt missile from p. 70 of Unbound is conspicuous due to its absence. In fact, IIRC, it is the only piece of tech from Unbound that hasn't been updated yet; it would be great to see it, and complete the additions from Unbound. Whilst it would be unsporting to mount an enormous quantity of these, judicious tweaking of the rules would preclude ludicrously powerful load outs. As it is, brutal things can be done even now with massed Rocket Launchers...
-
If there is an attack of opportunity for arriving at a planet with opposing combat commands on a Defend order it stands to reason that there should be an attack of opportunity for leaving a planet with opposing combat commands on an Attack order.
-
I have a question regarding the Ultra AC clan prototype weapons (from pg. 98) and the BV for their associated ammo. The description for these states the weapon is the same as the Inner Sphere version with a few caveats, such as an extra critical space. This means the BV of the weapon is the same as the IS version. When assigning ammo to that weapon, do we use the BV of the inner sphere ammo or for the Clan ammo? There's a slight difference between them (except for Ultra AC/10 for some reason).
I'm working under the assumption that the ammo used for the Prototype weapons which are based off the IS equivalents, also uses the stats associated with the IS ammo, including its BV.
Can someone confirm if that's correct? I think it may need to be clarified since it isn't clear.
-
I have some questions on how the BV calculations for HarJel II and III systems work, as the book is unclear. This is related to the description of this on pg. 191. So the questions:
1) Does the extra BV (if any) apply to the defensive BV?
2) It only adds BV based on the location it's in, correct?
I think a real-game example would be extremely helpful here. Let's assume HarJel II yields a modifier of 1.1 and it is equipped in the CT of a unit having 60 total points of armor. The BV for this location normally is 60 x 1 x 2.5 = 150. With HarJel II the BV for this location would be 60 x 1.1 x 2.5 = 165. Armor for all other locations would still be AV x 1 x 2.5.
-
Since this is almost over, I'm going to post the few more things that I noticed and also clarify and cite my previous bits of feedback. That should make it easier to fix things.
---------------------------------
Pg 26, 28 & 31, Faction Lists
In the faction lists, the Filtvelt coalition is noted as being allied to the Federated Suns, and the remains of the FRR are identified as being allied with Comstar. However, other alliances (such as the Capellan/Canopian alliance) are not noted. I am unsure if this is intentional (to note that such small factions are barely independent), or an oversight.
---------------------------------
Pg 66, iATM, Game Rules, 2nd paragraph.
"...the iATM hits will all missiles..."
should be:
"...the iATM hits with all missiles..."
---------------------------------
Pg 67, IMP missiles
Not clear in the text if the walking MP reductions result in a recalculation of the running MP or not.
---------------------------------
Pg 68, Direct Neural Interface
No C-bill cost is listed for the modification in the entry, unlike for the Damage Interrupt Circuit and SLDF Advanced Neurohelmet
---------------------------------
Pg 68, SLDF Advanced Neurohelmet
"...the advanced neurohelmet was developed initially for the SLDF’s most elite MechWarriors at first and eventually..."
Having "initially" and "at first" is redundant, recommend removing "at first"
---------------------------------
Pg 73, Prototype Remote Sensors, Game rules
"...but during the End Phase after each turn in which a unit has deployed prototype remote sensors, its controlling player must roll 1D6 for each sensor that has been deployed."
The current wording makes it unclear if this roll is made for every turn the sensor is deployed (as implied by the later portions of the game rules), or if this roll is only made on the turn the sensor is deployed. Suggest changing to:
"...but during the End Phase of each turn the controlling player must roll 1D6 for each prototype sensor that has been deployed."
---------------------------------
Pg 89, Radical Heat Sinks, Radical Heat Sink Failure table
If using the same mechanics as MASC and Supercharger failure (and prior RHS rules in FM:3145), the 10 on the 5th row should be a 9.
The first row ( 0 | 2 ) is never used, and should be deleted to avoid confusion.
I would recommend putting a "+" next to the entries in the "avoid failure on" column to improve readability.
---------------------------------
Pg 91, RISC APDS
There is no mention of what happens when a single-missile launcher (Such as a thunderbolt or NARC) is fired at a protected unit. I would suggest the missile being intercepted on a D6 roll of more than 8+X, where X is the cluster hit modifier the APDS would normally impose. For example, a 1D6 roll of 5+ would be needed to stop a Thunderbolt aimed at a unit adjacent to a mech equipped with an APDS system, or one aimed at a unit in the same hex as a 3-man battle armor squad with an APDS system.
---------------------------------
Pg 92, RISC Emergency Coolant System
The values in the table for "number of turns used" are all one less than they should be.
I would recommend putting a "+" next to the entries in the "avoid failure on" column to improve readability.
---------------------------------
Pg 95, RISC Viral Jammer
The disabling of effected electronics for the remainder of the scenario is inconsistent with both the Alpha Strike Companion and Mechwarrior: Dark Age depictions of this technology. In both cases, once the Viral Jammer ceases functioning the jamming effect is removed (page 38 of ACS, http://www.warrenborn.com/Unit.php?ID=VG-G-143 and http://www.warrenborn.com/Unit.php?ID=VG-G-145 for rules references). Due to their extremely strong effects and low BV, I strongly suggest changing Viral Jammers to having effected electronics return to functioning when the Viral Jammer shuts down or is destroyed, both for consistency and game balance reasons.
If this is not done, I would strongly suggest massively increasing their BV value (on the order of three to five times their current BV), and/or making it Offensive BV instead of Defensive BV as it destroys equipment, instead of temporarily protecting from it like other ECM systems. They are currently severely under-costed compared to the Artemis, Stealth armor, and (most notably) C3 networks they easily neutralize. I realize they are supposed to be a temporary and powerful technology, but their BV should reflect their capabilities regardless. If it does not, it defeats the entire purpose of BV as a balancing mechanism. Similar limited-time and powerful equipment and augmentations, such as the Nova CEWS, iATMs, and MD implants, all have appropriate BV costs.
A few rules clarifications are needed as well:
Are checks made for every turn a unit is within range, or only upon initial exposure?
At what point in the turn is the check for a unit's electronics made?
---------------------------------
Pg 132, Retro-Streak Missiles
It is unclear what happens if a unit carries both Retro-Streak and normal Streak ammo in its ammo bins.
---------------------------------
Pg 166, Thermobaric Weapons, infantry
"...infantry units must also roll 2D6 and subtract their distance from the FAM’s point of impact (in hexes) from the result"
should be
"...infantry units must also roll 2D6 and add their distance from the FAM’s point of impact (in hexes) to the result"
The current wording makes it more lethal the farther away the infantry are.
---------------------------------
Pg 199, Alternate Era Weapons and equipment BV table, Quadvees
Are the offensive and defensive BV mods for wheeled quadvees calculated using their increased movement speed in vehicle mode, or using their default mech speed?
---------------------------------
Pg 218-227, Alternate Era Weapons and Equipment table
Strongly recommend moving this table to the end of the book, to be consistent with the placement of construction data tables in Tactical Operations and Tech Manual.
---------------------------------
Thank you for letting us give feedback on this important rulebook, and for reading through this wall of suggestions. I'm looking forward to seeing the full, polished release in the future.
-
Very bottom of Pg 236, The 'Transporting Infantry' section currently reads in a disjointed manner by jumping between sub-topics. Recommend changing entire section to read as follows:
"The transporting infantry (IT#) denotes both the capability of a Formation for carrying infantry and the capacity for elements to be carried as denoted by the # symbol. Correspondingly, an infantry Elements' capacity requirement (as noted by the CAR# special ability) must be less than or equal to the Formation IT#. For example, the Maxim Heavy Hover Transport has the IT12 special ability. This means a Unit of Maxims (4 Elements) may transport up to 48 Elements worth of infantry, such as 12 4-trooper squads of Cavalier battle armor, each of which has the CAR4 special ability. Infantry Elements may not be carried in part, must dismount if the carrying Formation loses capacity through Unit destruction, and are destroyed if forced into prohibited terrain (e.g., foot infantry Unit carried by a Hover Unit which is destroyed on a water hex).
Mechanized Battle Armor (MEC): Battle armor Formations with the MEC special ability may mount OmniMechs and OmniVehicles (Formations with the OMNI special ability), even if such Formations lack the Infantry Transport special ability. Though mechanized battle armor mounts up externally on an Omni Formation, battle armor units may not attack or be directly attacked while mounted in this fashion.
Extended Mechanized Battle Armor (XMEC): Formations with the XMEC special ability are equipped to mount any type of 'Mech or vehicle (but not Fixed-wing Support Vehicles or Aerospace) in the same manner as MEC special ability Units. However, the transport mounted by these Formations will reduce Move by 1 MP for as long as the XMEC Formation remains on board. All other MEC rules apply to XMEC Formations (and their transports) as well.
Mounting and Dismounting.
It costs an infantry transport Formation 1 MP of Move to mount (pick up) or dismount (drop off) battle armor or infantry. Mounting infantry must be done at the beginning of the transporting Formation's movement, and airborne transport Formations must be landed to take on any infantry or battle armor Formations for transport. (For aerospace units, landing is covered in Advanced Strategic Aerospace; see Aerospace Squadrons on the Ground Map, p. 251-253.) Mounting and dismounting battle armor from an Omni Formation follows all the same movement rules as mounting and dismounting infantry from a dedicated infantry transport."
S/F
Matt
-
Many good comments so far. I am looking forward to seeing the final product.
One typo I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere in the feedback: page 351: "Suply and RP Deficit" should be "Supply and RP Deficit"
Also, a thought about the cover art: I have read it on both an iMac and an iPad and the image seems to read very differently on the 2 screens. On iPad, the contrast is reading way off and is much too dark and over saturated. I don't know why this is because the rest of the images on the .pdf are reading nicely.
-
Hi
I originally asked this question in the Rules section, was direct this question to here.
I'm not sure if this would be cover by them or this has been answered in the past.
However, this may need to be addressed when IO is published.
Aerospace Fighters can land VTOL style (Vertical landings) in atmosphere according to Total Warfare pg 87 in the Landing section. My question is "Can a LAM in fighter mode only accomplish the same thing?"
Example: Say because there there no landing field/fighter bay for this vehicle to land you need make a vertical landing in Fighter Mode due to conversion equipment is broken.
-
While it's been stated previously, I agree the order of the chapters should be re-examined. For me, the critical factor is the relationship between ACS and ISW rules.
1) It is frustrating they are separated by the Conversion rules. With the number of times each of those two games reference the other, having to flip past the Conversion just bogs it down and complicates the search for the respective rules. As Conversion is so intricate, but not a constant feature of the game, it would make sense (to me) that it follows the ISW/ACS.
2) The role of ACS and ISW could be merged somewhat. I recognize that ACS is a tier higher than SBF and it is possible/probable some players may choose to go to ACS instead of SBF to resolve large battles, especially those aerospace campaigns that have a direct impact on concurrent operations on the planets/moons. However, as ISW depends on ACS to resolve combat, it would seem to me that ACS should fit within ISW, or follow it. It really breaks the chain of the phases when you have to skip out of the ISW chapter to resolve a specific instance of combat, which itself may refer back to a component inside the ISW chapter again. Thank the FSM for ScrapYardArmory's (SYA) sense of order that he was able to establish a process for us to at least begin to stress test both sets of rules in this abbreviated beta time.
Speaking of SYA, as one of his four part-time assistants in his online tests, I would strongly urge you to review his posts here. He got into the guts of this system and it was quite clear to me that I would have given up on the complexity of these rules (which I have been waiting on since they were announced) because they were complicated by confusing formatting and incomplete internal testing. SYA spent a lot of time these past 4 weeks trying to understand what they intended to accomplish, so that we (CGL and the invested fans) could collaborate on jointly creating a working system. You got a lot of free labor from him on this.
-
A couple TSEMP and Centurion Weapon System Questions.
TSEMP can be used to attempt to shut down anything under 200 tons. Is that right? Superheavy Mechs, any vehicle up to 199 tons, Buildings. If buildings are included, does the targeted building have to be a single hex structure?
Centurion Weapon System has a nice list of ways to identify units susceptible to it. Does that include all unit types though? For example would the Centurion work against a 150 year old Building, Mobile Structure or a multi-hex sized surface ship? If they can attack such targets are their effects limited to that particular hex, or would it also depend on the equipment in that section? As in knock out the engine, knock out the whole thing. Or would it just need to hit the target for it's effects to work?
For both I think limiting the effects against targets that 1 hex big and 199 tons or less would be consistent with no effect against Aerospace units 200 tons or more and no effect again Mobile Structures as they take up a minimum of 2 hexes.
The other question I have concern the 150 year age.
Is it possible to eliminate the 150 year old or older susceptibility? I'm guessing being refurbished in a factory would work for all but Primitives, Retrotech, FrankenMech, and possibly Prototypes. Is this right?
What about buildings and such? Can they be repaired/modernized or are they out of luck? Presuming they can be attacked in the first place. Can any such upgrades be applied to all units? Like a software patch or something that'd be take care of during routine maintenance?
Does the starting date for 150 years start from when the Centurion was introduced 2762 or is it 150 years from when the unit came off the production lines? Would a mech made in 2995 be susceptible to the Centurion in 3050 because it's older than 150 years old. Or would it not be because it was introduced after the Centurion was? Does this apply only to Inner Sphere designs or to Clan designs as well. If fired at an Imp or Coyotl Prime now would it have any effect because they're over 150 years old or no effect because they're clan designs. If there is no effect against Clan units, is there any effect against Star League-in-Exile units?
I'd recommend 150 years from when the unit came off the production lines, regardless of unit origin. Time and use does cause damage that could leave even Clan units susceptible. It'd also make the Centurion more usable.
Also does the age of the unit apply to that particular unit or the entire design? For example the design for the LCT-1V Locust is 651 years old by 3150. Are they all susceptible or just specific examples? I want to say specific examples but then why are modern Primitives and Retrotech units susceptible? Yes, to the design, but individuals may be upgraded? I'm guessing Primitives and the others aren't compatible?
Would a prototype that is mass produced, such as the Locust 1V, receive the Prototype Quirk and be susceptible regardless of age, or would this quirk be assigned on a case by case basis?
I'm thinking the case by case since some are just better than others.
Thanks :)
-
Clarification Question:
Given: LAM Airmech mode rules are a hybrid of Aerospace and Ground Unit-
Question: Does AirMech move in the Ground Unit Movement Phase or the Aerospace Unit Movement Phase?
-
If I could outright change one thing in these rules it would be the Mercenary Retention Roll Effects. Currently on an unmodified result of 2, ALL of a nations mercenaries decide to seek greener pastures.
I find this highly unbalancing. I would never hire mercenaries in a game if I knew there was a 1 in 36 chance any given turn for them all to wander off.
Perhaps instead you could make a natural 2 auto-fail, but with a minimum MoF of 1.
-
My apologies for this late feedback, but I wanted to collect my thoughts from reading the Beta material and working a couple of test turns with ScrapYardArmory.
First, this book is a very dense, detailed tome. Very well worth the purchase price. It covers a lot of material from technology to 3 game systems. The developers did a lot of work on this product and it shows. Thank you for such a work.
Unfortunately, I found this book very hard to read. Unlike Total Warfare, Tactical Operations and Strategic Operations, there is something in the text, formatting or style that made engaging with the text difficult. Though I made several attempts to read it cover to cover, I never got there. The gray color palette just did not engage me as the Strategic Ops blue or TacOps yellow did. Perhaps, as others have suggested, reordering the material will address this issue - specifically, I would mimic the order of Tactical Operations where the rules are presented first, with the technology presented later. Additionally, the presentation of the Alternate Era technologies breaks with the format of the TechManual and TacOps where the equipment narrative is presented in the main text while construction rules and game rules are offset in a table. I would prefer that presentation from prior books be maintained. I'm not an author or editor, so I understand if these comments are not particularly helpful.
Having play tested ACS with ScrapYardArmory, my first reaction is that the system is overly complex. While sizing and scope are about right - maps were the right size, the Master Modifier Table is just unwieldy and the game would not have been playable without ScrapYardArmory's web interface. First suggestion is to determine if lines in the Master Modifier Table can be collapsed to reduce its overall size. Secondly, and specifically, tracking which units where engaged with which units when multiple units occupied a given hex was nearly impossible (and we had only 6 units in the hex); consider changing this rule to a binary on / off - if a unit is engage by 1 enemy unit in a hex, it is engaged by all. Thirdly, given the amount of data management required, I'm not sure ACS can be played without a web aid - I'm not sure one could keep track of everything on paper. SYA implemented an interactive Star System Radar Map and Planetary Combat Map, complete with tokens, basic damage tracking and even RATs. I suggest looking at the work SYA has already completed and creating a web system to package with Interstellar Ops. ACS requires a lot of data management - if possible get the computer to do it for the player. Finally, I support a previous suggestion to break ACS down into rule tiers, similar to vanilla Battletech - Introductory / Beginner, Standard / Tournament and Advanced. Such a delineation would break the large and difficult to use Master Modifier table down into more manageable parts, it would also allow players and GM to select the level of detail they want to use with relative ease. It also follows previously established rules level conventions.
With respect to Inner Sphere at War, as many others have already suggested, maintaining an online map of the Battletech universe for each era, already fitted to a hex grid would make running the game less challenging as the map would be readily available. Additionally, researching a computer system / web application to manage all the data would greatly simplify the execution of this detailed rule set.
Again, this book is a very dense product. There are a lot of good rules and content, but parts of it just do not feel like the rest of the CGL product line. Aligning the formatting and product structure to conventions already established in TacOps and TechManual would improve the overall presentation of the product. Integrating the highly complex rule sets with computer data management systems would make significant strides in helping players utilize and enjoy the ruleset - if the rules are too complex to utilize, the game will not get played.
Clearly the development team has spent a lot of effort, energy and passion developing Interstellar Operations. Thank you for working this product as long and diligently as you have.
-
Thank you all for your participation and feedback!