Alpha Strike Rules change ideas (was Re: Alpha Strike at GenCon)

[Papabees]

What changes are you guys doing? Our gaming group has a few that have improved the way game plays too.

There are primarily three. The main reasons we do these is feel and addressing meta issues in the game.

1. Any unit that ends their movement in an area that restricts their movement type reduces their TMM by the extra cost of the move. FREX, My Shadowcat ends it movement in Woods, I reduce my TMM from 3 to 2 and then add the +2 for Woods. In our opinion this addresses the 2d6 bell curve drastically favoring units with high TMM by lowering their to hit numbers thus making them more likely to move and be hit.

2. A unit at the edge of woods does not pay the penalty for firing through them.  My personal pet peeve :). I realize there must have been a reason for changing this from the original rules but I have yet to meet anyone who likes this rule change. There are those that accept it, but almost everyone agrees that it is wonky. It tends to protect players that don't maneuver well.

3. We roll 2d6 for every point of damage a unit deals when they attack.  I don't know if I have played a game that swings more dramatically based on die rolls than Alpha Strike. And while I'm no Mr. Wizard, it seems to be due to the all or nothing damage mechanic. Having more die rolls aids the highs and lows of the 2d6 mechanic. And it "feels" more like a Titan firing a barrage of weapons. In the Jade Falcon/Lyran Alliance game at Gencon we had three turns in a row where we basically needed 7/8s to hit and missed about 80-85% of our shots. Certainly bad luck but if you're rolling handfuls of dice this is much less likely to happen. And let's face it, it's no fun to never hit anything. I've seen a number of new players get turned off by needing 10s and 11s for the majority of a game. I know that eventually my Masakari will hit and kill you but after about four turns of hitting nada it gets a little dull. I've heard some say that this slows down the game but that has not been my experience at all. In fact I'd argue that the early damage speeds it up. Granted, I do play with the rules above so there is that disclaimer. 

Anyway, some of these have been discussed ad nauseum. I'd love to see the first two become standard rules and the third be the "official" optional variable damage rule but as it's been awhile since the topics heated up I imagine they will just stay home brew.     

[RoundTop]

There are primarily three. The main reasons we do these is feel and addressing meta issues in the game.

1. Any unit that ends their movement in an area that restricts their movement type reduces their TMM by the extra cost of the move. FREX, My Shadowcat ends it movement in Woods, I reduce my TMM from 3 to 2 and then add the +2 for Woods. In our opinion this addresses the 2d6 bell curve drastically favoring units with high TMM by lowering their to hit numbers thus making them more likely to move and be hit.

An interesting idea, but I can already think of ways that it can be abused. Especially if you involve rubble, elevation changes, and non woods environments.

2. A unit at the edge of woods does not pay the penalty for firing through them.  My personal pet peeve :). I realize there must have been a reason for changing this from the original rules but I have yet to meet anyone who likes this rule change. There are those that accept it, but almost everyone agrees that it is wonky. It tends to protect players that don't maneuver well.

This was changed due to players camping in the edge of woods and shooting. It became less about movement, and more about finding the woods to hide in. Since the movement modifiers don't go down like TW, this was a mechanic that was abused. By imposing the +2, then both sides are penalized for it, and encourages movement. It is different than TW, but I think that is why people oppose this change so much.

3. We roll 2d6 for every point of damage a unit deals when they attack.  I don't know if I have played a game that swings more dramatically based on die rolls than Alpha Strike. And while I'm no Mr. Wizard, it seems to be due to the all or nothing damage mechanic. Having more die rolls aids the highs and lows of the 2d6 mechanic. And it "feels" more like a Titan firing a barrage of weapons. In the Jade Falcon/Lyran Alliance game at Gencon we had three turns in a row where we basically needed 7/8s to hit and missed about 80-85% of our shots. Certainly bad luck but if you're rolling handfuls of dice this is much less likely to happen. And let's face it, it's no fun to never hit anything. I've seen a number of new players get turned off by needing 10s and 11s for the majority of a game. I know that eventually my Masakari will hit and kill you but after about four turns of hitting nada it gets a little dull. I've heard some say that this slows down the game but that has not been my experience at all. In fact I'd argue that the early damage speeds it up. Granted, I do play with the rules above so there is that disclaimer. 

The point of AS was to reduce the amount of rolling. This increases it multiple times (especially for clan designs that deal 5+ points).  While I agree it sucks to miss a shot in AS, this is a little too far the other way in my opinion. Also, how do you deal with critical hits when you are rolling for each point? Is it only rolled after all hits are applied?

if you can't hit anything, get closer, or pay the PV for better pilots.

Anyway, some of these have been discussed ad nauseum. I'd love to see the first two become standard rules and the third be the "official" optional variable damage rule but as it's been awhile since the topics heated up I imagine they will just stay home brew.   

[sadlerbw]

Not to derail too much, but...

1. I'm not on-board with this. I don't like having to frequently re-calculate stats on my unit cards. It eats up time for not a whole lot of extra fun...for me anyway.

2. The game tried it that way. Too much of a camp-fest. Woods are now purely defensive, and not an asymmetric thing. If you want mods that only go one direction, partial cover still does that. The thing with partial cover is, it doesn't still protect your back-arc with a +2 to-hit mod, while woods do. So, it's sort of a tradeoff now instead of the edge of the woods always being better than partial cover. Plus there were 'arguments' over what the edge of the woods should be.

3. Meh. I can play it either way, but the one-roll method is definitely faster. Oddly, I don't find it to make a large difference in how fast things die if the game is bigger than about 4v4. I haven't run the theoretical math, but when I tried playing one-roll-per-point with my kids, it actually ended up taking about the same number of units firing to kill the fast mechs on the board. If anything, they died slightly faster in the couple games we played that way.

Question: You ever play much with low-skill pilots, or do you pretty much stick with skill 4? I ask because skill 2 and lower become super dangerous against even the fastest units. Medium range against a TMM4 unit hits on 8's if you have skill 2 and a clear line of sight. On average, you will hit every other roll with those odds. If you are only TMM3, it's 7's, which means you are more likely to hit than miss. That starts to get real scary to light pilots. If you don't move dead-last and have to risk some other light or medium running up into short range...well you start to feel much less invincible! If everyone is skill 4, high-TMM feels a lot more powerful. To me anyway.

[Papabees]

We use various skill levels and but lower skills are rarer. And we use die to mark TMM so changing it by one when we place it is rather quick.

Not to derail too much, but...

1. I'm not on-board with this. I don't like having to frequently re-calculate stats on my unit cards. It eats up time for not a whole lot of extra fun...for me anyway.

2. The game tried it that way. Too much of a camp-fest. Woods are now purely defensive, and not an asymmetric thing. If you want mods that only go one direction, partial cover still does that. The thing with partial cover is, it doesn't still protect your back-arc with a +2 to-hit mod, while woods do. So, it's sort of a tradeoff now instead of the edge of the woods always being better than partial cover. Plus there were 'arguments' over what the edge of the woods should be.

3. Meh. I can play it either way, but the one-roll method is definitely faster. Oddly, I don't find it to make a large difference in how fast things die if the game is bigger than about 4v4. I haven't run the theoretical math, but when I tried playing one-roll-per-point with my kids, it actually ended up taking about the same number of units firing to kill the fast mechs on the board. If anything, they died slightly faster in the couple games we played that way.

Question: You ever play much with low-skill pilots, or do you pretty much stick with skill 4? I ask because skill 2 and lower become super dangerous against even the fastest units. Medium range against a TMM4 unit hits on 8's if you have skill 2 and a clear line of sight. On average, you will hit every other roll with those odds. If you are only TMM3, it's 7's, which means you are more likely to hit than miss. That starts to get real scary to light pilots. If you don't move dead-last and have to risk some other light or medium running up into short range...well you start to feel much less invincible! If everyone is skill 4, high-TMM feels a lot more powerful. To me anyway.

1. Rarely do different type of terrains stack. It's only the hex you end your movement in as opposed to any you move through. I'd be curious to see how you think this could be "abused"?

2. Although anecdotal, this in conjunction with the above rule change, has done just the opposite in our house games biggies dig in, fasties move. Feels right.

3. We were 4-6 inches away on one of the turns in the game where we were all missing and I had improved pilots. Bad luck, yep. But I have seen swings like this often with the all or nothing damage. If I have TMM 4, in woods, at short, that is in most cases a 10 and if I have fast mechs I will rarely give you better (as is true with any good player. I'm nothing special). And this method is not adding to the rolls. We still roll once, just use multiple sets of matching die. I understand that YMMV but to at least have this as an official option would be nice. There's some street cred that comes from having it as an optional rule in print.

[sadlerbw]

Ok, this has probably gotten to the point where it deserves a new thread. if you want to start one, I'll gladly keep chatting there. Heck, we could probably get the mods to move these posts over so it doesn't have to be repeated.

[Scotty]

Honestly terrain (and initiative, since the way I do it is technically a house rule) is that the top of my shortlist of "things I would change if given the chance", but things like recalculating TMMs turn-by-turn and rolling eight sets of 2d6 for my favorite kind of Mad Cat Mk II are going nowhere near any of my tables.  If that means you won't be visiting, then that's a damn shame, but it's not something that's going to change.

[Minnow]

Just to put this in...

I have found with my gaming group those that favor Battletech over Alpha Strike is the one die roll all or nothing roll. Battletech players like to roll dice (I do too). Going with the 2d6 per point damage seems to massage this. I have found that it really doesn't matter in the end other than people are far more accepting of doing some damage vs no damage. I understand that this was to save time but in my opinion if I can get more people playing AS rolling more dice for an extra 10-15 secs of time, I am willing to make that sacrifice.

Our gaming group basically has made the 2d6 per point of damage our default and it has made all the difference getting Battletech players to at least give AS another try and in more than half the time it has positively swayed opinions.

[Charlie Tango]

<Moderator Hat>

I've gone ahead and split out this topic as it had diverged from the original topic.  Please feel free to continue!

</Moderator Hat>

2. A unit at the edge of woods does not pay the penalty for firing through them.  My personal pet peeve :). I realize there must have been a reason for changing this from the original rules but I have yet to meet anyone who likes this rule change. There are those that accept it, but almost everyone agrees that it is wonky. It tends to protect players that don't maneuver well.

It was changed because under the other way it *rapidly* devolved into "Park in the woods and shoot at each other" Strike.   It was way too exploitable.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I'm a fan of the woods rules from the basic rules.  Not so much though the advanced/optional rules with their stacking penalties based on how much woods terrain is in play for the attack.  A completely binary "any woods at all, or absolutely no woods at all" works very well imo.

I understand the appeal of addressing the all-or-nothing nature of AS attacks.  I even used to think that the Variable Damage rule ought to be the standard rule rather than an optional one.  I'd have probably supported the "roll 2d6 for each pip of damage" idea had I heard it before I changed my mind.  But that's it.. I have changed my mind about there being more value in adding complexity to what's currently only a single 2d6 roll for the sake of providing more "averaged" damages.  But there's two factors that I came to appreciate only after having played AS for a while that did change my mind: minxy balance and AS's subtly but massively different firing declaration from CBT/Boardgame Battletech. 

On the former, I'd rather just get guaranteed damage on a hit that will kill a high-tmm unit rather than see the variable damage rule allow it to survive the hit I finally scored on it.  OTOH the "roll for every pip of damage" house rule actually does the opposite of this and makes high tmm's even easier to kill now, that's also not necessarily a good thing with the new PVs coming out where they really *PAY* hard for their TMMs in PV.    The latter factor I mentioned is the granularity of scale.  Yeah AS abstracts an entire mech's attack into one value.. but that's really no different from CBT/Boardgame Battletech where a single weapon is abstracted into a standard/nonvariable amount of damage... in CBT you might typically roll for 12-20 weapons per turn for a 4 on 4 mech battle while in AS you typically roll for a similar number of unit attacks per turn for a company on company battle.  Exact same thing, but a different granularity of individual weapon vs entire mech.  But where CBT/Boardgame Battletech makes you declare everything before you roll anything, AS lets you roll each hit before declaring the next.  Even though your superleet IIC assault mech might miss with its 9 damage because of one roll, you *know* this information before you declare any further attacks.  If that target has to die, then you know you can keep assigning attacks to it until it's dead, and as a bonus you know when to stop assigning attacks so that you apply the perfect amount of damage without any overkill/wasted damage.  (that, in turn, is the great thing about units that do 1 or 2 damage.  Always always always take them... not because they tend to be cheap and pad out your numbers but because if you only need 1 or 2 damage to finish off a unit, it just will not do to overkill it with 5 or 6 damage...)

[William J. Pennington]

1. Any unit that ends their movement in an area that restricts their movement type reduces their TMM by the extra cost of the move. FREX, My Shadowcat ends it movement in Woods, I reduce my TMM from 3 to 2 and then add the +2 for Woods. In our opinion this addresses the 2d6 bell curve drastically favoring units with high TMM by lowering their to hit numbers thus making them more likely to move and be hit.

Ok, so non jumping mechs, effectively, are easier to hit by one point 1 for woods, water and rough. That makes rough terrain a huge liability for any unit that enters it by a method other than jumping. It just makes partial cover terrain a little more valuable as the protective nature of all other terrain is somewhat discounted. I really dont like the all or nothing nature of the modifer. Travelled 1 inch into woods, lose a full +1 modifier, despite still easily having moved the actual distance to retain the full TMM. Units with high TMM's should be allowed to enjoy the benefit of having that TMM. They really do pay for it now.

And, if playing with the correct intervening terrain rules as described below, its not really an issue. Light units would just move behind those woods, get their full TMM, woods modiifer, and the same to hit problems as they get for standing in the woods. At most, might lessen their chance of moving inside really big woods templates, but that's about it.

2. A unit at the edge of woods does not pay the penalty for firing through them.  My personal pet peeve :). I realize there must have been a reason for changing this from the original rules but I have yet to meet anyone who likes this rule change. There are those that accept it, but almost everyone agrees that it is wonky. It tends to protect players that don't maneuver well.

Maybe some clarification here. If you occupy terrain, you take the modifiers when you shoot, even if that terrain isn't in LOS to the target.  If any part of you is in woods, you get the penalty for being in woods for all shots you make, and all shots made against you take the modifier for you occupying woods, no matter what LOS may otherwise indicate. There is no way to get the protection of woods without suffering the firing penalty of being in woods.

OCCUPYING AND INTERVENING TERRAIN
Terrain is occupied if any part of the unit’s base is in contact with
the terrain. Terrain is intervening if the Line of Sight passes through
it before reaching the target, and any terrain occupied by the
attacker is considered intervening even if it does not pass through
Line of Sight to the target.

page 18, ASC. That's the default rule now.

3. We roll 2d6 for every point of damage a unit deals when they attack.

sort of already covered it in prior discssiosn where I dont  use the optional variabel damage rule.

[nckestrel]

How about halving damage (round down) for each margin of failure?
A 5 damage unit does 5 on a hit, 2 if it misses by 1, 1 if it misses by 2?
If the initial damage value is 1, a margin of failure of 1 is treated as 0*. 
A 0* does no damage on a miss.

No extra rolling, but adds some math..

[nckestrel]

Rough terrain should be a liability, that's its purpose.
To-hit modifiers are not based on the path traveled, so there's no logical requirement that TMM be based in the speed over the entire path either.  If I move 10" through woods and then come 2" out of it to end my turn, there is no woods modifier on the attack. The path doesn't matter, only where I am at the end of the movement.  If I move full speed through clear terrain and then end my turn slowing down for woods, I'm going slower when targeted.

[Scotty]

I personally have three changes that I would make to terrain.

1) Units fully in woods get +2.  Units on the edge of woods get +1.  Shooting through woods at any point counts as "fully inside" as far as numbers go.

2) Reduce Partial Cover to +1, but gain -1 damage reduction.  Attacks that would do 1 damage are reduced to 0*.  Attacks that would do 0* are reduced to 0.  Damage reduction from SHLD, AMS, RFA, etc, are applied before terrain.

3) Units standing in water that take damage from an attack that damages structure take an additional critical hit, to represent flooding breached sections.

That's about it.  Dropping a lot of stacking terrain modifiers from up to +4 to a maximum of +2 should help a good amount, and keep skill upgrades from being a literal "take them or lose" necessity against units with better than +3 TMM.

[William J. Pennington]

Rough terrain should be a liability, that's its purpose.

And in truth, all you have to do is avoid ending your move in it...so if you choose to stay in it, it must be for a good reason, or a bade decision, and bad decisions have consequences.

To-hit modifiers are not based on the path traveled, so there's no logical requirement that TMM be based in the speed over the entire path either.  If I move 10" through woods and then come 2" out of it to end my turn, there is no woods modifier on the attack. The path doesn't matter, only where I am at the end of the movement.  If I move full speed through clear terrain and then end my turn slowing down for woods, I'm going slower when targeted.

Part of me wondered if just subtractign ther extra MP from the base thats used to calculate..nope, thinking is bad. Calculating is bad. My unwritten rules of analyzing AS . Does it require calculating and reformulating a value? Bad. Extra Dice roll? Bad. Lots of interpretation? Bad.

Frankly, I see more units doing the 1.25 inch shuffle behind partial cover hills than shooting form within woods anymore.

So the woods issue for high TMM units doesn't trouble me, as they are increasing their own offensive penalty if they are in them. And they can just stay behind woods, not suffer any more penalty, and still get thew full defensive protection of woods anyway, unless theyt allow soemone to flank them, which is their bad decision.

[Papabees]

I personally have three changes that I would make to terrain.

1) Units fully in woods get +2.  Units on the edge of woods get +1.  Shooting through woods at any point counts as "fully inside" as far as numbers go.

2) Reduce Partial Cover to +1, but gain -1 damage reduction.  Attacks that would do 1 damage are reduced to 0*.  Attacks that would do 0* are reduced to 1.  Damage reduction from SHLD, AMS, RFA, etc, are applied before terrain.

3) Units standing in water that take damage from an attack that damages structure take an additional critical hit, to represent flooding breached sections.

That's about it.  Dropping a lot of stacking terrain modifiers from up to +4 to a maximum of +2 should help a good amount, and keep skill upgrades from being a literal "take them or lose" necessity against units with better than +3 TMM.

I could probably be talked into getting behind these.

[nckestrel]

3) Units standing in water that take damage from an attack that damages structure take an additional critical hit, to represent flooding breached sections.

By standing in water, you're talking 'mechs standing in 1" water, not just submerged units? Ie. using water as partial cover?
Submerged units already take a critical hit from every successful attack (doesn't even have to hit structure), and if there's no armor, a submerged unit is destroyed.
A risk for partial cover from water is a good idea, I think it could use one. And perhaps hitting structure is better as a criteria than something like making a skill check (for falling down in the water) on every hit (too much rolling).

[Scotty]

Yes and yes.   'Mechs standing in water, and skill checks are right out.

[William J. Pennington]

maybe take inspiration from vacuum rules?

"Any non-aerospace and non-infantry unit that suffers damage while operating in vacuum must roll 2D6 to check for a hull breach effect. On a result of 8 or greater, the unit must
make an immediate Critical Hit roll appropriate to its type, but may reroll any Ammo Hit critical hits"

Maybe just change the number to a 10+. Enough risk enough to make people be careful of water, without turning it into something avoided at all costs like it was in the pre-Total warfare days where punch location fears kept people out of it.

[Scotty]

Keeping number of rolls low while also imposing a scary damage-based penalty was my goal for it.  It's still fine if you have armor, but very rapidly begins to outstrip its utility with cascading damage.

This, plus the reduction to +1 (and including a DR) makes it less camp-happy but still makes it something you can use when you've got a good amount of armor left.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I'm a fan of the idea about lowering the to-hit modifier for partial cover while turning it into a -1 damage soak.  It'd make the "units in buildings" rule less of an outlier to the rest of the rules engine.  I've even given some thought about making all terrain, not just buildings, a measure of both to-hit penalties as well as a damage soak to some degree.  Hard cover is an easy one to expand that to, but most others seem to begin to feel contrived.

Not so much a fan of introducing a "partially in the woods" lesser modifier, especially if retaining a hard binary conditional of "firing thru any woods at all". Seems to be introducing a contingency of a lesser penalty that will only rarely come into play in practice.  (other than touching the back of the mini to the edge of the woods in hexless play for a +/- 1 rather than the full 2, do I see it ever even being applicable?)

[Scotty]

The goal was less strict than that, such that if the line of sight didn't go through woods but the unit was still at least partially in woods it would apply, but that if the line of sight actually crossed through the woods terrain feature you would get the +2.

Worded like that to prevent RAW edge cases where shooting through five inches of woods at someone on the other edge and not wholly in the woods would have only been +1.  :P

[nckestrel]

A flat +1 for woods or partial cover would be fine too :)

[Scotty]

I'm inclined to agree, but figured that having a lesser modifier for being in the edge of woods would be more popular.

[sadlerbw]

I may be in the minority, but I'm not sure they current rules for Woods are a problem. Sure, standing at the 'edge' of the woods isn't an asymmetric to-hit-mod situation like it is in TW, but I don't think that is necessarily a problem that needs to be fixed. As it stands now, Woods are a purely defensive piece of terrain. You hide in or behind them to add that +2 to anyone shooting at you, but in return, you sacrifice the same +2 on your hits. So, it is something us use when it is more important not to be hit. Partial Cover, on the other hand, is something you try to use when you care about landing hits yourself. Partial cover only works from one angle though. Usually, you can't find a pit to hid in that gives you partial cover from all directions, so it leaves you open to flanking attacks. Woods don't. You get that +2 no matter where the incoming fire is coming from. Personally, I LIKE the distinction between the two. The to-hit mod is the same, so you don't have to worry about remembering which one is which, but the reason why you would seek out woods or partial cover is different.

I do see a lot of firing lines behind partial cover these days, so I'm willing to be convinced that it is now too powerful, or that woods need to be less punishing. However, I'm not totally seeing it. Finding cover to fire from was an important tactical part of TW, so I'm not certain it is a bad thing that people are seeking out cover to fire from in AS as well. I certainly got caught by this in the one segment of Scotty's AS campaign at GenCon I was able to make it to. We took positions in the woods trying to move up, but didn't take the hills for partial cover and ended up paying for it. On the other hand, I was able to use woods to help keep a Black Knght alive way longer than he had any right to be, so they still worked well when used correctly.

Now depth 1 water? That is like super-partial-cover which works from any angle or direction! Depth one water is the best cover there is, in my opinion, and I'm all for doing something to make it less awesome. Adding a crit roll in some fashion when you take hits in water would be a good thing. I'm not sure if it needs to only happen when structure is damaged or not, but I think it is a good idea to work with.

As for Woods vs Partial Cover. If you were going to add Damage Reduction to anything, I'd say add it to the woods. I think that does more to balance the two than reducing partial cover to +1 and adding DR to it. It seems like the basic problem is this: if I am in woods and you are not, but have partial cover, it is currently +4 for me to hit you, but only +2 for you to hit me. You have a +2 to-hit advantage on me. Now, if I stand out in the open, and you have cover I am at a +2 and you are at +0, so you STILL have a +2 to-hit advantage on me. Unless I don't care about hitting you and just want all the defense I can get, Woods loose vs. Partial Cover. If you see this as a bug and not a feature (which it may be), then you want to either narrow that gap, or add something to the woods that Partial Cover doesn't have. Here is what I see happening:

- Reduce partial cover to +1 and add a DR to it: Well, the to-hit gap is smaller, but still in favor of partial cover, and now partial cover reduces the damage of any hits that land as well. Partial cover still wins.

- Leave the mods alone, but add DR to woods: Partial gets the to-hit advantage, but you better hit hard because Woods are now like the SHLD special. Now, if you manage to line up partial cover AND woods, you are king of can't-kill-me hill, but that's not always real easy to line up or maintain. Partial cover may still be better.

- Make woods grant partial cover: Instead of being a separate thing, just have woods grant partial cover for any shots going in or out. Now, it doesn't matter if you are outside the woods hiding behind a hill, you still only get +2 because whether it was the woods or the hill doing it, you can only get 'partial cover' once. I get +2 at you, you get +2 at me, it's all even and doesn't stack. Sitting inside the woods would still be somewhat undesirable because you would be giving partial cover to anything you choose to shoot at. Partial cover would still be good because it will give you that differential +2 against units out in the open. The idea here would be that hiding behind stuff is a flat mod, regardless of WHAT you are hiding behind.

[Lord Cameron]

Honestly terrain (and initiative, since the way I do it is technically a house rule) is that the top of my shortlist of "things I would change if given the chance", but things like recalculating TMMs turn-by-turn and rolling eight sets of 2d6 for my favorite kind of Mad Cat Mk II are going nowhere near any of my tables.  If that means you won't be visiting, then that's a damn shame, but it's not something that's going to change.

I'm not keen on rolling for each point for exactly the reasons you mention, but if there was a tweak (to prevent "the shuffle",) it doesn't need to be complex.

For example:
If you move one inch or less = no TMM (current rule)
If you travel half or less of your original movement =  TMM - 1
Travel more than half your movement = full TMM

[nckestrel]

The only issue I have with the water-crit is that it makes water good for high TMM and bad for low TMM.  The water is only worth it if you make the target number high enough you don't face the risk that often.  AS already favors high TMM too much.

[Scotty]

That was why it wasn't every single hit, and instead just structure.  Woods is a constant for both sides, partial cover can be negated by maneuver, but parking in water is wholly without major disadvantages.  Making it something that can be used safely in some situations but making it dangerous as the goes on generates a reason to actually move without making the entire terrain feature a trap.

@Sadler, the woods change is primarily to offset the fact that at present they're primarily a "make the game go longer" button.  Adding a slightly more granular possibility than +2 for everyone (in the form of +1 for everyone) still grants a bonus without pushing TMM +3 thorough the ceiling of hard TNs.

The major goal there, honestly, is to make skill upgrades less urgently essential, because they kind of are.

EDIT:  at this point, all this discussion amounts to "There has been thought put into this" and the numbers were not pulled out of whatever convenient thin air was nearby.  I think they'd be an improvement, but if there's disagreement on that I doubt we'll settle it in the court of anonymous and silent public opinion. :P

[Achtung Minen!]

What changes are you guys doing? Our gaming group has a few that have improved the way game plays too.

I've basically rewritten Alpha Strike entirely to make in simpler and more streamlined.

Differences include:
• We use the old Battletech hex maps (maneuvering always seems more interesting on a hex map)
• Alternate IGOUGO activation where you move and shoot with one 'Mech, then your opponent does the same. Heresy on these forums, but it plays great!
• Critical hits and fumbles on attack rolls. On box cars, you automatically do a bonus critical damage roll (even if you don't damage structure). On snake-eyes, you overheat one level.
• Near-miss. If you miss by 1 point, you can overheat one level and count it as a hit. Makes skill upgrades less important.
• Terrain only gives penalties to hit if you are shooting through a hex (i.e. standing in a woods hex doesn't help or hurt anyone). Encourages movement instead of sitting in terrain.
• TMM all day, everyday. Doesn't matter if you move or not.
• Melee is vastly, vastly simplified, deals damage based on Size and ignores TMM (i.e., it is designed to counteract light, TMM-reliant 'Mechs that get to close, thus reducing their power in the game).
• 'Mechs can be knocked down by an attack (if Damage is greater than Size).
• Everytime a 'Mech is KIA, there is a small chance of the reactor going critical.

There are a lot of other tweaks as well, but those are some of the big ones. The list of modifiers for movement and shooting is also a lot shorter.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

• Near-miss. If you miss by 1 point, you can overheat one level and count it as a hit. Makes skill upgrades less important.

this is an interesting idea.  Heat is, imo, underutilized as a resource by the AS rules engine.

[Scotty]

While I agree in principle, giving everything a free (uncosted) skill upgrade that can be used after seeing dice results strikes me as... not the most balanced thing ever.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

While I agree in principle, giving everything a free (uncosted) skill upgrade that can be used after seeing dice results strikes me as... not the most balanced thing ever.

I agree with you as well. 1 heat for 1 damage or even half damage may be worth playtesting tho.  And generally, "spend heat to do X" in general is a neat idea that I think could result in some gems for AS.  I'm envisioning some outside the box kind of ideas, like perhaps spend a heat point during the movement phase to "pass" on a unit, saving that unit's move for later and making the other guy go move again.

[Scotty]

I'd probably keep it a little more mundane but still useful.  For example "Move an extra 2", then gain a point of Heat in the End Phase" or "Gain Multi-Tasker until the end of the turn, then gain a point of Heat in the End Phase".

Stuff like that.  Not entirely sure how to manage it, honestly.

[Ben]

Ok, this is pretty out there, but here it goes.

I enjoy playing AS, but generally only play it once a year at Gencon.  I'm one of those folks who  thinks it loses just a bit to much of the "mech degrading with damage" feel from TW. Rolling for criticals in AS always seems like "that extra roll you have to make before the next shot kills the mech".

So, my thought was to get rid of internal structure bubbles  entirely. Just making everything "armor". However, do something like every time a mech takes size+1 damage you check for crit. Alternatively, have the bubbles in groups (something like size+1 per group, or total bubbles divided by 5 per group). Then every time a group is fully crossed off, there is a chance for crit.

Basically, just trying to have crit rolls occur earlier/more often then on just the last few pips.

[sadlerbw]

I get what you are saying, but would you agree that crits are much more of a thing in assaults and larger heavies with enough structure to matter? I definitely get the 'who cares about crits because I'm going to die next turn anyway' feel with most lights and a good number of mediums. Heavies and assaults? Not as much. I despise crits when I've got something like an atlas or a black knight without an XL engine. I've had an atlas with a fire control hit spend three or four turns trying to hobble into range to punch something before finally getting picked apart. It did get one decent kick in, but he was basically a bullet magnet for those last few turns.

Another issue that adds to that feeling, and which the game would be hard pressed to change, is focused fire. Quite often, your opponent will pile up as much fire as they can on one target till it dies. With the larger number of mechs in general in AS, that tends to mean you have mechs loose a bucket load of damage all at once and die without a chance to limp around wounded. Some stuff like special ammo or anti-mech infantry attacks make crits have more of an impact since they go through armor, but crits from structure hits do often become irrelevant because your opponent is more likely to have enough firepower to burn you down in one turn. The same thing can happen in Total Warfare, we just don't see as many 12v12 games to notice.

[William J. Pennington]

While I agree in principle, giving everything a free (uncosted) skill upgrade that can be used after seeing dice results strikes me as... not the most balanced thing ever.

Turning a rolled miss into a hit fopr just aheat point..yeah, that is powerful. Hard to explain mechs that cant heat having it..and would sort of push everyone to field Mechs that can overheat to take advantage of it if it was only allowed to Mecvhs with an overheat capacity.

But spending heat to do other things...sounds cool. Though that falls into the realms of giving units abilities that don't exist in Battletech. Which in many ways I"m not opposed to, but I wouldn't dare assume that would fly in general.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

...
But spending heat to do other things...sounds cool. Though that falls into the realms of giving units abilities that don't exist in Battletech. Which in many ways I"m not opposed to, but I wouldn't dare assume that would fly in general.

I'm actually quite down with that.  Heat is an abstracted thing in CBT/Boardgame Battletech anyway... thermal radiation is only a part of the whole covered by the game abstract of "heat".

In AS Heat is a way (for some units) to modify the rules about damage dealing.  I'm completely open to Heat being a way to modify other rules as well.  Perhaps to hit rolls, as discussed (although it'd need to be carefully done to stay balanced).  I thought out loud about using heat to modify the movement sequence upthread.  I can also see a rule where you spend a heat point to be able to modify a crit roll up or down 1. (maybe also too powerful, but I like the idea in general).  I'm in a happy place where I'm thinking about virtually every AS rule, and thinking about ways the rule might be "bendable" by spending a heat point.

The net result of all that is of course that units that CAN climb the heat scale get lots of advantages over those that don't... but I'm ok with a game where a Mech has advantages over a tank or infantry.

[William J. Pennington]

One could justify any mech increasing damage by heating. More energy is pumped into weapon systems--firing energy weapons more. even non energy weapons could be represented as being pushed to the limit. The heat reflects the mech expending power to increase the ROF, supercharge loading systems--or removing heat away from crucial areas of the gun in question so ammo doesn't cook off in the barrel/launcher whihc is beign pushed beyond its design limitations--ie, the weapon is kept at a safe temperature during the enhanced firing, but the mech itself has heat build up shunted elsewhere, at a penalty due to inefficiency.

This could be at a 2 points of heat per one extra damage --so mechs with the overheat ability don't lose an advantage paid for in their design--and still allow those mechs to do the extra 2 heat for +1 damage if they like. Done before the dice roll of course.

If unlinked from a CBT explanation, trading heat for movement, for a buffed TMM, increasing some electronic ability or counter electronics could be options.

Hmm, maybe an evasive manuever that treats damage as a glancing blow from physical combat (1/2 damage)?

[Achtung Minen!]

While I agree in principle, giving everything a free (uncosted) skill upgrade that can be used after seeing dice results strikes me as... not the most balanced thing ever.

That's fine, but I have to say, it has been working great at my table for a year or two now! Basically it just speeds up the game for us. Of course, none of us is a "competitive" type of player... YMMV with your gaming group.

[sadlerbw]

This is a bit meta, but I don't know if I want to 'complicate' the base AS rules with more optional ways to use heat. I'd MAYBE be open to it as an advanced or optional rule, but I think base AS is in a good place right now. It's fast, has a decent number of tactical options, but doesn't have too many fiddly corner cases to remember. I like the rules light and tight, and have very serious misgivings about following the Total Warfare path of ending up with a rule for everything. Also, heat is one of the ways mechs feel a bit different from each other. Adding more ways for non-OV mechs to use heat might possibly make mechs feel even less different from each other than they can now.

In my opinion, one of TW's problems is that it has too many published rules. Sure a bunch of them are advanced or optional, but they still manage to confuse the heck out of players both new and old! My opinion is that there is a TON of stuff that should have been left to the realm of people's house rules and not codified at all. I really, REALLY don't want to see the game slow down very much, or get any more published optional rules than it has now. The fact that so many people have been able to easily house-rule some stuff to make it more fun for them suggests to me that the core rules are in a pretty good place. They are providing a solid system that people can easily tweak to get it playing the way they prefer without telling them exactly how they should do it.

Lord knows we make our own house rules and adjustments to many of the games we play in my house, but I'd be hard pressed to say ANY of the house rules we use need to be added to the base games. They are really only to make our one little group happy, and not something I could really say that the game as whole needed.

[Son of Kerenski]

3) Units standing in water that take damage from an attack that damages structure take an additional critical hit, to represent flooding breached sections.

I asked that question months ago and didnt recieve a satisfactory answer on it. So much so that the other person I play against regularly has asked the question again askung for more clarification.

But thats the way we always played it before too. Crit check if there is structure damage at the end of the turn.

[Scotty]

Well, if by "satisfactory" you mean "works they way you wanted it to", then I am not surprised.  It's in the thread for hypothetical rules changes for a reason.

[Son of Kerenski]

Its a huge glaring omission that im surprised didnt come up in the games original playtesting.

Baffling really.

[Scotty]

It's important to keep in mind that the original writers disagreeing with you does not constitute a glaring omission.  I, personally, happen to agree with you in principle that staying in water should have a downside relating to critical hit effects.

That doesn't make the current lackthereof a mistake.

[Son of Kerenski]

If something common that comes up frequently during the course of play isnt covered by a rule then its an ommission. No matter how you spin it. Theres rules for it in TW and its not overly complicated.

And despite you agreeing with me in principle, your tone comes off as somewhat condesceding towards me in your posts. Id appreciate it if you didnt seeing as we are on the same side. Not every one agrees with the writers. In fact ive already been responsible correcting a fairly major rule in TW regarding jumping that had a glaring ommission. So i know what they look like.

If the writers got it right first go then there wouldnt be a need for errata. Fact.

[SC_Dave]

It's important to keep in mind that the original writers disagreeing with you does not constitute a glaring omission.

I would be the person Son of Kerenski is referring to that sought further clarification (answer still pending). The issue came up when on a whim I decided to set up a game that featured a coastal inlet as part of the terrain.

Son of Kerenski mentioned a house rule he had been using with other persons to me. We decided not to use the house rule in the game I played with him and I sought an answer to the issue from the writers after our game. Rather than explain the issue we think hasn't been covered again here, I will simply direct you to the thread:

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=57977.0

If you read it perhaps you will understand that it's not that we disagree with the writers, just something that hasn't been fully explained.

[nckestrel]

I quit answering AS rules question, burned out after years of volunteering.  The rules team has added some new members and they're working on getting the process down and catching up on old questions.

[SC_Dave]

I quit answering AS rules question, burned out after years of volunteering.  The rules team has added some new members and they're working on getting the process down and catching up on old questions.

Thanks for an explanation as to the delay in an answer. I thought it might have been one of those ones that had to get passed up the chain of command & delayed by GenCon prep etc.

Enjoy your "retirement"! You were very helpful in answering a number of AS questions for me and I thank you for your efforts. (If I knew how to put a clapping smiley in here I would.)

[NeonKnight]

I quit answering AS rules question, burned out after years of volunteering.  The rules team has added some new members and they're working on getting the process down and catching up on old questions.

That's a shame. I may have not always agreed 100% with your answers, but I always respected you and the answers.

[nckestrel]

Now you can respect me and not have to deal with my answers :).