Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Actually since we’re on the topic of tournament rules….are there any rules for tournament legal customizations? Like, you can’t do full blown overhauls but replacing AC/20s with AC/10s, or other minor changes to either weapons or armor?

Or would it only be strictly CANON units?
12
Off Topic / Re: feeling bit down miss my little bestie
« Last post by rebs on Today at 10:35:44 »
doubt it it had no mate but had friends... and it never had company when visiting i wish it had...
still it was funny when it wanted to have its head scratched...
it did same thing my friends parrot would do to get scratches....it would tap the perch tilt its head and look at you...and kept doing it until it got the scratches...still dont know where that crow picked that from

I'm glad you had the experience of making a friend of an animal that you helped to save.  And truly sorry for the void it left in passing.
13
Fan Designs and Rules / Re: How much armor for a VTOL
« Last post by Cannonshop on Today at 10:34:11 »
Going back to how much armor for the OP, something nasty like a Red Kite has only 62 armor.  The turret is amazing, the speed is great, the weapons are great.  But that 62 armor (Not including it turret its only 46) is so low, you can only take hits from 1 damage LBX fire a few times.  SRMs, or infernos to the side, or even a few medium lasers will kill the vtol through the armor.  For 835 BV, it would be better served with less ammo or 1 less gun and better armor.

Since I have the above limitation of 6 units, each unit is replacing a potential mech.  So something with 46 armor on the main frame is worse then a dasher in terms of survivability.  Now on the init sink vtols like the ferret or sprint, who dont see combat, then yeah I suppose you dont need armor if the goal is to spot in double blind from far away.  But if its something like a Mantis, that weak armor of only 40 points means you die to a single 10 point hit in the flank.  The mantis isnt a bad vtol, seeing how many vtols have even less then 40 armor, but its a liability in combat when flak/precision AC ammo and large pulse lasers/targeting computers are around providing accurate ground fire.  Sending it in for a small laser strike means risking its death, though you can play it as an expensive init sink like a ferret and only commit it versus exposed enemies who cant shoot back. 
With something longer ranged, you can kinda get away with less armor by using ranged sniping, which is the only reason the yellow jacket at a mere 56 armor gets a pass... its armor is good at trading long ranged gauss attacks versus ground based gauss platforms efficiently for the BV, and it can shoot outside of LB10x range.

I find the Mantis is optimized for something OTHER than ground attack-it's a good unit for killing other VTOLs, and really I don't consider it much use for any other role.

With your habitual restrictions, Devian, I wouldn't TAKE a VTOL.  the advantages don't line up, not even for a Jellowbucket-there are other methods that, in my admittedly limited abilities, tend to work BETTER.

Did I mention I get bored quickly with static slugging fests?

The VTOL 'Problem' is that like most vehicles, your motive system is the biggest hit box you've got, means most incoming IS goig to the rotors, and unlike a Tank, losing those rotors means you don't even get to be a bunker.

a tank stalled on the hillside is still a bunker until the guns are silenced.  Infantry can move through terrain that stops everything else, and can fort up in buildings, making up for their speed and firepowere deficiency and the sheer number of ways they can die if you have friendly terrain.  There IS NO friendly terrain for a VTOL.  With something slow in campaign, you want to be close to the ground, because you're going to be meeting it soon, and dead pilots don't advance.  (falling from L1 or L2 is very much more survivable than falling from L5 to L11.)

In a phone booth map with limited force sizes, it's better to go with optimizing an average or even below-numbers force of 'mechs, than taking a VTOL of any sort-as I've said before, a force optimized to make a Yellowjacket (or similar slow moving VTOL) useful, is generally better off without that VTOL than with it-you can buy better P/G skills, or run better 'mech designs that make its single trick Irrelevant.


Four or five 'mechs within your imposed BV limit works better than having something like a Yellowjacket on the roster.

This is really because Combined Arms is more of a battle than a Duel.  The rules you laid out? those are duelist rules, and nothing duels as well as 'mechs.

With VTOLs and other niche units, those are Campaign/Battle play, asymmetric and wide ranging because movement and objectives matter more than body count, and you can actually WIN a campaign battle or scenario without needing to rely on killing everything else on the map.

They're for VICTORY CONDITIONS fights.

but they don't really work particularly well in YOUR style of play (based on my observations) either-beaus as I said, slow VTOLs are something that you have to build your whole force around to make them useful, and at that point, you find out that force you just built, works better if you don't take the slow VTOL.

Try it, make the direct comparison, then reverse the armies and play against it with someone who really wants to win.  (Not Princess).  I suspect you'll find whatever grouping you're using with your slow VTOLs? works even BETTR if you put that point value into Piloting or Gunnery, specialist munitions, or better configurations.

(I've 'initiative sunk' with FEWER units before, initiative sinking is nothing more or less than allocating your units to your best advantage and having a plan, even with the 'stock' initiative order.)

Some design philosophies, in MY experience, are points-legal and not very useful.  IOW it's possible to build something that just...isnt' an asset without HEAVY handed restrictions on the scenario expressly built for the most part to make such units somewhat useful.

but again, that's MY experiences, and clearly not yours.  It would be interesting to see what the difference is on the table in a head to head, or better, to see it tested out by people who don't habitually roll 2's and 3's more often than 8's and 9's.  (I lose initiatives so often I had to develop tactics to DEAL WITH losing initiative on a constant basis.  Part of my 'constant motion' is to force the other player to use his initiative advantage to REACT to me...instead of carrying out his own plans.)

14
If they have a Battlemech Manual with full BSP rules, I doubt that would completely replace Total Warfare in peoples' minds as a tournament standard except in cases where tournaments specifically state it.

The BSP rules for Vehicles aren't really that good representations of the Vehicles, but then again, they aren't supposed to be.  Honestly, I would prefer paying BV for Vehicles. 

I'm torn on the Infantry, because in some ways the BSP Conventional Infantry can be tougher at times, but they are so dirt cheap is it worth giving up Artillery or Air Strikes to have them?  And that's only if scenarios call for Infantry to take Objectives.  Battle Armor will be more useful, but also tend to be more expensive.

BSP units are part of the setting, like a hazard on the map.  They are obstacles to be navigated around like hills but not the hero's of the battlefield that are going to decide the engagement.  So while BSP is great for bringing the battle to life, and expanding the scope and scale of the conflict with our necessarily expanding the time, you still need to have those full vee rules for units that are part of the main caste and not just a supporting cast member.  It would be super unsatisfying to use a BSP unit for Callandre Kell's SM1 Tank Destroyer, or Kara Fletcher in her Scorchers.  Likewise a hardened armored Schrek  sitting in overwatch, or a tagging VTOL can be come a core part of a given lists strategy and identify, that you could hate to see reduced to their simplified BSP equivalent.

I know it would be silly for CGL to release a BMM+BSP and a repeat those sections in BMM+BSP+Combined Arms in a larger more expensive book. But that is exactly what I want.  I hate needing to bring two books to games. The BMM so good that it almost invalidates TacOps, and all it needs is just a few more pages to be that one book to rule them all.
15
General BattleTech Discussion / Re: Most Iconic Mech
« Last post by O5P_Ghost on Today at 10:32:21 »
Atlas for me (if assault), Warhammer (for heavy), Shadow hawk for medium and Locust for light.

Clan its gotta be the madcat.

This
16
I'm an Alpha Strike player, not BattleTech, so I'm used to how that rulebook is laid out which is the way I'm describing. Rules for individual unit types are included under the main categories like I've described so to me, that makes sense when reformatting the BattleTech rules. The BattleMech Manual has the same layout (Intro, Movement, Combat, Damage, Heat) so I would expect anything new that replaces or updates Total Warfare will follow the same format as these two rulebooks.

Ultimately it sounds like we are both on the "Total Warfare needs an update" side of the question.

We are on the same side that it needs an update.  The biggest questions are the approach and how much should be included or excluded.

The Battlemech Manual can afford to keep things simple because it's only dealing with a single unit type, not 4-7, each with their own sub-unit types.

Alpha Strike is similar as the biggest differences between "ground" units are how they react to HEAT, their Critical Hits table, and Vehicle Motive Checks.  Those Critical Hits even have the same affect across the board no matter which unit type you're dealing with.

Classic is notably different in this regard.  A Critical Hit on a Vehicle could mean that the Crew is just Stunned, or the Stabilizer on one side is now out.  Specific Location Hits on a Vehicle mean that the Motive System may also be damaged.  Infantry take Damage considerably different, taking far less Damage from Heavy Weapons, and often taking more from Burst-Fire Weapons.  Protomech Pilots take a Hit every time their Internal Structure is damaged.  Hovercraft and VTOLs have a chance to sideslip if they do a turn while Flanking.

So there is a LOT that goes in to the crunchiness of Classic Battletech that one rulebook can't quite fit.  It's doable to fit a lot in to one book, but you have to set limits or it will literally break its own binding before a year is out.

I like the BMM.  I think setting up a Manual series so that you only have to bring what you use would be a good idea.
17
General BattleTech Discussion / Re: Most Iconic Mech
« Last post by Gray_Noton_4lfe on Today at 10:30:17 »
Commando added
18
General BattleTech Discussion / Re: Most Iconic Mech
« Last post by Gray_Noton_4lfe on Today at 10:27:48 »
There's only one 'Mech so iconic that Catalyst brought a 100% scale inflatable statue to conventions to represent the brand, one so iconic, it became the first official plushie' Mech and the first star of a children's book, and it ain't on this list? For shame.  :grin:

Holding my vote until the UrbanMech gets its proper recognition.


Urbanmech added!
19
MechWarrior Hall / Re: Word Association 36: SAY WHAT AGAIN!!!
« Last post by rebs on Today at 10:26:28 »
power
20
General BattleTech Discussion / Re: Adepticon livestreams
« Last post by Weirdo on Today at 10:14:31 »
A couple issues back, though I forget exactly which one.

It was a very tiny mention, I'm not surprised a lot of folks missed it.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10