Author Topic: BattleMech Manual - From beta to final, non errata feedback  (Read 17295 times)

GoldBishop

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 667
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #60 on: 20 January 2017, 12:24:44 »
I found [C3] works adequately "as is" requiring LoS, especially based on the context of the TechManual.  I kinda disagree with the change, but I know this isn't the place to argue that (so I'll refrain from this post on).

I am concerned though: with [TW errata] pending, it's not just the one exert from TW, but Water (LoS) and any instances where C3I or Nova CEWS are used and printed. Tech Manual, TacOps, Wars of Reaving, SO, IO, CO... then AlphaStrike and the Companion...
...That's a pretty big ripple.
"Watch the man-made-lightning fly!"  -RaiderRed

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10160
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #61 on: 20 January 2017, 12:37:58 »
Downloading right now.

What a treat
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

Tymers Realm

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1292
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #62 on: 20 January 2017, 12:44:45 »
I just want to make sure I'm understanding the pricing on Beta PDF.
$10 now and then an additional $5 minimum if you don't do the survey and/or get it on DriveThruRPG now.
I'm just want to be sure before I pop on this.

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6351
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #63 on: 20 January 2017, 12:48:21 »
OK, came across a (I don't know, a loop? An inconsistancy, etc) in the rules. How/where do I ask for a clarification?
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

CrazyGrasshopper

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 483
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #64 on: 20 January 2017, 13:10:44 »
You know, I disagree with the change in C3 too. The change transforms it from something logical to something magical. The old-new rules simply scream: "Find 10 ways of abuse."

Moreover, if the reason for the change was the high BV cost, then why not change the BV cost itself? The BV system is clunky and unfair to many designs. It has troubles evaluating bracket-firers, troubles with accounting for backup weapons, some esoteric way of valuing TSM (it doesn't even bother with it's drawbacks), unresolved problems of TSM+ Supercharger stacking, sometimes assigns the Target Movement Modifier that you generally can't get in any other way, than moving your max MP straight forward on a completely even terrain. Even more, changes to the BV calculation were, apparently, introduced and never entered any errata. (You can find it on Sarna, check the BV 2.0 inflation for Dasher, for example.)

Tl;dr, changing the game mechanics for the same of the BV system is not the best solution, IMHO, of course.
« Last Edit: 20 January 2017, 13:17:36 by CrazyGrasshopper »

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #65 on: 20 January 2017, 13:20:50 »
I'm going to go ahead and support reverting C3 back.  No LOS doesn't mean the sensors can't get "a fix" on the target.  Afterall, you're still allowed to inspect any of your opponent's record sheets at any time.. not just when you have a unit with LOS to it.

That meta knowledge may then be used in-game, which means "in universe" the pilots must also be getting such detailed scanning data with or without LOS... and C3 is just a special comms-networking system using those same, omniscient scanning data from the unbiquitous sensors.

klarg1

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2435
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #66 on: 20 January 2017, 13:31:05 »
It still says "each leg," not "the leg that was hit." So add that in and we should be good.

Edit: So replace "When the ’Mech is kicked or executes a Death From Above attack, roll for a possible critical hit on each leg (even if the armor is not breached) and apply the results." with "When the 'Mech is kicked, roll for a possible critical hit on the struck leg even if armor is not breached. If the 'Mech performs a Death From Above attack, roll for a possible critical on each leg."

I assume that nothing happens if the kick doesn't hit a leg, yes? (i.e. The attacker was standing on a higher level, and kicked a location on the punch chart.)

Would it make sense for club/hatchet strikes to a leg to have the same effect?

CrazyGrasshopper

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 483
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #67 on: 20 January 2017, 13:37:32 »
I'm going to go ahead and support reverting C3 back.  No LOS doesn't mean the sensors can't get "a fix" on the target.  Afterall, you're still allowed to inspect any of your opponent's record sheets at any time.. not just when you have a unit with LOS to it.

That meta knowledge may then be used in-game, which means "in universe" the pilots must also be getting such detailed scanning data with or without LOS... and C3 is just a special comms-networking system using those same, omniscient scanning data from the unbiquitous sensors.

Then why the indirect fire is prohibited? Why is it not simply possible even without a spotter? I think, that this was part of the reasoning why the C3 was changed to the current TW ruling.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #68 on: 20 January 2017, 13:51:01 »
Then why the indirect fire is prohibited? Why is it not simply possible even without a spotter? I think, that this was part of the reasoning why the C3 was changed to the current TW ruling.

Well, from an in-universe rationale, it can still be reconciled.  While the "real" reason you can't C3+Indirect Fire is game balance, but in-universe perhaps they just still have separate fire&control systems for direct and indirect fire, and it makes more sense to hook your C3 up to the direct fire computer since you'll presumably use that way more often.  And you can't hook them both up because "insert technobabble reason here".

Even if there aren't two separate fire&control systems for an indirect fire-capable weapon, all it takes is the "insert technobabble excuse here" out to explain why you can't combine C3+IF anyway.

As for TW/Boardgame rules (which I guess now I should start calling "BattleMech Manual") incarnation of C3 goes... Alpha Strike has me spoiled.  Even with this "new" advent to C3, if I start playing "BattleMech Manual" I'll still not even consider playing with C3 due to the massive inflation it imposes in BV.   In AS the point value of a C3 unit doesn't go up with the size of a C3 network.  It costs what it costs no matter whether it's part of a 4 unit network, a 12 unit network, or not even networked at all.  Even then it's still debatable whether you even want to bother using it... it generally costs the same to just advance pilot skills instead, and pilot skills are not vulnerable to ECM or losing a C3M unit ;)

Edit:  Fixed title of the book ;)
« Last Edit: 20 January 2017, 14:16:16 by Tai Dai Cultist »

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13700
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #69 on: 20 January 2017, 14:01:51 »
On the other hand, the OOC anti-dickhead rule that is being able to see record sheets at all times probably shouldn't be used as actual in-character information and used to base actual gameplay rules on.

I'm more concerned about how this interacts with Double Blind, and think that if C3 doesn't require LOS to function it should still light up the spotter bright as day even if you can't 'see' them on a Double Blind game.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

GoldBishop

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 667
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #70 on: 20 January 2017, 14:03:18 »
I'm going to go ahead and support reverting C3 back.  No LOS doesn't mean the sensors can't get "a fix" on the target.  Afterall, you're still allowed to inspect any of your opponent's record sheets at any time.. not just when you have a unit with LOS to it.

That meta knowledge may then be used in-game, which means "in universe" the pilots must also be getting such detailed scanning data with or without LOS... and C3 is just a special comms-networking system using those same, omniscient scanning data from the unbiquitous sensors.

I'm not sure how far "back" is, but even my BattleTech Master Rules requires C3 to have Line of Sight for network members to share targeting data.

As for metagaming record sheets?  "Line of Effect" is different than "Line of Sight" and should continue to remain different.
Seismic senors let you know something heavy is there, previous observations/interactions and the BattleRom can help determine that its a Berserker 4 hexes away and missing his left arm PPC... but if you move behind a Level 2 hill, your Infrared cameras cannot tell if that assault mech is at 6 heat or 7.

So while I respect the idea that it changes could be coming, I think Line of Sight is still critical to the use of C3 tech
"Watch the man-made-lightning fly!"  -RaiderRed

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #71 on: 20 January 2017, 14:05:49 »
I actually asked to change the BV instead, but the problem is that this book doesn't have BV so any such change made no sense for here.  I'm not sure it would have went through in any case: the book was slated to have no major rule changes, but this is something Randall wanted specifically corrected, so an exception was made.

I'll be catching up to the rest of the questions here in a minute.

P.S. It's BattleMech Manual, not BattleTech Manual (that one is from 1987). :)
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Azakael

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 733
  • Brotherhood of Outreach - Until the Sword Breaks
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #72 on: 20 January 2017, 14:07:45 »
So clarification: When using quirks, it overrides unit-type specific rules? A quad with Extended Torso Twist can Torso Twist unlike a normal quad?

CrazyGrasshopper

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 483
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #73 on: 20 January 2017, 14:08:13 »
There are also TacOps sensor rules, which are, though optional, strongly supported by fiction. Magscan and seismic (IIRC) were in some novels.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, it's just that for folks that never saw kinder C3 rules, it's a huge WTF moment and something hard to rationalize in their heads.

In my opinion, it's the BV system that needs fixing. Fixing the rules instead is just a waste. I have no problems with bad designs and technologies, good designs and technologies, or even cheesy ones like Hellstar or Supernova (now, this one has inflated BV, because of the overheating problem). If BV is a yardstick, it should be as precise as possible.

The question for you would be: would you use the TW C3 (or even this one) would it have more reasonable BV cost?
« Last Edit: 20 January 2017, 14:21:09 by CrazyGrasshopper »

CrazyGrasshopper

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 483
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #74 on: 20 January 2017, 14:16:35 »
Someone posted almost the same I just did.

I actually asked to change the BV instead, but the problem is that this book doesn't have BV so any such change made no sense for here.  I'm not sure it would have went through in any case: the book was slated to have no major rule changes, but this is something Randall wanted specifically corrected, so an exception was made.

I'll be catching up to the rest of the questions here in a minute.

P.S. It's BattleMech Manual, not BattleTech Manual (that one is from 1987). :)

If there's no BV, there are no problems that come with.

At least, some people are not happy with the change.

You'd better nerfed kicks, so people would appreciate melee weapons a bit more.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13700
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #75 on: 20 January 2017, 14:17:46 »
Kicks were not nerfed, this book is not designed for major rules changes.  Xotl has mentioned (repeatedly at this point) that C3 is the one major exception to that, and it was mandated by Randall.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6351
  • Cause Them My Initials!
« Last Edit: 20 January 2017, 14:34:15 by NeonKnight »
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13700
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #77 on: 20 January 2017, 14:19:57 »
TAG is not actually an "attack" (it happens in the Artillery Phase in TW, not the Combat Phase).
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #78 on: 20 January 2017, 14:24:19 »
P.S. It's BattleMech Manual, not BattleTech Manual (that one is from 1987). :)

Mea Culpa.  I fixed it :)

There are also TacOps sensor rules, which are, though optional, strongly supported by fiction. Magscan and seismic (IIRC) were in some novels.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, it's just that for folks that never saw kinder C3 rules, it's a huge WTF moment and something hard to rationalize in their heads.

In my opinion, it's the BV system that needs fixing. Fixing the rules instead is just a waste. I have no problems with bad designs and technologies, good designs and technologies, or even cheesy ones like Hellstar or Supernova (now, this one has inflated BV, because of the overheating problem). If BV is a yardstick, it should be as precise as possible.

The question for you would be: would you use the TW C3 (or even this one) would it have more reasonable BV cost?

I wouldn't consider using C3 under any points-based force creation system if the cost for C3 was pricier, unit by unit, than increasing the gunnery skill.  If C3 were exactly the same cost as increasing your to-hits by one pip, then it would be in my opinion a fairly balanced decision between the two options.  With C3 costing what it does, it's a no brainer to just take skill upgrades instead.  Again, when force balancing is done by points.

In campaign, scenario or RPG play where you just get what you can get, sure C3 is the bomb :)
« Last Edit: 20 January 2017, 14:26:50 by Tai Dai Cultist »

CrazyGrasshopper

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 483
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #79 on: 20 January 2017, 14:25:07 »
Kicks were not nerfed, this book is not designed for major rules changes.  Xotl has mentioned (repeatedly at this point) that C3 is the one major exception to that, and it was mandated by Randall.

It was nothing more than grumping on my side, I'm sorry for that.

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6351
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #80 on: 20 January 2017, 14:28:47 »
TAG is not actually an "attack" (it happens in the Artillery Phase in TW, not the Combat Phase).

And my Questions are Based on the New BattleMech Manual, not TW, please reread pages 31, and 112 of the BattleMech Manual ;)
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #81 on: 20 January 2017, 14:30:29 »
I just want to make sure I'm understanding the pricing on Beta PDF.
$10 now and then an additional $5 minimum if you don't do the survey and/or get it on DriveThruRPG now.
I'm just want to be sure before I pop on this.

The beta costs 10$.  It's a product by itself, so no free upgrade to the final.  It comes with a survey that gets you 5$ off at the Catalyst store.  There are other ways of getting the survey, depending on what mailing list you're on, so it's possible to either get the beta for 5$, or get the beta for the full 10$ and use the 5$ coupon on something else.

Actually this could be simplified very easily. Link the MUL for a select number of units, say only those found in the intro box and lance packs (or the basics in 3039) and send them to the MUL to select the mech that best fits the era they want to play in. The Rat should be VARIANT agnostic. so one entry might read Atlas or Wasp. If that's what they roll, search the MUL for XXX era for the best variant. That would really only add a single page, maybe two. Do you think that would work to solve the RAT problem?

I don't believe that would work.  You can't make a proper RAT full of Unseen and a handful of other mechs that has appreciably, canonically accurate variety.

That having been said, we're looking at expanding ways to handle scenarios and force building for the TW level.  But it's incredibly early yet, and no idea what may come of it.

Maybe we can get a spoiler on other big changes, apart from C3?

As I mentioned, the idea was a re-representation of the old rules, rather than making changes / a new edition.  But some cleanup and things meant a couple of things snuck in.

For example, the old Aimed Shots rules took the tack of just listing all the weapons that could not use it.  This was cumbersome, in that it meant every time a new weapon came out, it needed to be added to the "Aimed Shots: Yes or No" list.  For example, until the Manual came out, you could actually make an aimed shot with M-Pods.  Similarly, in changing it to the Type-based rules methodology the BMM uses, you can now make aimed shots with Thunderbolt Missiles (as long as they aren't fired indirectly).

Also, as the result of a mention in the pre-release feedback thread, I created a new optional rule to allows flamers to deal both damage and heat to their target.  It's something people have been asking for for literally decades, so why not?  It's optional, but still.

I'm afraid to ask, but was an idea of nerfing kicks a bit ever considered? Or is it a taboo topic  :-X?

No.  I wouldn't mind doing that, but it didn't come up.  That was sort of outside the scope of the book in any case, even though it would have been a simple change (I'd prefer a -1 or even 0 attack mod).

OK, came across a (I don't know, a loop? An inconsistancy, etc) in the rules. How/where do I ask for a clarification?

The errata thread for the Manual is here:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56094.0
« Last Edit: 20 January 2017, 14:46:34 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6351
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #82 on: 20 January 2017, 14:32:14 »

The errata thread for the Manual is here:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56094.0

OK, I am moving my question there. Thank You!
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37358
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #83 on: 20 January 2017, 14:36:01 »
Xotl, do you know if Randall considered the abuse invulnerable spotters (i.e., those without LOS) can facilitate?  I can think of few faster ways to break a game.

CrazyGrasshopper

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 483
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #84 on: 20 January 2017, 14:36:24 »
Thanks, Xotl, the Enhanced Flamers rules are actually great.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #85 on: 20 January 2017, 14:39:04 »
Guys, I don't want to shut down discussion, but C3 is not really up for discussion here as a change-back: this was made by the head of the game and company.  It's been used for over a decade in the way it's been restored to, so I assume it's perfectly playable as is.  If the long term player-base still has the opinion that it's broken down the road, I'm sure it will be re-re-revisted, but for now, I'd like to request that we move on.  Thanks.
« Last Edit: 20 January 2017, 14:45:04 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #86 on: 20 January 2017, 14:44:39 »
New topic:

I'd like to issue one Kudo to whoever wrote the flavor text for machine guns on pg 101.

Bravo.  :D

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6351
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #87 on: 20 January 2017, 14:48:38 »
New topic:

I'd like to issue one Kudo to whoever wrote the flavor text for machine guns on pg 101.

Bravo.  :D

Machine Gun Array is even more fun :P
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Battletech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #88 on: 20 January 2017, 14:49:52 »
Lots of quality jokes in there, agreed.

I mentioned the machine gun trio because I liked the self-aware meta in said comedy.

Light Gauss and Pulse Lasers get an honorable mention, btw.
« Last Edit: 20 January 2017, 14:53:14 by Tai Dai Cultist »

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8705
  • Legends Never Die
Re: BattleMech Manual - From beta to final
« Reply #89 on: 20 January 2017, 16:58:00 »
Starting my read-through...NOW.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP