Battlefield Support: Assets

[Cannonshop]

Well, this is quite the complex subject that can also be influenced by interpretation of cannon, amongst many factors...I know many consider that what "front line regiments" we know of are but a fraction of that which exists, for example.

I'll just say that I can't buy into the clans steamrolling into the inner sphere using TW rules for conventionnals, amongst many other things, even with all the "suspending disbelief" buisness going on.

Indeed. Two things.

1) You could always home rule it, I guess. Would someone really object to it?

2) Yes, of course, but. Again, these aren't "proper CBT units". They gimp the equations, they use cold rolls, they react in ways no "proper cbt unit" does. Damage treshold and destroy check for crying out loud, you can't have something more against the very soul of the game.

With this considered, it becomes clear they aren't meant to be in your "battleline", so to speak. They're flavour. Now I love it as a tool for certain uses, I've repeated myself more then enough on that, but they're...well...differentAnd there you have it.

I couldn't say what made TPTB decide that they'd be cut-off from the initiative order of the "proper CBT units", but it's clear the BSAs just don't fit with those. I can't say I agree with the decision but neither does it bug me. I just feel they simply "do not belong with the others" even though they DO work for their intended purpose, or at least, what I understand it to be and has been stated. This makes it so that it somewhat feels normal to have them... shall I say, segregated in a way?

Besides, while they aren't mook, ignorable and negligible, they ARE expendable due to their mechanics. The instances where I'd move them after most of my 'mechs are pretty rare. Yes, of course, often I would've let my long range support 'mech have his turn before my BSAs...but it's kind of a moot point...And yes, in rare cases you'd make the decision to move that mobile tank BSA as your last unit to exploit rear armor instead of just pressuring with it and possibly sacrifice one of your mobile 'mechs, but again, all of the above.

But all this doesn't matter if you use TW conventionnals instead...and it's a given you should never be forced to use BSA instead of proper conventionnals if you so desire. They aren't "proper CBT units", they are an additional tool for certain circumstances and can't really be viewed as anything more then that, or so I feel.

 

One of the bigger differences between how I see things, and how the bSP is designed, is that I don't see any unit I have on the table as 'more' or 'less' expendable.  If it doesn't serve a purpose, I don't take it.

There are innumerable times when I'll move a hyperexpensive Assault 'mech first, and some cheap militia unit last, to shape the engagement the way I want or need it to go.  It's not that the assault 'mech is more disposable, it's that I need to shape my opponent's reactions.

Do you see where I'm going with this?  I've won more matches in the heads of my opponents, than through dice luck or superior build quality of my units.  The 'head game' is fundamental to how I play, because dice hate me.

It's why I avoid taking anything that upon activation can fail randomly at the worst possible time in a way that can't be cleared or canceled.  (aka no superchargers, no MASC, no Ultraautocannons, no HVACs, etc.)

I also play 'pressure games'-advancing units on a fixed course regardless of initiative outcome-but I don't always do it, and usually I'm doing it to create certain opportunities or to apply stress to the thinking (and force reactions) of my opponents.

This is stuff you can't do with things in the BSP/BSA fold-because no matter what you do with it, it's completely predictable on-the-fly.  The intent was stated by (was it Xotl? one of the 'spcial colored' posters at any rate) to be 'creating mook units for a scenario' which reads to me as "creating a pre-scripted outcome for your scenario".

which in turn, is almost useless to play-it's rigged for an outcome by adding a new set of rules.

I'm fundamentally against that as a concept.  It's sort of "you might as well glue it in place as a diorama if you're going to slant things that hard".

[butchbird]

One of the bigger differences between how I see things, and how the bSP is designed, is that I don't see any unit I have on the table as 'more' or 'less' expendable.  If it doesn't serve a purpose, I don't take it.

There are innumerable times when I'll move a hyperexpensive Assault 'mech first, and some cheap militia unit last, to shape the engagement the way I want or need it to go.  It's not that the assault 'mech is more disposable, it's that I need to shape my opponent's reactions.

First off, honestly, unless you want to play the scenarios the BSAs were designed for (I don't know the details, only BT scenarios I've ever played were the four 3rd ed. intro scenarios and one game with a CBT group I wasn't entirely responsible for, not much of a scenario guy), I don't see why a dedicated combined arms player, or any combined arms appreciating player without X or Y time limitations would have any reason to touch said BSAs.

As far as expendability, it's not about their worth, it's about their mechanics. Evidently, sometimes, you'll want to move a "lesser" unit (say a Galleon) last and your biggest unit (say a Banshee 3S) first, depending on your needs...but they're all "proper CBT units" that use "proper CBT mechanics", one is cheaper, but they all use the same ruleset.

The BSAs are separate from the rest. Their mechanics make their survivability purely dependent on blind luck (or nearly so). The 40 damage dealing demolisher is just as brittle as a TW rifle foot infantry platoon, if not more so. BSAs don't fit in the CBT mechanics, period. They're from an entire different rule set that's tacked-on for ease of use in certain conditions. They are niche, but they aren't "niche units"...their nicheness is...set-up wise? Again, you can't look at them as you do porper CBT units.

I also play 'pressure games'-advancing units on a fixed course regardless of initiative outcome-but I don't always do it, and usually I'm doing it to create certain opportunities or to apply stress to the thinking (and force reactions) of my opponents.

This is stuff you can't do with things in the BSP/BSA fold-because no matter what you do with it, it's completely predictable on-the-fly. 

Well inevitably they are predictable for proper CBT units but they aren't amongst themselves.

Again, they're not proper CBT units. In hockey terms, they can forecheck but they can't backcheck. They can force a reaction but cannot react, and its meant that way. They aren't meant to be as tactically flexible as proper CBT units. They have severe limitations to go along with their unique, "standoffish ruleset" that, while it blends well with the rest of CBT, gives a heterogenous game rather then a homogenous one. No matter how much you stir, the two liquids will never mix, one will always float on top.

The intent was stated by (was it Xotl? one of the 'spcial colored' posters at any rate) to be 'creating mook units for a scenario' which reads to me as "creating a pre-scripted outcome for your scenario".

which in turn, is almost useless to play-it's rigged for an outcome by adding a new set of rules.

I'm fundamentally against that as a concept.  It's sort of "you might as well glue it in place as a diorama if you're going to slant things that hard".

Again, I can't talk about BT scenarios that much, but from a historical wargame perspective, you're never expected to win scenarios that were decisive victorys for the opfor, simply to do better then historically.

This being said, I guess, scenario wise, that BSAs mostly enable to put a "sufficient number" of convetionnals on the table to accompany the "main battleline" while not overly tilting the balance in that side's favor. In a sense, they enable to have conventionnals WHITHOUT "slanting things that hard" like proper CBT units (aka TW rule infantry and 'vees) would. I can't say for sure, bu I'd assume it's more of a balance thing.

And as for other kinds of game (say pick-up games as that's pretty much all I know), BSAs, while lacking crunch and tactical flexibility, still offer a level of tactical freedom, like I said, through pressure if not in reaction. If both sides have a more or less equal force of BSAs, then there can be no slanting.

[CarcosanDawn]

This being said, I guess, scenario wise, that BSAs mostly enable to put a "sufficient number" of convetionnals on the table to accompany the "main battleline" while not overly tilting the balance in that side's favor. In a sense, they enable to have conventionnals WHITHOUT "slanting things that hard" like proper CBT units (aka TW rule infantry and 'vees) would. I can't say for sure, bu I'd assume it's more of a balance thing.

That's sort of the point though - in the universe, combined arms beats pure 'Mech every time in every fight.

No 'Mechs? Lose to the Clans that brought battlearmor infantry, tanks, and 'Mechs.

No tanks? Lose to the Level II that includes tanks, battle armor, and 'Mechs.

No infantry? Lose to - ah you get the idea.

Combined arms SHOULD make forces stronger - that's why the concept exists. If "I have a tank" made me /weaker/, then I doubt many folk would buy tanks. You don't save the 3.4 million for a Hunchback by buying a 3.7 million Von Luckner for your AC20 needs - so the Von Luckner only exists in the setting because adding tanks to a 'Mech/Infantry force makes it stronger than adding more 'Mechs or more infantry.

[butchbird]

Well they mentioned it was designed for Tukayid scenarios. I might be mistaken (don't have it, obviously) but that's exactly the point, the clans got beat notably through the use of combined arms...but if you include all the different types of units you need to simulate this, you end up with a number of units beyond the scope (well, not necessarily BEYOND, but you get the picture) of CBT and more fit for AS. BSAs enable to "simulate" the combined arms element while streamlining the game and keeping a victory whithin grasp of the clans.

Do consider that a company versus company battle is a very time consuming enterprise. I tried it once, only time I played with other experienced players, and it was a multi-session affair...after two 3 or 4 hours sessions (or something like that) with little pauses, we were just starting to get our first shots in. A scenario for the battle of Luthien I do believe.

SO. Assuming you've got a trinary of 'mechs on the clan side and want a sizeable number of 'mechs for the comguards while still giving a combined arms feel, you have to find a way to fit in so many units whitout dragging down the game nor making things impossible for the clans. Hence the BSAs.

I'm a bit talking through my hat here, as I've no idea what the scenarios look like but still. Say you have something like two level II of 'mechs (to give enough 'mechs to keep non-combined arms centric players happy), then you need sufficient tanks and infantry to give the combined arms feel...which will be quite a few more units. Unless you go for light units to balance out, you're running the risk of tilting the balance pretty heavily in favor of the comguards with TW rules for conventionnals.

But if the conventionnals are BSAs, you can still have "enough" of them for the "right feel" while streamlining the game and giving the clan player(s) a fighting chance. Yes, you are gimping the conventionnals for balance and "flavour" (you'll say nearly purely esthetic)...but that's that. Of course this is all assumption as I don,t have the product but even if I'm wrong the example is a good one to show how BSAs can be of use for certain set-ups.

[CarcosanDawn]

Well they mentioned it was designed for Tukayid scenarios. I might be mistaken (don't have it, obviously) but that's exactly the point, the clans got beat notably through the use of combined arms...but if you include all the different types of units you need to simulate this, you end up with a number of units beyond the scope (well, not necessarily BEYOND, but you get the picture) of CBT and more fit for AS. BSAs enable to "simulate" the combined arms element while streamlining the game and keeping a victory whithin grasp of the clans.

Do consider that a company versus company battle is a very time consuming enterprise. I tried it once, only time I played with other experienced players, and it was a multi-session affair...after two 3 or 4 hours sessions (or something like that) with little pauses, we were just starting to get our first shots in. A scenario for the battle of Luthien I do believe.

SO. Assuming you've got a trinary of 'mechs on the clan side and want a sizeable number of 'mechs for the comguards while still giving a combined arms feel, you have to find a way to fit in so many units whitout dragging down the game nor making things impossible for the clans. Hence the BSAs.

I'm a bit talking through my hat here, as I've no idea what the scenarios look like but still. Say you have something like two level II of 'mechs (to give enough 'mechs to keep non-combined arms centric players happy), then you need sufficient tanks and infantry to give the combined arms feel...which will be quite a few more units. Unless you go for light units to balance out, you're running the risk of tilting the balance pretty heavily in favor of the comguards with TW rules for conventionnals.

But if the conventionnals are BSAs, you can still have "enough" of them for the "right feel" while streamlining the game and giving the clan player(s) a fighting chance. Yes, you are gimping the conventionnals for balance and "flavour" (you'll say nearly purely esthetic)...but that's that. Of course this is all assumption as I don,t have the product but even if I'm wrong the example is a good one to show how BSAs can be of use for certain set-ups.

Sure, for scenario play it's fine (though why you wouldn't just use Alpha Strike is beyond me, though you and I have already discussed that at length in this very thread).

Nevertheless, it is disappointing that only 3 of the 4 arms get the BSP treatment. Why not all 4, and let the players choose what TW rules to use for whatever unit type.

[Cannonshop]

Sure, for scenario play it's fine (though why you wouldn't just use Alpha Strike is beyond me, though you and I have already discussed that at length in this very thread).

Nevertheless, it is disappointing that only 3 of the 4 arms get the BSP treatment. Why not all 4, and let the players choose what TW rules to use for whatever unit type.

To be fair, this one might just be a case of 'Nobody on the staff thought of it'.  Conventional primary players like you or me are rare for a reason.  The 'star' of the show is the 'mechwarrior, that, I think, strongly bleeds into the thinking at the game dev level just like it does in the fiction and sourcebook levels.  It may simply have never occurred to the developers that anyone would want to do that, the same way it took until the 1970s before anyone thought writing a western from the Indians side was a good or saleable idea.

[Charistoph]

Sure, for scenario play it's fine (though why you wouldn't just use Alpha Strike is beyond me, though you and I have already discussed that at length in this very thread).

A lot of people don't like Alpha Strike.  I'm not a fan myself.  While it does run faster than Classic because it reduces the amount Shots and the health is a lot smaller, it loses a lot of crunch.  In campaign scenarios where we run Alpha Strike, we usually lose one unit.  I've lost one it the last 2, and they were with 'Mechs and Pilots that broke the unit's mode of the Jumping Jack Skirmishers, and that's not unusual in my experience.

Still, the BSP Assets are even more simplified than Alpha Strike.  And I'm not a fan for serious unit usage.  In cases where a non-serious unit use is needed, I'm fine with it, but that's all been said before.

[CarcosanDawn]

I get not wanting to lose the crunch of CBT and play AS, but there is a time investment that comes with it.

You can't have the crunch and have the speed - as you say, BSP have even less crunch than AS.

[Calimehter]

One of the bigger differences between how I see things, and how the bSP is designed, is that I don't see any unit I have on the table as 'more' or 'less' expendable.  If it doesn't serve a purpose, I don't take it.

There are innumerable times when I'll move a hyperexpensive Assault 'mech first, and some cheap militia unit last, to shape the engagement the way I want or need it to go.  It's not that the assault 'mech is more disposable, it's that I need to shape my opponent's reactions.

Do you see where I'm going with this?  I've won more matches in the heads of my opponents, than through dice luck or superior build quality of my units.  The 'head game' is fundamental to how I play, because dice hate me.

It's why I avoid taking anything that upon activation can fail randomly at the worst possible time in a way that can't be cleared or canceled.  (aka no superchargers, no MASC, no Ultraautocannons, no HVACs, etc.)

I also play 'pressure games'-advancing units on a fixed course regardless of initiative outcome-but I don't always do it, and usually I'm doing it to create certain opportunities or to apply stress to the thinking (and force reactions) of my opponents.

This is stuff you can't do with things in the BSP/BSA fold-because no matter what you do with it, it's completely predictable on-the-fly.  The intent was stated by (was it Xotl? one of the 'spcial colored' posters at any rate) to be 'creating mook units for a scenario' which reads to me as "creating a pre-scripted outcome for your scenario".

which in turn, is almost useless to play-it's rigged for an outcome by adding a new set of rules.

I'm fundamentally against that as a concept.  It's sort of "you might as well glue it in place as a diorama if you're going to slant things that hard".

There's too much that has been posted since I last posted here to respond to it all  :laugh: but I wanted to address these points in particular. 

Mostly, in that I've found in actual play that BSP Assets are not pre-scripted wastes of space that have no effect against an all-Mech opponent despite having to move first in their own movement phase. 

Their movement rules mean they certainly -can- be rendered into something like that.  I've had tanks that I let get split off unsupported and plinked as an easy kill, and I've had a few times where my infantry got mis deployed and mostly ignored or accidentally found themselves the lone target for a Mech and quickly dispatched.  The inability to react in the same turn to your opponents movements limits how far you can correct for changing situations, no question about it. 

But I've had plenty of other times where they did fine work against enemy Mechs.  Ironically, the key is "pressure play" as Cannonshop already referenced.  Keep that lance of Manticores together, move the fire space you want to dominate with them, and then see what your enemy does.  If they hang back, move ahead to the next pressure point.  If they engage (and if you've moved them correctly), you will get some good firing in before they eventually succumb.  Interestingly, for bigger tracked vehicles, I've found it to be not all that dissimilar from TW-style play, where you had to quickly rush to preferred ground so you could be in it before you were quickly and easily "parked" by enemy fire and weren't doing any reactive movement anyway.  :cool:

For infantry, making sure they don't get exposed and close in prior to having some longer ranged covering fire (and more dangerous targets exposed simultaneously, be they Mech or other BSP vees).  I've even managed some swarm attacks against Mech's, though admittedly when they were knocked down by failed PS rolls from heavier supporting fire (either 20+ points of damage or something like a TAC into a Gyro).  Really, though, the BSP swarm attack is meant to be more of a potential threat than an executed one, forcing your opponent to account for it in -some- fashion (leaving preferred ground, or spending turns firing on infantry when there are better targets to aim at).

--------------

BSP are certainly more "mook-like" than their TW equivalents (and how much you value that sort of thing - and thus whether you play mostly TW or mostly BSP - is going to vary from group to group and even campaign to campaign) but they aren't just wasted points or auto-loss units to take.  That's selling them a bit too short in my experience with them.

[CarcosanDawn]

There's too much that has been posted since I last posted here to respond to it all  :laugh: but I wanted to address these points in particular. 

Mostly, in that I've found in actual play that BSP Assets are not pre-scripted wastes of space that have no effect against an all-Mech opponent despite having to move first in their own movement phase. 

Their movement rules mean they certainly -can- be rendered into something like that.  I've had tanks that I let get split off unsupported and plinked as an easy kill, and I've had a few times where my infantry got mis deployed and mostly ignored or accidentally found themselves the lone target for a Mech and quickly dispatched.  The inability to react in the same turn to your opponents movements limits how far you can correct for changing situations, no question about it. 

But I've had plenty of other times where they did fine work against enemy Mechs.  Ironically, the key is "pressure play" as Cannonshop already referenced.  Keep that lance of Manticores together, move the fire space you want to dominate with them, and then see what your enemy does.  If they hang back, move ahead to the next pressure point.  If they engage (and if you've moved them correctly), you will get some good firing in before they eventually succumb.  Interestingly, for bigger tracked vehicles, I've found it to be not all that dissimilar from TW-style play, where you had to quickly rush to preferred ground so you could be in it before you were quickly and easily "parked" by enemy fire and weren't doing any reactive movement anyway.  :cool:

For infantry, making sure they don't get exposed and close in prior to having some longer ranged covering fire (and more dangerous targets exposed simultaneously, be they Mech or other BSP vees).  I've even managed some swarm attacks against Mech's, though admittedly when they were knocked down by failed PS rolls from heavier supporting fire (either 20+ points of damage or something like a TAC into a Gyro).  Really, though, the BSP swarm attack is meant to be more of a potential threat than an executed one, forcing your opponent to account for it in -some- fashion (leaving preferred ground, or spending turns firing on infantry when there are better targets to aim at).

--------------

BSP are certainly more "mook-like" than their TW equivalents (and how much you value that sort of thing - and thus whether you play mostly TW or mostly BSP - is going to vary from group to group and even campaign to campaign) but they aren't just wasted points or auto-loss units to take.  That's selling them a bit too short in my experience with them.

All of which are good reasons a TW vehicle player should be able to take 'Mech BSPs.

My problem with it isn't exactly "here are faster ways to resolve movement, combat, etc."; rather, it's that "here are some faster ways to resolve certain unit types but not others, with the intent being that they're NPCs in a campaign setting" - with no consideration given to the fact that maybe the 'Mechs could be the NPCs in a campaign setting. A fair assumption, but one that I think can be sensibly challenged.

[Calimehter]

All of which are good reasons a TW vehicle player should be able to take 'Mech BSPs.

My problem with it isn't exactly "here are faster ways to resolve movement, combat, etc."; rather, it's that "here are some faster ways to resolve certain unit types but not others, with the intent being that they're NPCs in a campaign setting" - with no consideration given to the fact that maybe the 'Mechs could be the NPCs in a campaign setting. A fair assumption, but one that I think can be sensibly challenged.

There's no law against it, other than maybe the law of supply and demand.

Could be a fun project in the Fan Design forums though.

[Rondoe7869]

I already asked in another thread about the MUL.

Has there been any chatter about when the "NEW" MUL will be up and running?

I read that the "Cards" for the older Battlefield Support Asset's- Tanks/vehicles/vtol's etc... would be include in it.

This got answered in another thread so disregard.

[Church14]

Okay. I’m just trying to figure out what the default skill levels of the cards are.

So, cheaper Bulldog BSA is 6. Is that a regular skill(4) and flanking (+2), or a green (5) tank that’s cruising (+1). Is been assuming green, which makes the emplacements being 5(4) skills make sense. Now, HS Hinterlands refers to some of the pre-generated bulldogs as “veteran.” Which makes me think the cheaper ones are supposed to be regular.

But then I hadn’t really thought about the infantry and now my brain came to a screeching halt. Since infantry don’t pay for AMM, the CI BSA being skill 6 is weird, because that would imply the default is worse than green.

Anyone else got a theory? I understand I’m 100% overthinking this.

[Calimehter]

Okay. I’m just trying to figure out what the default skill levels of the cards are.

So, cheaper Bulldog BSA is 6. Is that a regular skill(4) and flanking (+2), or a green (5) tank that’s cruising (+1). Is been assuming green, which makes the emplacements being 5(4) skills make sense. Now, HS Hinterlands refers to some of the pre-generated bulldogs as “veteran.” Which makes me think the cheaper ones are supposed to be regular.

But then I hadn’t really thought about the infantry and now my brain came to a screeching halt. Since infantry don’t pay for AMM, the CI BSA being skill 6 is weird, because that would imply the default is worse than green.

Anyone else got a theory? I understand I’m 100% overthinking this.

That threw me for a loop too, once I got the Merc Box and realized that all the movement rates had been slowed down to cruising (vs. the playtests where they all had flank speed movement rates).  I'm assuming they did that either (1) to make sure that the BSP hovers weren't getting a 'leg up' on TW hovers by being able to flank move while avoiding a sideslip or (2) to make sure the BSP/BV costs didn't go up too much when they bumped up all the destroy check target numbers up from the last pre-release test rules.

Of course, the attack TNs didn't change when they did that, and those had been based on flank speed movement before. 

In reality, BSPs are just their own thing, and its best to leave any pre-conceptions at the door.  You are paying X points for Y capability that are only --roughly-- analogous to the TW units of the same name.

My own headcanon, for what its worth:

- BSP gunners are not as good as shooting 'on the move' as TW gunners are.  So a BSP "regular" is almost closer to a TW "green" crew in that sense (except when firing stationary for IF fire) and a BSP "veteran" crew is closer to a TW "regular" crew.  If you are looking for TRUE veteran (or elite) tankers, then you are probably looking for vees to play a bigger role in your fights and thus are not the target audience for the BSP rules (and should be just using the TW rules instead).

- In the same vein, BSP infantry don't get to move and shoot without penalties . . . which honestly makes more sense to me anyway than the TW rules, as it actually just makes sense that infantry on the move (and at a modest clip too even at just 1 hex per round) should not shoot quite as well as stationary troops.  Unlike vees though, they can -spot- well while on the move.  The discontinuity with TW troopers is again a reflection of training, and if you want highly skilled veteran/elite infantry, you are just going to have to upgrade from the BSP rules.

[Church14]

Yeah, if I want elite vehicles, I’m probably running TW tanks. This was just something where *almost* everything slotted nicely into a mental image of what they represent and the rounding error nagged at me.

I’m finally running a Hinterlands campaign, so I’m focusing a little too much on BSA so I can get them to feel as intuitive as other unit types do.

[Charistoph]

It might be better to ignore the Assets and go for the Strikes or Air Defense in the case of Hinterland campaigns.

[butchbird]

So I finally got a game in after having to reschedule a few times. Was starting to feel withdrawal. I was coming off a two game losing streak to the same team of players who'd use only assault 'mechs. This time I was determined to teach them the value of little buggers with mobility. I did. But something interesting about this game was how BSA were used.

Now first off, we had some new stuff on the table. I've been promising my group to have some infantry miniatures ready for use for...like...4 months? But things being as they are, I've constantly had to postpone. Am actually planning to use 15mm WW2 infantry but then, having lauchned on a british company project I ran into problems concerning field drab colour. Long story short, I need to use more "dark stone" to make place in the pot to mix something that'll look "british field drab" and so have diverted on other projects since then.

Now I'm the only BT geek in my group, the others being into it for the wargaming, so they're not, or were not, aware of the difference between conventional infantry or power armor infantry...what's more, I'm never sure how to properly translate powered armored infantry and often end up using the french term for mechanized infantry. So anyway, one of my players goes to the hobby store in our area that has BT stuff, asks for infantry from a clerk that doesn't know much about the game and buys some IS power armor.

How not to use 'em?

Now I'm usually pretty aggressive tactically. I like to pressure, use cavalry 'mechs, force the opponent to make mistakes and get into knife fighting range. This time was different. I had to prove how an all assault fore isn't necessarily superior and hence played accordingly, letting them advance so as to soften them gradually while my light 'mechs got into position for hitting rear armor with impunity.

So 2 things.

1) Now don't get me wrong. I've said it time and again in this very thread, I love the BMR rules for conventionnal 'vees. Just like the 'mechs, each one has its own character, plays differently, offers different tactical advantages and yaddi yaddi yadda. But untill today I'd nonetheless been satisfied with BSA rules which allowed me to used 'vees as I normally would and have them accomplishing the task in a satisfying manner. Now they're not as effective as the real thing, but still offer a quite acceptable substitute with streamlined rules which makes them easier to use for new players while also not impacting the length of the game while adding more units on the table. But this time, as I used a more cautious and defensive stance, they truely showed their limits.

As I wasn't trying to force things, their place in the iniative listing was quite the handicap. Now it must be pointed out we used maxims only for 'vees (needed APCs for the power armored infantry after all), but they practically did nothing except battle amongst other BSAs, being effectively like in a parrallel battle instead of actively contributing to the victory. While BSA 'vees can be wuite usefull when used aggressively, they seemed to be basically worthless with a more defensive stance. Might've been different had we used 'vees like the shrek or the patton, but still...a bit disapointing.

2) Power armored infantry with BSA rules...just doesn't feel like power armored infantry at all. In a sense, they're used in just the same way, being more of an area denial weapon, having secondary capacitys for baby-sitting your long range support units...but they simply offered none of that "infantry character". Much like 'vees lose their individual personnalitys, the infantry seems to lose all its personality. BSA units are just, well, BSA units, with nothing to REALLY distinguish them from one another. The infantry could've very well been slow and horribly short ranged 'vees and it wouldn't have felt any different. While I've been content with the BSA vehicle substitutes unbtill now for the reasons I've enumerated, the BSA infantry has truely left me wanting.

My players getting better, I'm really considreing to go beyond our current limits in regard to rule use and I'd say that proper TW infantry rules could very well be the first item to be included.

Felt like sharing.

[nckestrel]

Well they mentioned it was designed for Tukayid scenarios.

It was first released in Tukayyid.  It actually started development separately and before Tukayyid. The recent Tukayyid (not the original Tukayyid book), was intended as a supplement to the Clan Invasion kickstarter.  Here's your toys, here's something big to play with them. So the overall goal was it had to be playable with just the Clan Invasion kickstarter items and Clan Invasion rulebook. Which led to the question, are we going to ignore ComStar's combined arms???  When I asked, I was then told about the battlefield support rules that were in development...
It then went through changes to meet what Tukayyid needed and so the final result in the book was "for" Tukayyid, but it didn't start as such.  It changed for the BattleMech Manual. It then morphed again to meet the needs of the Mercenaries kickstarter.

[Daryk]

Thanks for the back story!

[smdvogrin]

2) Power armored infantry with BSA rules...just doesn't feel like power armored infantry at all. In a sense, they're used in just the same way, being more of an area denial weapon, having secondary capacitys for baby-sitting your long range support units...but they simply offered none of that "infantry character". Much like 'vees lose their individual personnalitys, the infantry seems to lose all its personality. BSA units are just, well, BSA units, with nothing to REALLY distinguish them from one another. The infantry could've very well been slow and horribly short ranged 'vees and it wouldn't have felt any different. While I've been content with the BSA vehicle substitutes unbtill now for the reasons I've enumerated, the BSA infantry has truely left me wanting.

For power armor, I definitely agree - I was running a clan invasion campaign for a group of mostly new battletech players, who had never fought the Clans before, and while we were using a number of Battlefield support vehicles, I felt that I had to run Elementals with full TW rules, just so they had the same impact as they did originally (successfully!  In the first scenario they faced them, the King Crab player ended up calling in their artillery on his own position to try to get the swarming elementals off).

However, for conventional infantry, I think the BSA rules are absolutely perfect.  The destroy check is the perfect way to represent the fact that infantry generally either breaks (morale-wise) or endures entirely too much fire (Monte Cassino, anyone?).  I never liked the whole "Yes, you need to kill every trooper" to destroy them.

[Charistoph]

Yeah, Anti-Mech Attacks from most Conventional Infantry can be hard to pull off, but with Light and Medium Battle Armor it is an expectation.

It's possible that BSAs would be fine for the Heavy and Assaults, as they can't do Anti-Mechs, but without proper stats to test them, it's hard to say.

[Daryk]

I've been to the Polish cemetery on Monte Cassino.   It's very moving.  And I suspect your description is WAY too accurate...