Battlefield Support: Assets

[Cannonshop]

The design intent behind Assets was to create a new middle ground for people previously uninterested in vehicles and infantry.

The overwhelming majority of BT play is mech play.  That's fine.  Assets were an attempt to add a low-complexity, mook/video-game-type set of units that might tempt players previously uninterested in exploring this avenue of play into giving it a go.  They're deliberately simplified because we already have a perfectly good set of vehicle and infantry rules (well, the conventional infantry rules are kind of crap, but some like them all the same).  So there was no point in doing that again.  The result is that the BFS rules will never satisfy people who already like the current/standard vehicle and infantry rules, which is also fine.  They deliberately do different things as a result of completely different design decisions; it's expected that one will like either one set of rules, or the other.

You've described the stated intent adequately, the problem is looking at things from "the actual effect" versus what it's supposed to be.  Think:  "Means and Ends".

On one of that scale, is "The ends justify the means", and on the other, "The means you use decide what ends you're going to be dealing with."

In point of fact, it doesn't make non 'mech forces more accessible any more than they were before-because the asset system doesn't actually allow for tactical thinking to matter.  They're just a randomness, and since a similar treatment was not made to Battlemechs, they're a random spoiler rather than an actual 'asset'.

If anything, they're going to work really well for convincing new players that more balanced, tested, played out and worked out systems aren't worth pursuing or mastering, because all they are, is a random abstract that gets in the way of improving your tactical awareness.

Why? because it's a grafted on system that isn't complete.

the 'support assets' thing works out, in practice, as an addition of extra dice rolling.  There WERE simpler vehicle rules-those were canned by Total Warfare, but they were SIMPLE-while still allowing non-'mech units to be planned and used effectively with intent, rather than just being a few extra dice rolls and lucky, occasional, damage that is more akin destructible obstacles mixed with randomized weather conditions.

when you contrast three kinds of play;

BMR(r)
Total Warfare
BSP

in the context of vehicles, one of these, is simpler than Total Warfare, but allows the player to actually have a strategy. (yes, there is a strategy for using non-hovers and non-savannahmaster swarmz in BMR(r) play, but slow assault vehicles suffer.)

One of them, consciously complicated Vehicles to the same scale as a more valuable 'mech.

One of these, turns pretty much everything but a 'mech into a random dice roll incident and you can't build a strategy or tactic around it successfully (though it can, randomly, screw up both your tactical plan, and the other side's.)

that's what I mean by 'Manfiested Intent' rather than 'Manifest Intent".    The intention to make non'mech units LESS desirable to investigate is the natural consequence of BSP assets-the metas don't scale, the outcomes don't line up.  "A" does not equal "A" between the two systems.

It's like grafting checkers rules to a chess game.

We see a similar problem comparing Battlespace, to Aerotech, to Total Warfare/TacOps/StratOps.

The irregularity means a player translating from one form, to the other will run smack into how things that shouldn't work end up working and things that don't work end up working.

such confusions do not drive interest, they drive apathy.

[DevianID]

I think there's a difference in philosophy at play there. 6 elite 'Mechs vs 40 vees sounds like a lot of BV....
Plus, I would like to play a tanks and mechs combined-arms force with tank heroes...

In the example I was talking about it wasnt 6 elite mechs versus 40, it was 4 PC mechs in a heavy lance 205-280.  Its cause 1 each of foot, motorized, jump, apc, field gun is 600 BV for 5 units, so a battalion is 2k for 15 units, followed by an armored gun company of scorpion types for 12 units at 4k.  So 2 infantry battalions and a armored gun support company is 8k BV.  Since I randomly rolled into an infantry force on the RAT table, its not like I went out of my way to spam cheap stuff, it was fairly rolled up as opfor, all i did is change some of the oddball units to make fewer types of units, so like all the foot troops became 1 type instead of a flamer/srm/laser.

Now, yeah for 8k you could also take 6 Manticore instead of 42 combined arms things, but the point is that infantry formations do exist, and BSP make that scenario so much more fun to play now versus then.

As long as you use like 2 TW hero tanks for the 'cool guys', counting as part of the unit count limits as mechs, the rest of the force in ancillary BSP has been a godsend for playing combined arms.  Even elementals work the same.  The BSP elementals are fodder, but the TW elementals in a clan force are the 'frontline' troops eligible for bloodnames/xp/pilot upgrades, and take a spot as a mech for force construction guidelines.

[Cannonshop]

In the example I was talking about it wasnt 6 elite mechs versus 40, it was 4 PC mechs in a heavy lance 205-280.  Its cause 1 each of foot, motorized, jump, apc, field gun is 600 BV for 5 units, so a battalion is 2k for 15 units, followed by an armored gun company of scorpion types for 12 units at 4k.  So 2 infantry battalions and a armored gun support company is 8k BV.  Since I randomly rolled into an infantry force on the RAT table, its not like I went out of my way to spam cheap stuff, it was fairly rolled up as opfor, all i did is change some of the oddball units to make fewer types of units, so like all the foot troops became 1 type instead of a flamer/srm/laser.

Now, yeah for 8k you could also take 6 Manticore instead of 42 combined arms things, but the point is that infantry formations do exist, and BSP make that scenario so much more fun to play now versus then.

As long as you use like 2 TW hero tanks for the 'cool guys', counting as part of the unit count limits as mechs, the rest of the force in ancillary BSP has been a godsend for playing combined arms.  Even elementals work the same.  The BSP elementals are fodder, but the TW elementals in a clan force are the 'frontline' troops eligible for bloodnames/xp/pilot upgrades, and take a spot as a mech for force construction guidelines.

You can address the issues with BV2 without grafting a system onto the game that was probably developed for a completely different game that never got finished enough to publish.

Your BV example, for example, presumes players have that much money to spend on minis, or that much interest in making their own proxies, plus sheets, plus lists, and doing all the math when they aren't doing it on Megamek.

admittedly, there ARE autists that dedicated in the community.  I remember a period around 2002-2006 where I was buying blisters of whatever was on Gary's shelf and inhaling paint fumes in the apartment kitchen for hours, mixing in greenstuff and model train terrain and moss for grass.  I gave most of those to friends as gifts, if they were any good, and kept the failures. (They're still around here somewhere).

But after a while, it became a burden instead of a pleasure doing that, and after your fiftieth little tiny microscopic Davion Army Man it becomes largely not much fun at all.

Not even adding an n-scale Jeep with a homebuilt crew served and cutting one of them up to be the driver.

It just gets...eh.

Even doing it with software, the amount of paper you end up lugging around starts to rival the sourcebooks, keeping track of that shit gets annoying too.

the mismatch you're theorizing? becomes too much of a pain in the ass to assemble and formulate, and that's before you start with the record-keeping, because you have to haul all that shit to your game venue most of the time, and if I wanted that much inconvenience, I'd just break down and play Warhammer.

Keep in mind also, while we've all heard the apocryphal tales of the Majestic overpower of the Savannahmaster Swarm, I've seen players try it, and I've tried it, and it rarely works that way in practice.

what tends to happen more often, is an Equal BV of level 1 'mechs will stride off the map with some damage, leaving the hovercraft in ruins.
or as salvage.  They're actually significantly better in smaller numbers attached to REAL UNITS that can do damage, or, y'know, can operate in areas on the map that aren't flat and featureless.

Could they be simpler? You BET they can!  Under BMR(r) they WERE simpler-the sheets, the rolling, simpler.  This was what was being 'fixed' with the vehicle rules introduced in Total Warfare-they made them more complex.

Now we've got BSP-which is supposed to 'fix' them by simplifiying things...and adding  an entirely different set of rules that don't fit in order to do it.

It's almost overcompensation.  BMR tanks died a lot more easily, sure-they had things that killed them outright (fire, inferno strikes, heat causing weapons of all sorts) and there were literally units that weren't worth the BV they had to cost because of how BV1 (and 2) are calculated.  BUT...you could still build tactics within their limitations, because those limitations were not arbitrary luck rolls.  Nor were the counters.

But it was consistent.  Two tanks of the same model on the mapboard worked by the same rules, not "One set of rules for this one, and an entirely different set for that one, but they're both Manticores".

Do you see the problem with that?

this, is not how you ease a new player into something.  It's how you punish your friend who likes Hell's Horses (Or dirtbag militias) for being a [badword] and not using a proper star of Battlemechs and proper duelling rules.

[nckestrel]

that was probably developed for a completely different game that never got finished enough to publish.

Not at all.

[CarcosanDawn]

I still maintain the TW vehicle rules aren't the problem, for players.

If players *want* to play with vehicles, the rules are not so different or complicated or troublesome. Yes, you have to roll motives sometimes, but you don't need PSRs for 20 damage or track heat..

I think the biggest reason players weren't playing vehicles was *access to the minis*. I mean the IWM sculpts are pretty cool (love the Schiltron), but 'Mechs (at least at my retailer) were the only thing that could be "impulse bought".

Otherwise, beyond just how the universe is sold ("mechs are the kings of the battlefield and no one uses other units because they are so bad!" - not really CGL but other fans) I genuinely don't get what the TW vehicle rules do that is so much more onerously complex than TW 'Mech rules.

So I don't think BSP is a blight or "checkers grafted onto chess". I just think it is a solution looking for a problem - or a treatment applied for a sickness that the game doesn't have.

It would be quite fascinating to me if someone pointed out the places where Vehicles have more complicated rules than Mechs though, in TW. So I can think about it.

EDIT:
I will say I have seen *fan* products that warp perceptions (including against vehicles). I recently encountered a group that used Superchargers (from TacOps) no problem, but didn't allow Thunderbolt missiles to fire indirectly (because the program did not support it). Nor did they allow Vehicles or Quadmechs simply because a fan program they use didn't support them. Using TacOps rules without even allowing Quadmechs confused me greatly, haha.

I don't really know what to do about that except learning to code and building my own program for vehicles, bahaha.

[Daryk]

What kind of programs are these?  Something like Flech's Sheets?

[Charistoph]

I still maintain the TW vehicle rules aren't the problem, for players.

We have someone that's relatively new, but he dived head long in to Vehicles, and loves them.  He got prints of them, because most of the local retailers don't carry IWM models, and the CGL hasn't hit the market yet.

I think the biggest reason players weren't playing vehicles was *access to the minis*. I mean the IWM sculpts are pretty cool (love the Schiltron), but 'Mechs (at least at my retailer) were the only thing that could be "impulse bought".

Agreed.  If someone hadn't told me about some online retailers, I wouldn't have half my support collection I have now.  Even finding a retailer carrying a refreshed IWM blister stock is pretty hard, and we have a pretty sizeable community here.

EDIT:
I will say I have seen *fan* products that warp perceptions (including against vehicles). I recently encountered a group that used Superchargers (from TacOps) no problem, but didn't allow Thunderbolt missiles to fire indirectly (because the program did not support it). Nor did they allow Vehicles or Quadmechs simply because a fan program they use didn't support them. Using TacOps rules without even allowing Quadmechs confused me greatly, haha.

Sounds like a "them" problem.  One of our local store groups pretty much requires Flechs to be used.  It's bad enough that one of their regulars started crossing the metropolis to join our more open group.  It also doesn't help when they start playing with us dead tree players that they are actually slower at things because they haven't had to memorize things.  They also minimize list-building to 6 units.  Meanwhile, I'm running lists with Protomechs, CVs, Infantry, as well as Mechs with no problem.

[Cannonshop]

Not at all.

I know it's not seen that way from INSIDE, but from OUTSIDE the development/playtest course, it LOOKS like the BSP rules were someone's alpha test suggestions from an entirely different game, adapted to this one.

and, listening to some of the suggestions here, I can't help noticing that they're a great way to create 'rules confusion'.  I showed an example earlier;

Mini A is a Manticore running under TW rules, Mini B is a manticore running BSP.  They both have the same paint-job/camo and it's a live game on a table. Do you see where the problem is with having two identical units running on completely different rules in the same match?

How about in an event, where there are strangers at the table-or even new players or would-be players watching?  I guess it's a sign of how much of a relic I really am, I don't do the majority of my play online, with a server and a computer to keep everything in order for me.

[DevianID]

Having played both tw and BSP vees at the same time, its not nearly the issue made out to be.  Just like how you can tell which Manticore is manticore 1 and 2 on the record sheet, you know which manticore is the 'hero' TW Manticore and which is the BSP one.

Also, models are not the bottleneck to playing with too many units.  In my case, i dont have a massive collection, but I scrambled together 42 models and standees for my infantry/light vee game, cause I was excited for it before the rules slog--i had to kitbash the field guns but I was excited to try those rules out for the first time.  I used the extra terrain hex punchouts from my old sets a lot, paining over a side and writing on it. 

Now, with my merc box set, I have cardboard standees too, with a tan and grey side, and I already had already split my tank models half tan and half olive drab, and I often use the cardboard standees for BSP and my models interchangabily.  The standees are really good for stacking too, i can put a standee under a tank when there is two of them and my bulky models don't fit in 1 hex.  So it's easier, not harder, to integrate many vehicles with the merc box set for players.  And using simplified BSP rules mean having an extra half dozen tokens per player for smaller combined arms stuff isn't a hassle.

I know some folks use the TW version to run Kells hero SM1 tank destroyer, with BSP SM1 tokens for the non hero followers, and they reported good things, so i know its not just me.

[CarcosanDawn]

Having played both tw and BSP vees at the same time, its not nearly the issue made out to be.  Just like how you can tell which Manticore is manticore 1 and 2 on the record sheet, you know which manticore is the 'hero' TW Manticore and which is the BSP one.

Also, models are not the bottleneck to playing with too many units.  In my case, i dont have a massive collection, but I scrambled together 42 models and standees for my infantry/light vee game, cause I was excited for it before the rules slog--i had to kitbash the field guns but I was excited to try those rules out for the first time.  I used the extra terrain hex punchouts from my old sets a lot, paining over a side and writing on it. 

Now, with my merc box set, I have cardboard standees too, with a tan and grey side, and I already had already split my tank models half tan and half olive drab, and I often use the cardboard standees for BSP and my models interchangabily.  The standees are really good for stacking too, i can put a standee under a tank when there is two of them and my bulky models don't fit in 1 hex.  So it's easier, not harder, to integrate many vehicles with the merc box set for players.  And using simplified BSP rules mean having an extra half dozen tokens per player for smaller combined arms stuff isn't a hassle.

I know some folks use the TW version to run Kells hero SM1 tank destroyer, with BSP SM1 tokens for the non hero followers, and they reported good things, so i know its not just me.

But why is it a hassle?

If models aren't the obstacle, why is TW a hassle more for vehicles and less for 'Mechs? Is it just trying to play AS scale games in TW?

[Cannonshop]

But why is it a hassle?

If models aren't the obstacle, why is TW a hassle more for vehicles and less for 'Mechs? Is it just trying to play AS scale games in TW?

I think that's pretty much it, right there, though it might also be in part the mentality of "The Hero Units" needing to be special in some way, therefore it's okay for them to operate by completely different rules.

Note that under that mode of thinking, Battlemechs are always  "The Hero Units", therefore they don't get a completely separate ruleset that changes everything about how they play in order to provide videogame mooks.

To my eye, it's a huge amount of hassle if you're not already invested in "This must work because it was added by the devs" (or invested in the base concept that sure, it's fine to have identical units that play and function completely and totally differently on the same map, in the same game.)

But then, I'm a relic.  If I wanted special rules, it would be the special units that get them, or they'd be confined to the scenario, but more importantly, they would have to be consistent.  Unit A and Unit B are the same make and model, there'fore they ought to follow the same combat and movement rules period, I don't NEED to have Unit A is a bunch of commoners who get the randomized random-roll death-or-immunity while unit B, using the exact same equipment, require three additional tables and has control over its movement.

But, I'm old-fashioned, and a relic.  I want the rules to be consistent and not need an extra handbook to play a basic game.  I want tactics to matter, and to be able to build tactics around my force, rather than hoping the dice gods who never loved me are going to carry the damned day.

I spent YEARS running 'the mooks' for players using BMR(r) and Total Warfare as those rulesets became the standard, and never needed to mix in highly abstracted fillers to make it engaging for players.

I do not see the value in this add-on.  What I see, is adding one more set of rules and a hundred more table arguments for a function that isn't needed, and doesn't do what it's advertised as being intended to do.

[DevianID]

What I see, is adding one more set of rules and a hundred more table arguments for a function that isn't needed, and doesn't do what it's advertised as being intended to do.

Yes it adds rules, a companion to the full TW ones.  But you can't say it doesn't do what it's intended to do when it works as intended for me and many others.  Like, if you don't see the point in replacing TW infantry and such with BSP, then dont!  You don't have to use it!  You are free to take aerospace planes and bomb stuff instead of using BSP to buy an aerospace bomb.  But saying the BSP isn't making resolving those things faster and easier, which is the intention, is either you being wrong or you choosing to represent BSP wrong.  They for a fact are simpler and faster in keeping with the intention.

(TW infantry are hot garbage from a rules design.  They need a significant cost errata if they don't change the rules in the future, so in the case of BSP the BSP product is explicitly better then the TW product from a data point of view)

Also, the initiative consideration alone can not be dismissed.  Using cheap tanks and stuff to sink initiative is a well known exploit.  The game has, in its print, that balanced games should have roughly equal unit counts.  We have reams of data about the difficulty of balancing games when one side grossly outnumbers the other.  BSP initiative allows you to take lower cost combined arms stuff and not burden the game with dozens of activations to mire the opponent in init sinks, leaving you free to move 2-4 mechs at once on the last activation.  It also removes using cheap vees to body block other units, a huge quality of life improvement.

As an aside, I cut my teeth on BSP units in tukayyid way back when that dropped.  They have been out for a while now, and from the beginning were a great tool for narative games that still play in an evening game after work.  They add a ton of tactics to the game... If you havent interfaced with them yet you will have to take my word for it.  BSP vees are about as consistent as regular vehicles in destructive testing, ive posed the math on it on the past, but you can do it yourself too.  That "single roll to lose a tank" is consistent with normal vehicle rules in odds %.  The only gripe is specifically about the exact DCTN chosen for different assets, and how high toughness things can make more damage disappear because damage resolves as just a single degrade stack instead of 1 per 10 damage.

Anyway, i hope that helps.  I recommend playing some of the merc box set games with its BSP system and reporting back what you like and did not like after finishing a contract or two.

[Daryk]

If the cost of infantry is your gripe, blame BV, not the infantry rules.

[Charistoph]

Also, models are not the bottleneck to playing with too many units.  In my case, i dont have a massive collection, but I scrambled together 42 models and standees for my infantry/light vee game, cause I was excited for it before the rules slog--i had to kitbash the field guns but I was excited to try those rules out for the first time.  I used the extra terrain hex punchouts from my old sets a lot, paining over a side and writing on it. 

Sorry, but you're quite wrong on this.  Before the Kickstarter shipped (or even posted the BSP Beta rules), Vehicles and punch-outs were not easy to come by unless you knew where to source them.  Vehicle blisters were a rarity at best, and non-existant at worst in LGS.  Nor does everyone have the capacity to printout punchouts (an expensive concept), because they had to create them on their own.

As an aside, I cut my teeth on BSP units in tukayyid way back when that dropped.  They have been out for a while now, and from the beginning were a great tool for narative games that still play in an evening game after work.  They add a ton of tactics to the game... If you havent interfaced with them yet you will have to take my word for it.  BSP vees are about as consistent as regular vehicles in destructive testing, ive posed the math on it on the past, but you can do it yourself too.  That "single roll to lose a tank" is consistent with normal vehicle rules in odds %.  The only gripe is specifically about the exact DCTN chosen for different assets, and how high toughness things can make more damage disappear because damage resolves as just a single degrade stack instead of 1 per 10 damage.

Sorry, that ease of destruction is not quite true.  I've run both, and I've had TW Vehicles survive for a while longer than the BSP models.  The differences are quite notable and make for huge differences in gameplay which can make a unit easier or harder to destroy. 

Moving before everyone else means that BSP are always in a bad position, while a RSCV can respond to enemy movement. 

BSPs only moving at Cruising Speed also limits the range they can engage with, find cover, and the TMM they can have, while a RSCV can Flank out increasing their TMM, change the Range on a target, or reach cover.  The only time the BSP has a TMM advantage is when they either have to Turn, negotiate Terrain, or simply just don't need to move far to "find cover".

Regarding the odds of a Kill, there are a lot of rolls that are required to instantly kill a RSCV.  First, you either need to hit Structure (usually multiple Hits), or line up a TAC.  There's up to 3 TAC locations if you're hitting the Sides, or 2 in the Front or Rear.  TACs usually hurt an RSCV more than a Mech, but most won't kill the RSCV, just limit it.  In fact, you're far more likely to get a few Motive Crits in long before a Crit kills the Tank.  Aside from some bulky boys like the Patton, most RSCVs don't have a high Destroy factor, and a couple PPCs or Large Lasers are all it takes to make it even easier.

Infantry BSP is an odd case, as they simply just don't interact with weaponry the same way as RSI do.  If I just need Infantry there for flavor, I think BSP simply provides that better without causing problems.  Otherwise, they simply have too many problems and can be taken out by literally anything within a couple turns.  Meanwhile, it takes dedicated AI weaponry in order to take out RSI. 

As an example, a Clan PPC will take out BSPI with one Shot and a Roll of 7+.  Against RSI, that's only 4 guys out of 21/28 if they are out in the open.  Maybe about the same if they are in a Building.

A Flamer, though, just causes a Destroy Check on BSPI, doesn't modify it at all before Degradation.  While RSI are lucky to have half their guys left if hit by a Flamer.

Now, I could be wrong on that, as the Mercenaries book doesn't say to treat BSPI like normal Infantry when taking Damage, nor reference TW in applying it.  I could be wrong on that, though.

BSPI Swarms I find to be less effective and underwhelming.  Largely because it adds a couple small Hits, when an RSI unit can be doing a Leg Attack, or actually Swarming, that RSI.

[CarcosanDawn]

I find it really fascinating that "hordes using initiative sinks is a well-known exploit" co-exists with "AOE attacks are rare and confusing and bringing artillery is frowned upon in groups".

There's lots of solutions to problems - some of them are "in-universe" and some of them are "rules-based". I think there are plenty of reasons 'Mech's are members of the combined-arms pantheon in-universe, and I think those are well-recognized on the tabletop. I also think there are plenty of reasons I call it a "combined-arms pantheon" instead of "'Mech Monotheism." Because it's really not the latter, nor should it be from a realism perspective. Armies ought to be well-rounded, and I think if you let the universe evolve in accordance with the rules, you'd end up at a happy place. In my experience, people seem upset when they try to force into the universe a concept that can't/wouldn't realistically exist.

Conversely, the "rules-based" way of fixing it just distorts the universe and people's perceptions of it. "Mooks" don't exist in Battletech - or rather, I should say everyone is a mook. A rifle platoon has just as much chance in-universe of heroism as a Mechwarrior piloting a Marauder, and each should learn to fear the other in situations of relative strength and weakness. BSP "ruins" that hard-core military fantasy, and makes it more fantastical/fictional/novel-like, essentially giving the non-BSP units "Plot Armor" (via manipulating "game-isms" like the Initiative system) while perversely making "heroic" outcomes more common for the BSPs since a single dice roll extreme can make all the difference one way or another.

I appreciate BattleTech for its gritty military realism, and BSPs feel like a concession to fantasy elements to me. I suppose if I had to boil it down after thinking about it, that's what I don't like.

To me, the fun in playing a campaign isn't "what is the kill ratio my protagonist can rack up" but rather "gee, will I make it through this month with a 'Mech intact? Maybe I'll have to drop to a local infantry mercenary company on this world, and hope to recover from being Dispossessed - " and then that commander gets killed, and you end up with a rock-hard infantry core to the local militia, with the story ending only when the former 'Mech mercenary company drives the invaders off-world with the help of the locals, and then dissolves. Infantrymen can join the local planet, or travel offworld to try to find their Dispossessed fortune elsewhere...

[Daryk]

The BSP rules do change the rock-paper-scissors aspect of things a bit, but it's STILL rock-paper-scissors in the end.

[Charistoph]

I find it really fascinating that "hordes using initiative sinks is a well-known exploit" co-exists with "AOE attacks are rare and confusing and bringing artillery is frowned upon in groups".

I think that's more the clunkiness of the rules with Artillery than anything else.  They kind of have to be clunky in order to have that level of realism, and it CAN be smoothed out a little with experience (in fact have been smoothed out even more from the Scattering 1D6 per 2 MoF to just Scattering the Mof).

We've been using Artillery off and on for the last 2 years (and been quite useful against the Falcons now that we're up against Operation Revival), and figured out ways to be quicker.  One thing is that I run the numbers To-Hit before we even show up.  That lets whoever is running them know what their number is and we can speed things up from there.  But that only comes with a fair amount of experience and screw ups.

"Mooks" don't exist in Battletech - or rather, I should say everyone is a mook.

Not quite true.  While a good portion of the units on the Battlefield can be defined that way, there are often ones who are definitely NOT "Mooks", but "Bosses", like Morgan Kell, Natasha Kerensky, The Bounty Hunter, and so on.

To me, the fun in playing a campaign isn't "what is the kill ratio my protagonist can rack up" but rather "gee, will I make it through this month with a 'Mech intact? Maybe I'll have to drop to a local infantry mercenary company on this world, and hope to recover from being Dispossessed - " and then that commander gets killed, and you end up with a rock-hard infantry core to the local militia, with the story ending only when the former 'Mech mercenary company drives the invaders off-world with the help of the locals, and then dissolves. Infantrymen can join the local planet, or travel offworld to try to find their Dispossessed fortune elsewhere...

Which is fine.  In fact, this is why I wouldn't recommend using BSP for campaign players' units.  At MOST, you might see them as allies, and even then, most of those might just be random Artillery and Air Strikes rather than Ground units, but they could be local militia meant to help cover you and provide distractions to your opponents while you do the business.

Then there's the other side.  The GM might want a numbers disparity to represent how bad or simply BUSY things are, but actually pushing Record Sheet units on to the field would just be bad.  Take attacking a militia base (the first time I used BSPs, actually) using a combat drop.  They drop in on the base, but a literal hive of units bust out to begin defending the base.  A Battalion of Infantry sortieing out of that base is a LOT to deal with if they are RSI, but with BSI, it's not so bad.  Same with a Company of Tanks.

And from there, there are times when games are not campaign-based.  It's either a tournament or just a random throw together.  Story isn't the goal, so gamification can happen.

[CarcosanDawn]

I think that's more the clunkiness of the rules with Artillery than anything else.  They kind of have to be clunky in order to have that level of realism, and it CAN be smoothed out a little with experience (in fact have been smoothed out even more from the Scattering 1D6 per 2 MoF to just Scattering the Mof).

We've been using Artillery off and on for the last 2 years (and been quite useful against the Falcons now that we're up against Operation Revival), and figured out ways to be quicker.  One thing is that I run the numbers To-Hit before we even show up.  That lets whoever is running them know what their number is and we can speed things up from there.  But that only comes with a fair amount of experience and screw ups.

Well, yes, but surely then the solution is to make those rules simpler? Or rather, make AOE attacks more accessible. There's no reason not to have a "Concussion" SRM that does 1 damage to all surrounding hexes per missile that hits the center hex, unless your armor is BAR 6 or better, or something.

Not quite true.  While a good portion of the units on the Battlefield can be defined that way, there are often ones who are definitely NOT "Mooks", but "Bosses", like Morgan Kell, Natasha Kerensky, The Bounty Hunter, and so on.

And those people are the very definition of "plot armored". I hope no player picks up CBT with the idea that their hero will be a Natasha Kerensky, Morgan Kell, or the Bounty Hunter...

Which is fine.  In fact, this is why I wouldn't recommend using BSP for campaign players' units.  At MOST, you might see them as allies, and even then, most of those might just be random Artillery and Air Strikes rather than Ground units, but they could be local militia meant to help cover you and provide distractions to your opponents while you do the business.

Then there's the other side.  The GM might want a numbers disparity to represent how bad or simply BUSY things are, but actually pushing Record Sheet units on to the field would just be bad.  Take attacking a militia base (the first time I used BSPs, actually) using a combat drop.  They drop in on the base, but a literal hive of units bust out to begin defending the base.  A Battalion of Infantry sortieing out of that base is a LOT to deal with if they are RSI, but with BSI, it's not so bad.  Same with a Company of Tanks.

And from there, there are times when games are not campaign-based.  It's either a tournament or just a random throw together.  Story isn't the goal, so gamification can happen.

For both of those cases, isn't playing the higher-scale game (Alpha Strike) more desirable than alpha-strike-ifying CBT? I guess I never really viewed CBT as a "mass battle system" in that way...

... and tournaments can play any game they want, really. I'm not interested in them, and if they wanted to use the 'Mechs with the rules for Chess (the ostscout has to be the king) I don't really care.

[DevianID]

If the cost of infantry is your gripe, blame BV, not the infantry rules.

Oh I do!  But, while I can explain to my opponent exactly how in the BV formula infantry are under costed and exploitable, because its not a published BV errata update, it lands squarely where artillery and pulse and especially VSPL lands... we have to agree to limit those things or ban larger offenders entirely.  And its frustrating not being able to play with certain things in all my pickup games with strangers because they are exploits.

BSP adds a third option, which is use the BSP rules for some of the stuff that is not correctly done in the existing rules calculations.  BSP artillery, air, gun emplacements and infantry are solid game rules costed (regardless what you think of the BSP system, their mathematical cost is pretty accurate) and pretty well balanced.  Not all of the BSP units are winners, and I have gripes about parts of the BSP system still, but certain things it does, it does mathematically better then full rules units.

I find it really fascinating that "hordes using initiative sinks is a well-known exploit" co-exists with "AOE attacks are rare and confusing and bringing artillery is frowned upon in groups".

Not sure how well versed you are in artillery costs CarcosanDawn, but the best way to put it is that they tripled the damage of artillery and made it more accurate, and didnt change the cost of the more accurate more deadly guns.  So artillery is problematic, and using artillery to counter other problematic things is like inviting in an invasive species to deal with an invasive species.  All it does is now present two invasive species that eat the local meta diversity.  Regardless, artillery also isnt a counter to just init sinks.  When using init sinks, its not like they are all bunched up at ideal range and removed en-mass.  They are far back and hidden behind terrain, their value coming from ambush and surviving, or from swarming and forcing any splash weapons to deal equal damage to friendlies as infantry and vehicles occupy the same hex as enemy troops.  Artillery works to clear init sinks in the same way it works on everything else in the game, cause it is an under costed anti-everything gun with high accuracy; even aerospace and vtols arnt safe.

Sorry, that ease of destruction is not quite true.  I've run both, and I've had TW Vehicles survive for a while longer than the BSP models.

Charistoph If your point is that a BSP manticore is easier to destroy then a TW manticore, yeah I agree.  I was a HUGE advocate of using the TW stats to inform the damage values, but they didnt go that direction.  So, when I say that BSP and TW have like survivability, I should preface that it means for equally defensive priced units, and with the exception I mentioned above where about 1 in 12 games with asset BSP use the BSP can get luckier then a TW vehicle can with how damage and degrade on high DCTN works with very lucky snakeeyes type rolls.  So like, a BSP manticore is only half the price of a TW manticore, and it does less damage and is easier to kill--because it costs half the cost.  But an appropriately priced BSP unit and equally priced TW unit have roughly the same survivability.

So in the tl;dr, Cannonshop if you were saying you hate how a BSP manticore is not representing a true manticore because the BSP version is half the unit in capability, yeah I agree with you.  My version of the beta BSP manticore that was ~1000bv/50 BSP was much tougher and did almost 2x damage, cause I converted from the TW stats.  But they didnt go a 'conversion' way, which I lament, but it doesnt mean the published BSP manticore isnt awesome--its just different.  Its just not as good as a TW manticore, which creates the 'Hero' and 'goon' split--I remember you mentioned you didnt like 2 sets of rules for what is supposed to be 1 unit.  Since BSP's interface with Mech campaign systems in quick 2 hour versus games, for groups that dont play that game mode it may not be the product for you... just like the chaos campaign isnt the product for everyone, but it is the product for faster narrative campaigns versus the much more cumbersome repair and contract rules we had in campaign operations/mech handbooks.

Im curious how everyone felt about the Tukkayid campaign book now, with its BSP rules.

[Daryk]

At least we agree on the BV system, DevianID!

CarcosanDawn: AOE is more accessible these days.  Artillery Cannons, 'Mech Mortars, and BA Tube Artillery all exist now.  The last is probably closest to your "Concussion" SRM (3 AOE damage to the center hex, 1 to the surrounding ones).

[CarcosanDawn]

At least we agree on the BV system, DevianID!

CarcosanDawn: AOE is more accessible these days.  Artillery Cannons, 'Mech Mortars, and BA Tube Artillery all exist now.  The last is probably closest to your "Concussion" SRM (3 AOE damage to the center hex, 1 to the surrounding ones).

Yes, I know - I was mostly trying to illustrate how uncommon even those things seem to be on the tables.

And it's funny that DavionID would call artillery and initiative sinks an "invasive species" as though they're corrupting the purity of some kind of 'Mech-only game with their dirty paws.

Like I said, from a realism perspective, artillery and infantry are likely the pillars of a functioning battlefield army - just like they are today and have been since time immemorial (at least insofar as humanity has been able to use engines to fling things at the enemy). They're not "invasive species" - if anything, 'Mechs are invading on their territory like tanks, machine guns, and aircraft did in 1917. Combined arms is the "realistic" way to play Battletech, with each unit having a role. Want to not bring infantry? Well, sorry, you've left behind the mainstay of the army; the unit that can just "do things" because they're manpower. Need someone to move boxes? Answer phones? Charge the enemy trench? Paint the sportsball stadium? All jobs of the Poor Bloody Infantry. That's what "initiative sinks" represent to me - the increased efficiency of having general people around to do all the things people need to do. Want to not bring artillery? Sorry, you've just left the main killer-of-men in mechanized warfare at home.

The Late Succession Wars are over. The knightly 'Mech on 'Mech duels, respectful and more interested in saving the metal than the meat, are relics of the days past. Battletech is not a game of 'Mech combat, it is a game of Armored combat, and armored warfare - modern, industrial warfare - solves itself.

I don't like BSPs because they take that gritty realism and throw it in the can - now your Space Marines BattleMechs can crush the Imperial Guard weak infantry, even with their artillery and 10-1 numbers advantage. They're just NPCs, you know? Heavens forbid the combined-arms player wants to take 'Mechs as BSP; that'd just be the WORST.

If the BV system is broken, fix the BV system. It already exists out-of-universe, so adjusting it is fine with me.

[Charistoph]

Well, yes, but surely then the solution is to make those rules simpler? Or rather, make AOE attacks more accessible. There's no reason not to have a "Concussion" SRM that does 1 damage to all surrounding hexes per missile that hits the center hex, unless your armor is BAR 6 or better, or something.

Because you're going away from that gritty realism that you say you enjoy.  Remember, each hex is 30m.  There is no way an SRM is going to pack enough firepower to do damage across a 60m diameter.  The best you can do is be able to set fire to the hex itself.

And those people are the very definition of "plot armored". I hope no player picks up CBT with the idea that their hero will be a Natasha Kerensky, Morgan Kell, or the Bounty Hunter...

We have a couple pilots in our campaign that could go head to head with them (except Morgan Kell and his Ghost Mecha ability), but it took them till 3039 to be that good.

But the point of a "mook" or "boss" is not what the player is providing, but who they are up against.  So, it's more will you be FACING a Natasha Kerensky, Morgan Kell, Bounty Hunter, or Nagelring Graduate #45928?  The BSPs will never be a boss, but they can provide mook-level fodder if the story requires.

For both of those cases, isn't playing the higher-scale game (Alpha Strike) more desirable than alpha-strike-ifying CBT? I guess I never really viewed CBT as a "mass battle system" in that way...

It depends on the group, and what demands you plan to put on them.  For example, in the first scenario I used the BSP assets, their job wasn't necessarily to engage in a fight, but to escape.  So running Pegasus, LRM Carriers, and a Long Tom trying to book it out as BSPs made sense, but the Manticores, Savannah Masters, and Warriors I planned on engaging the players with used Record Sheets.

... and tournaments can play any game they want, really. I'm not interested in them, and if they wanted to use the 'Mechs with the rules for Chess (the ostscout has to be the king) I don't really care.

And it seems that the BSP was more in leveraging more to that tournament inclusion and WarChest backup than being serious contenders as Campaign Player heavy support like Total Warfare units are.  So long as that is kept in mind, it fits for what is expected to do.  What is a problem is expecting more from something than it ever was intended for.

Charistoph If your point is that a BSP manticore is easier to destroy then a TW manticore, yeah I agree. 

Okay, it seemed like you were saying they were equally easy, which was rather bizarre.

Of course, the first time I face off against a Manticore, one of my fellow players plinked it with an AC/2 from his Blackjack and popped its Ammo before it was close enough to engage my Thunderbolt, but the odds were very much against it.

So, when I say that BSP and TW have like survivability, I should preface that it means for equally defensive priced units, and with the exception I mentioned above where about 1 in 12 games with asset BSP use the BSP can get luckier then a TW vehicle can with how damage and degrade on high DCTN works with very lucky snakeeyes type rolls.  So like, a BSP manticore is only half the price of a TW manticore, and it does less damage and is easier to kill--because it costs half the cost.  But an appropriately priced BSP unit and equally priced TW unit have roughly the same survivability.

Trying to compare the costs of two units that use very separate pricing systems is going to show some problems.  For example, I wouldn't use the cost of an Astartes Rhino to govern how much a Heavy Tracked APC should be in Battletech.  I know someone has used math to try and justify this comparison, but the simple fact is that BSP and RSCV really are apples and oranges and can't be properly priced against each other.  So, I would need a salt mine to consider any justification of price similarities.

Im curious how everyone felt about the Tukkayid campaign book now, with its BSP rules.

I can't say, I haven't used those.  I only brushed over those rules, but they do seem to lack the character that these new ones have.  I'll have to look more in depth in to them before I'll say more.

[CarcosanDawn]

Because you're going away from that gritty realism that you say you enjoy.  Remember, each hex is 30m.  There is no way an SRM is going to pack enough firepower to do damage across a 60m diameter.  The best you can do is be able to set fire to the hex itself.

Is that so? A Sherman tank's 75mm cannon had a lethal radius of about 1 battletech hex (Lethal to 33% of people standing within 16m of its impact; i.e. 33% of all troopers in a hex in one shot). I'm sure an SRM6 can put a single SRM with the explosive power of a middling World War 2 tank gun into six hexes...

We have a couple pilots in our campaign that could go head to head with them (except Morgan Kell and his Ghost Mecha ability), but it took them till 3039 to be that good.

But the point of a "mook" or "boss" is not what the player is providing, but who they are up against.  So, it's more will you be FACING a Natasha Kerensky, Morgan Kell, Bounty Hunter, or Nagelring Graduate #45928?  The BSPs will never be a boss, but they can provide mook-level fodder if the story requires.

It depends on the group, and what demands you plan to put on them.  For example, in the first scenario I used the BSP assets, their job wasn't necessarily to engage in a fight, but to escape.  So running Pegasus, LRM Carriers, and a Long Tom trying to book it out as BSPs made sense, but the Manticores, Savannah Masters, and Warriors I planned on engaging the players with used Record Sheets.

And it seems that the BSP was more in leveraging more to that tournament inclusion and WarChest backup than being serious contenders as Campaign Player heavy support like Total Warfare units are.  So long as that is kept in mind, it fits for what is expected to do.  What is a problem is expecting more from something than it ever was intended for.

Ah, I see the fundamental misunderstanding. I take CBT or Alpha Strike's "default" game mode (even in campaigns) to be PVP. Of course it makes sense to have NPCs when the GM is running NPCs in a TTRPG, but I wouldn't use CBT or Alpha Strike to play a TTRPG. I do know some of the TTRPG adventures have BT rules for the units inside, but I assumed that was in case those units were to be used in the PVP setting of wider CBT.

If BSP were sold as a "monster manual" for campaign GMs to pull forces from (literally NPCs) I'd probably never have encountered (or used) them. I assumed they were intended to be used in GM-less PVP play like a map campaign or something.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Let's save the concussive SRMs for the Fan Rules department...

[Charistoph]

Is that so? A Sherman tank's 75mm cannon had a lethal radius of about 1 battletech hex (Lethal to 33% of people standing within 16m of its impact; i.e. 33% of all troopers in a hex in one shot). I'm sure an SRM6 can put a single SRM with the explosive power of a middling World War 2 tank gun into six hexes...

That's assuming that an SRM can carry the type of impact a 75mm WWII cannon can.

Ah, I see the fundamental misunderstanding. I take CBT or Alpha Strike's "default" game mode (even in campaigns) to be PVP. Of course it makes sense to have NPCs when the GM is running NPCs in a TTRPG, but I wouldn't use CBT or Alpha Strike to play a TTRPG. I do know some of the TTRPG adventures have BT rules for the units inside, but I assumed that was in case those units were to be used in the PVP setting of wider CBT.

At which point, we are outside of campaign considerations and back to the more tournament-style game when we are looking at PvP scenarios.  Even with that, most lists I see people set up is there is at least one powerful unit (aka boss), with their supporting staff (mooks).  Of course, I've seen scenarios where they are all Mooks with no bosses present as well.

You've been presenting what is in-effect meet-up games, or one-time scenarios, as if they are dedicated campaign games.  While your in-head cannon may be there, it's not suiting the scenarios being played on the board.

The difference for me is continuity.  If the unit doesn't continue on after the map and can't grow beyond what it was in the previous scenario, it's not really a campaign game, but a one-off in the vein of a tournament-style scenario.

If BSP were sold as a "monster manual" for campaign GMs to pull forces from (literally NPCs) I'd probably never have encountered (or used) them. I assumed they were intended to be used in GM-less PVP play like a map campaign or something.

I think the problem is the different type of game approaches.  You're treating meet-up games like campaign games.  This causes a strange disconnect in which I don't think the BSP wasn't meant to address at all.

[CarcosanDawn]

I think it is possible tor two players to play a campaign (ladder, map, or whatever) without a GM - as a PVP campaign. Yes?

For me you can have narrative continuity without a progression system. A unit can be the same "Tom Schmidt in this Marauder 2 named Becky" without next game being "leveled up" or whatever. And the next battle may include Tom or may not - perhaps the unit is attacking while he is doing something else. He's on the TO&E and will be until killed - a player couldn't show up it's something not on their pre-campaign Unit TO&E unless they have gotten replacements or reinforcements.

EDIT:
A buddy and i are currently playing a campaign set in the Andurien Secession. We've drawn up unit TO&Es for a Battalion each, and deployed those battalion assets into company task forces (so the companies aren't necessarily staying together). Then, we're moving them along a node-and-spoke map to see where they collide, while trusting each other to pay for repairs, etc. correctly out of our War Chest. It's an Alpha Strike campaign, but when we built our Battalion, we were allowed 2500 PV; my battalion is from the 346th Heavy Tank Regiment of the 5th Fusiliers of Oriente, using predominantly Ontos, Manticores, Von Luckners, and Soarece. However, I have a company of 'Mechs attached, an infantry company (4 stands of infantry), and an HQ company with artillery and repair/recovery vees and a recon lance, etc.

[Cannonshop]

The BSP rules do change the rock-paper-scissors aspect of things a bit, but it's STILL rock-paper-scissors in the end.

not really- it fundamentally alters the rules for the game in a few ways that were popular with the crowd who used to post constantly about things "Detracting from Muh Mecks"

take the example of the two manticores.  One is a BSP, and always moves first, It always moves first, and it never flanks.

It's not 'rock/paper/scissors' it's "Let's add a stack of rules to make things awkward and satisfy the people who complain about 'initiative banking' becuse we don't want to fix the initiative order-so we'll just make everything that isn't a 'mech move first."

Because the fundamental problem with 'swarms' is that the unequal numbers stacking favors rear-loading, which kinda shows the devs never read Von Clauswicz and don't understand the concept of friction as interpreted in "On War".

(*IOW bigger forces will have more difficulty, all other factors equal, moving coherently due to communications and concept load-that is more guys means more chances for mistakes..thus why we train.)

Two identical units, same game board, different fundamental rules.  This WILL cause Da Confusion, and it WILL be exploited because it's an OBVIOUS EXPLOIT.

and people really ARE that petty.

It's also a solution, that completely lacks a problem, but it's got investment-someone desperately wanted this included to make THEIR mark.

so it's going to GET promoted, which is going to make things LESS clear in interactions between players, especially in that near-mythical thing, the "pickup game with strangers".

WE HAVE Alpha-Strike, If you want big mass epic scale battles in the same evening.

Difference is, Alpha Strike isn't grafted crudely onto another game system just to cripple a specific sort of player, it's internally consistent, the rules apply to everyting on the map, and they're the same rules for everything on the map.

so it doesn't REALLY address that. 

I think the closest thing I can equate this to, is Force Size Multiplier being forced into BV2, to address another problem that doesn't really exist-in theory it was supposed to 'even the teams' in practice it brutally punished anyone who didn't take the smallest force they could for a given BV.

I see this as very  similar.  It's a punishment for players who don't take an All 'Mechs All The Time force.

[Charistoph]

so it doesn't REALLY address that. 

While I agree that the BSP doesn't change any rock-paper-scissors aspect of the game (such as it is), I disagree that it doesn't do anything to address having larger games.

But I think it's intended job isn't to address what you think it is addressing, which may be part of the problem.  It's not intended to be a replacement (as much as some would like), but just a simple augment where one may desire it.

Admittedly, my local group doesn't even bother with BSP in our weekly one-off games.  And we're fine with it.  We do a lot of crazy stuff without adding in the older BSP (aka ASF and Artillery), and we have fun.  We've only dealt with it in story-driven campaigns because either A) we didn't have resources to counter it with the same, or B) it was a side show to what was meant to be going on.

It's kind of like the ACES concept.  It will work great with some people, and not at all with others.  One of our local DMs is considering trying it out for a scenario or two to see if it works out with what he wants.  However, it's not something (aside from the models) that really means anything for our weekly or campaign group as a steady thing.  It's an attitude that Mage Leader kind of pointed out that he doesn't see it as being a product for him.  And I can see that being the case with CV and Inf BSP for a lot of people, including myself in one-off games or even Warchests (I prefer Artillery or Air Strikes).

[Daryk]

The games we play have a few "regulars", but there are usually enough new people to qualify as "pickup games with strangers".  Granted, Jester posts the scenario ahead of time, but the folks who show up is relatively random.  That's why I'm usually an "assistant GM".

[Xotl]

It's also a solution, that completely lacks a problem, but it's got investment-someone desperately wanted this included to make THEIR mark.

Difference is, Alpha Strike isn't grafted crudely onto another game system just to cripple a specific sort of player, it's internally consistent, the rules apply to everyting on the map, and they're the same rules for everything on the map.

It's a punishment for players who don't take an All 'Mechs All The Time force.

Plain and simple, nothing you're saying here is accurate.

The system was created because a rulebook was being made and it was felt that it could use something like this.  That's it.

It was not invented by someone who somehow forced it into print for their own glory, it was not intended "just to cripple a specific sort of player", and it was certainly never intended to be "punishment".

If you don't like the system, fine, but there's no need to craft such wild theories to back up what amounts to a gut reaction against a ruleset.