Battlefield Support Rules Open Beta - Feedback and Discussion

[Xotl]

First he didn't know why the points changed, why a light strike was 5 instead of 2 when everything was scaled the same anyway.  He brought 6 strikes and 2 covers for 36 points.  I agree here, so far the granularity doesn't support needing 13 point tanks versus 12 point tanks.

Points changed because we had two different rulesets labelled "Battlefield Support" that both used a currency called "BSPs" that didn't really align with one another.  This ruleset is an attempt at harmonization.  It almost certainly didn't work in all ways--that's the nature of the beast when juggling many moving parts and numbers with limited time--but *the* major goal of the public playtest is hammering those point costs into shape.

His first glance at the vees, his gut check was 'ill take strikes and air cover every time for the cost, thanks'.  In my post above I talked about how hidden air attacks+bluffs make air strikes even better, so if hidden air is going to stay I really would like some clarification there.

The current test is only what you see.  There's no hidden air assets in this playtest.  They will likely appear in some future release.

We had some timing issues with attacks.  Specifically when can strike attacks be used now that BSP assets go first, and do you split strikes and assets up.  I had 4 vehicle assets, so the initial thought was 3 strikes 2 assets 3 strikes 2 assets.  Per our glace at the rules though it just said in the weapon attack phase, so he shot with them at the end to put 20 damage on things for psrs after his regular units shot.

It doesn't give any special timing issues with regards to attacks because there is none, only with deployment and movement.  Attack as normal with everything.  You can mix strikes or assets or standard units as you will, but you declare it all first as normal.

Other notes fron the game: BSP units and kills.  Many things count kills, such as "kill" 50% of the enemy units.  Our mission was kill 100% of the enemy lance.  We wondered how BSP interact with this basic victory condition.  I ignored them, as they were extra units from an outside source.  My argument was if they counted as kills it creates issues where in meeting engagements where 'kill 50%' you could kill 4 Bsp assets and 0 of 4 mechs, and win the mission.  He wanted clarification though cause im the vee player so of course i don't want them to count.  Ome of the box sets for vees is objectives so we want to hammer down exactly what assets can do for the kill and capture mission objectives.

The Force Building section explains how to handle Assets in an objective-based scenario.  Essentially, the only thing they count for is kills.

Further he wanted to know about crit bonuses.  He has human tro, a skill found on player cards, and took human tro vee against me in the past cause I run vees.  He worries now thats useless, as +1 to the destroy check is way too powerful he admits.

That's an optional rule stacking with other optional rules and in addition outside the scope of this ruleset, which only assumes ownership of the three core box sets.  You would have to make a decision about that at your own table, at least for the time being, as this playtest isn't concerning itself with that sort of thing at the moment.

Thanks for the detailed report.

[Xotl]

BSP rules and the Initiative Deck.

With the proposed change in value, how does this impact the Initiative deck?

As it stands, there are five cards in the Initiative Deck that grants the active player/side instant 6 Battlefield support points. With the proposed point cost increase only a single Light Air Strike (5 points) could be purchased as all other aerospace and artillery are overcosted.

Light Strike (old 2 points, now 5 points)
Heavy Strike (old 3 points, now 9 points)
Light Bombing (old 3 points, now 8 points)
Heavy Bombing (old 4 points, now 11 points)
Strafing (old 5 points, now 14 points)

ARTILLERY
Thumper (old 3 points, now 8 points)
Sniper (old 4 points, now 12 points)
Long Tom (old 6 points, now 18 points)

Changing the points costs now invalidates parts of another product that people have purchased, and I am not sure that was expected or if it even came across in discussions, and so I point it out here.

Unfortunately, the ultra-low cost floor of the original strikes in general made it, I felt, impossible to create a set of vehicle costing rules alongside it.  There was no way I could make a set of vehicle costing rules work that cover a decent range of capabilities--from the 3025 Savannah Master to the 3058 Behemoth--and allow for future customization when a heavy bombing run is only 4 pts: there's almost no design room there.  So I suspect--I cannot confirm, because I'm not a CGL employee, and in any case the playtest is only just begun and alternate solutions might come up--that the old deck will be a casualty of this revision.  It remains fully serviceable if just using the BMM ruleset in isolation, however.

[Xotl]

For the BSP costs in the initiative deck, its in a few other places as well, such as the various scenario books where the defender gets '9 artillery BSP' for example.  Not sure why they changed the base costs, I feel like we can convince them not to invalidate the old BSP support deck and initiative deck, as the ballooned costs so far have not made any discernable difference for me.

See my answer to NeonKnight above.

As a bonus, here is the BV costs of real, total warfare built versions of the various strikes.

Thank you very much for this.

[jasonf]

Here are my thoughts on how to adjust the Asset Card (attached). I put a before and after of what the SRM Carrier could look like, and included a Galleon with notes on what I would change and why.

Of all the suggestions, #2 is likely the most important: you need to put the Asset Type/Motive Type on the card. You might even want to add the Alpha Strike (t,w,h,v) motive suffixes to the Asset MP to make it extra clear to the player. Especially since this is all being developed for those who never picked up TW

Next most important are #6 and #7 (making the main combat stats more prominent and clear). I don't know the ideal acronyms, but the current ones seem to meld together in my brain whenever I read the Cards.

Other suggestions mostly reflect trying to think ahead to the case where the same cards are used in a broader version of these rules in the future.

[DevianID]

Jason's suggested card is a big improvement.  Certain things being missing like motive type is a huge deal.

Xotl, starting from the bottom.  Assets/strikes dont have to all declare and fire first in the weapon phase?  I find that odd with how they do have to do that in movement.  Im personally not a fan of things like asset/strikes place in initiative being different--if we like that they must move first in initiative in the movement phase, NOT carrying that over to the shooting phase feels clunky.

Next, hidden air IS in the playtest, its in the strike cards section.  Thats why I was asking about it as I read about it there.  If the 4 strike cards that talk about hidden air+bluffs are deleted from the playtest ok I get it, but for now they are in there.

As for the cost inflation.  I understand the floor on strikes is low... but its low in the playtest inflated costs too.  So you didnt do anything by changing/inflating the cost.  Multiplying all costs by 2.5 just invalidates the other sources for no reason, as the ratio is the same.  Im going to post the actual BV derrived stats next, so Ill show some math there.  At this point my 'show the math' document is only for the insane as im more or less sounding everything out to myself, but the numbers are solid.  Im trying to put the cliff notes in this thread believe it or not!

One issue that should be apparent is that certain things in battletech are undercosted.  Strikes, infantry, vtols, all have things baked into their rules that provide mathematical increases to their survivability that they get for free.  Infantry Assets for example, for the cost, are too hard to kill in an effort to give them a taste of that mathematically broken survivability bonus they get in classic.  Taking 12 infantry in a 36 BSP game for a 4 on 4 mech match is a lot of annoying infantry to kill.  Dont get me started on the emplacement... they are awful as currently written, as they are either useless or extremely over powered, as they get headcapping damage and free forward deployment for almost no points... so against a slow force, you start deployed in range and they cant get around you, but against a fast force they can get out of arc and ignore them.  Its impossible to balance that on such a cheap platform.  This is the same in classic battletech, taking infantry that cant make antimech attacks gives you super cheap units that still deal decent damage, but mostly just flood the board and be annoying.  Anyway, enough ranting.

For strikes specifically, from context im gathering that you want to de-emphasize them without removing them.  May I suggest a 'The skies are buzzing' type of rule?  Basically, make each duplicate strike card cost more.  So sure that first Light Strike is cheap, but you wont be able to do what my first playtest buddy did and take all strike and cover cards, you will want to diversify.  This honestly works for all the cards... I really dont want to see 12 infantry at 36 points (current playtest costs), so a rule about ballooning costs for spamming the same choice is gonna be a huge help.

My suggestion is to take the BV of these units, by way of the unit they refer to on the MUL (great suggestion jasonf to ensure the MUL variant is on the card to look up), and reverse the stats based on that BV.  This is instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.  Thus, a manticore costs 993 battle value, because a manticore costs 993 battle value.  The stats on the card for movement, offense, and defense will match the manticore's offensive and defensive battle value, just translated to card stats that dont have the motive (no motive chart) or structure (no crit chart).  The option the current playtest is going down makes the manticore 360 BV at 30 bv to 1 BSP, and it's stats show that--its clearly an inferior tank you'd need 3 of to make a difference, instead of a single manticore being near a match to a mech, and the toughest tank to destroy of all the KS tanks behind the Behemoth.  Its not like KS mercenaries is giving players 3 dozen vehicles to add to their 4v4 mech forces, so I dont think we should compromise on quality to force quantity.

(so to preview, if a manticore costs 20 BSP to the light strikes 2 BSP, and BSPs are about 50bv to 1 BSP, then that 20 BSP manticore (993/50) that I made 12+ to destroy based on its actual defensive BV is gonna actually need all 10 of those light strikes to hit to kill it guaranteed, and there is a decent chance some miss.  Also, how about that cost inflation for spamming the same choice over and over?)

[DevianID]

Name         BV   TMM/Multi   Max MP   Weapon BV    Defense BV   Armor Equiv.
Warrior h7      295   +5tmm   /1.5   14 speed   96.5      86.6      23
   Destroy TN 7+    Minimum damage 5+      Range 8/16/24   Damage 4
MASH (mobile Hq?)   319   +3tmm//1.3   9 speed   34ish      231.4?      71
   Destroy TN 8+   Minimum damage 2+      Range 1 /2/3   Damage 5
Skulker      314   +4tmm/1.4   11 speed   56      215      61
   Destroy TN 8+   Minimum damage 2+      Range 3/6/9   Damage 6   
Mobile    HQ      319   +3tmm//1.3   9 speed   58.5      231.4      71
   Destroy TN 8+   Minimum damage 2+      Range 3/6/9   Damage 6   
Galleon      309   +3/1.3      9 speed   79      190      58
   Destroy TN 8+   Minimum damage 5+      Range 3/6/9   Damage 8   
Pegasus      640   +4/1.4      12      188.5      284.2      81
   Destroy TN 9+   Minimum damage 2+      Range 3/6/9   Damage 2x10   
Condor      653   +4/1.4      12      201.5      271.95      77
   Destroy TN 9+   Minimum damage 2+      Range 6/12/18   Damage 2*5   
Maxim         764   +4/1.4      12      270.75      252.35      72
   Destroy TN 8+   Minimum damage 2+      Range 3/6/9   Damage 3*6   LRM1   
Vedette      475   +3/1.3      8      110      325      100
   Destroy TN 9+   Minimum damage 8+      Range 6/12/18    Damage 6   
SRM Carrier      816   +2/1.2      5      648      168      56
   Destroy TN 8+   Minimum damage 5+      Range 3/6/9   Damage 10*7   
LRM Carrier      833   +2/1.2      5      665      168      56
   Destroy TN 8+   Minimum damage 5+      Range 0*         LRM6   
Manticore      993   +2/1.2      6      419      524      174
   Destroy TN 12+   Minimum damage 8+      Range 6/12/18   Damage 2*8   LRM1   
Demolisher      981   +2/1.2      5      484      497      165
   Destroy TN 12+   Minimum damage 8+      Range 3/6/9   2*22   
Schrek         935   +2/1.2      5      568      367      122
   Destroy TN 10+   Minimum damage 8+      Range 6/12/18   Damage 3*10   
Ontos         938   +2/1.2      5      512      427      142
   Destroy TN 11+   Minimum damage 8+      Range 3/6/9   Damage 8*5   LRM1   
Mobile Long Tom   835   +2/1.2      5      610      225      75
   Destroy TN 9+   Minimum damage 5+      Range 1 /2/3*   Damage 6   Free LT on 8+   
Behemoth      1173   +1/1.1      3      758      589      214
   Destroy TN 13+   Minimum damage 10+   Range 5/10/15   Damage 9x4   LRM2   
Foot Infantry      66   0/1      1      45      42      16
   Destroy TN 7+   Minimum damage 2+      Range 1 2/3   Damage 3x5   
Jump Infantry      68   +1/1.1      2j      51      35      12
   Destroy TN 6+   Minimum damage 2+      Range 1 2/3   Damage 3x5   
Mech Infantry      67   +1/1.1      4      50      40      14
   Destroy TN 6+   Minimum damage 2+      Range 1 2/3   Damage 3x5   
Elemental      447   +2/1.3      3j      39ea, 7x   33ea      71
   Destroy TN 8+   Minimum damage 6+      Range 3/6/9   Damage 3x5*      
IS Battle Armor   231   +2/1.3      3j      18ea, 5.2x   31ea      49
   Destroy TN 8+   Minimum damage 5+      Range 1 2/3   Damage 3x5*   
MG nest      
Light Field Gun
Medium Field Gun
Heavy Field Gun

Shilone      1230   +2/1.2      9      466.5/sf1.5   530      176
   Destroy TN 12+   Minimum damage 1+      Range   5/10/15Damage 3x10

Visigoth Prime   2139   +2/1.2      11      863/sf1.76   619.8      206
   Destroy TN 13+   Minimum damage 1+      Range 5/10/15   Damage 7*8


The formatting is rough, sorry, but the numbers are solid.

The base destroy chance is a 6+.  This is a 72.2% chance to destroy, which is the closest to 1 68.2% standard deviation curve.  The Armor Equiv is how many points of armor a unit gets if you remove the motive (there isnt a motive chart to immobilize the asset) and the structure critical (there isnt structure/crits to roll on).  Thus, 10 structure on a tank like a behemoth, which is 1.5BV per point, becomes 6 2.5BV points of armor instead of 10 structure that you get a crit chart against.  Likewise, the 10% discount for a tracked vee from the motive chart is removed, so 20 armor becomes 18 since the tank cant be immobilized.  This provides a total number of bubbles of protection that would be distributed to all the facings, that destroy the tank as soon as you run out.  Then we look at how much a single facing (because the front/sides/turret dont matter, only rear) can take.  The normal distribution is about total armor /3, so a manticore with it's structure and tracks converted to just armor has about 58 armor capacity before you will have clustered enough damage on the facing side (61.1% of all damage hits the facing, usually the side).  This is an expected kill value, falling within a standard deviation.  Thus, if you deal 58 damage to a manticore you will expect it to die less then 68.2%, which on a 2d6 system is a bit higher with the closest number (7+).  Thus, since you need 58 damage to reach a 5+ (1 per 10 points) to destroy a manticore, and the base destroy check for a manticore is 12, you need a 7 to destroy a manticore with only 58 damage and with just 2 point more damage you need a 6+.  To get a 100% chance to destroy a manticore you'd need to deal 100 damage to it.  This is congruous with classic BattleTech (I mean, all the numbers started with the classic figures, they better line up lol).  My only issue is that this requires every 10 damage to count as a degrade stack, minimum of 1.  Thus, if you put 8 damage on a manticore, thats one degrade stack, and if you instead put 28 damage on a manticore in one turn, that is 2 degrade stacks.  This is required to keep the math in line with how damage accumulates in Btech.  I think it works better, once we put the idea of degrade stacks on the model we may as well do them right.

Youll notice I was able to make the aerofighers easily with my math, but not the weapon emplacements.  Thats cause the fighters are real units with BV numbers to crunch, and the emplacements I dont know what MUL unit thats supposed to be.  Now that ive made the reverse engineering math, I can do any unit I can see the battle value calculation of.

As for how to play the BSP aerofighters, that easy.  The Shilone moves 9 like any other unit in battletech on a ground map, paying for turns as normal, and the Visigoth moves 11.  They are high up in the sky, so the relative ground movement would be small (the moon moves way faster then both, but it appears stationary to a ground observer).  You have to add 8 hexes to any range to shoot the aerofighter, as the aerofighter would be at altitude 4 if it could attack ground targets.  Nice and simple, and all the numbers should be identical to TW ground strikes and such.  Their destroy check is the lowest in the game, as any point of damage can cause them to go out of control, but they are also build tough, so on a Visigoth for example all your gonna to is degrade it the first time you hit it with 1 point of damage
(Edit: in classic the Visigoth would be flying high enough that 1 damage could at most make it shed some altitude, which would make future destroy checks easier.  10 damage though might cause a threshold crit, meaning the 13+ to destroy visigoth could die to 10 damage on a lucky crit or catastrophic series of PSRS, but it gets even easier at 20 damage with the PSR penalty, ect ect.  The math is pretty solid for how hard it is to kill a Visigoth that doesnt want to die)

As a final note, currently Im of the opinion that no BSP assets can use backwards movement.  They count as running after all.  Thats one less rule about odd half movement and backwards movement and all.  Im for giving all BSP units like an SRM carrier their full MP (instead of only 4 MP) as right now its inconsistent what MP a unit will get.  They should move what they move, but since that SRM carrier has 5 MP it can spin 3 and move 2 if it wants to move backwards.  As for TMM, I listed the TMM that the unit pays for in BV, but in the game units rarely get their maximum TMM.  A timberwolf for example pays for having a +3 tmm but, id wager a tmm of +2 is what the average TMM is of the Twolf.  So Id propose that if we are using fixed TMM for these units it should be 1 less then their max.  Thus a Warrior would have a +4 TMM and a Vedette would have a +2 and an SRM carrier would have a +1 TMM and Battlearmor would have +2.  Seems a fair abstraction.

[NeonKnight]

I think, personally, I want a less busy card.

These are Battlefield Support not Alpha Strike Lite, or anything of the kind. The purpose i got from the intent of the product is to allow players to quickly/easily bring vehicles and infantry into the game without the need to bog game play down with multiple record sheets.

I don't want Expert or heroic BSP, as to me that is outside the scope of the product. I don;t have the option of Expert or Heroic level Aerospace or Artillery, and by the same nature I should not have that for vehicles/infantry.

As a player/GM running a campaign, I'm looking to BSP as a way to enhance my game, not bog it down with even more minutia.

Examples

- Convoy escorts. Not looking for full sheets, but need to escort X-value of BSP vehicles across the map or assault and destroy a convoy.

- Raid/defend an Air Base (using the current BSP can assign the values to air strikes and air defense, maybe some defensive minefields)

- Asset recovery - again extract X-value of BSP from a base.



Again this is what I see BSP as going towards, so I do not see a reason for Roles of other such things on the cards.


That said, the one stat I would definitely rename is DV or the suggested ADV. Lets just call it DMG and be done with it. Why? becase when I first looked at card I had no clue what some of the stats meant and needed to look them up. Yes things like DCTN unique to this card but going of the original card a stat like Damage: 5+ immediately draws the eye and you think that is what the vehicle does for damage, not what it takes.

So, no fancy card adjustments, just gonna say, I think the 'Combat Stat Block' should be from left to right:

RANGE   DMG   DT   DCTN

Infact, I would think that instead of DT it should be called TH, why? Keeps the term the same as the ALPHA STRIKE stat of Threshold, and I see a lot of players having the Alpha Strike starter set, or obtaining other Aerospace units through the upcoming Kickstarter and those use the term/stat TH, and so similar stats should ahve the same abreviation.

[jasonf]

As for the cost inflation.  I understand the floor on strikes is low... but its low in the playtest inflated costs too.  So you didnt do anything by changing/inflating the cost.  Multiplying all costs by 2.5 just invalidates the other sources for no reason, as the ratio is the same.  Im going to post the actual BV derrived stats next, so Ill show some math there.  At this point my 'show the math' document is only for the insane as im more or less sounding everything out to myself, but the numbers are solid.  Im trying to put the cliff notes in this thread believe it or not!

Xotl would know better, but I am guessing the issue with scaling everything to the current Strike BSP costs is that you would end up rounding the BSP costs of lighter vehicles to all have the same value. As a result, many players will look at some Assets and say "why would I pay 5 BSP for 30 ton tank X, when 50 ton tank Y also costs 5 BSP and does twice the damage?"

I think, personally, I want a less busy card.

I don't want Expert or heroic BSP, as to me that is outside the scope of the product. I don;t have the option of Expert or Heroic level Aerospace or Artillery, and by the same nature I should not have that for vehicles/infantry.

I actually agree. I still think the Passive Specials/Traits should get the axe, and out of my suggestions Roles would be #2.

For skills, though, I agree we don't need super-skilled Assets, but I would like the option of Elite and Green ones. The thought is that players will likely build forces that have infantry and vehicles with these skill levels for various campaigns, linked scenarios, etc., and may want to use the BSP system to play them rather than the full TW rules.
I would also see them as an optional rule rather than part of the main rules (I would suggest all Assets = Regular in the base rules).

So, no fancy card adjustments, just gonna say, I think the 'Combat Stat Block' should be from left to right:

RANGE   DMG   DT   DCTN

Infact, I would think that instead of DT it should be called TH, why? Keeps the term the same as the ALPHA STRIKE stat of Threshold, and I see a lot of players having the Alpha Strike starter set, or obtaining other Aerospace units through the upcoming Kickstarter and those use the term/stat TH, and so similar stats should ahve the same abreviation.

I agree that "DMG" and "TH" are even better suggestions. Maybe even shrink "DCTN" to "DC" (it's already been shortened to "Destroy Chance" in my head anyway)

[NeonKnight]

For skills, though, I agree we don't need super-skilled Assets, but I would like the option of Elite and Green ones. The thought is that players will likely build forces that have infantry and vehicles with these skill levels for various campaigns, linked scenarios, etc., and may want to use the BSP system to play them rather than the full TW rules.
I would also see them as an optional rule rather than part of the main rules (I would suggest all Assets = Regular in the base rules).

Yes, preference is no skill adjustment in BSP at all. these are simply 'support' not full forces or anything of the kind. I view the BSP as simply the generic schlubs and unnamed cannon fodder we see in the background of a movie. They are there to support the Hero (the Mech's), not outshine them.

[DevianID]

I am guessing the issue with scaling everything to the current Strike BSP costs is that you would end up rounding the BSP costs of lighter vehicles to all have the same value.

jasonf indeed that is an issue with the current playtest units.  The Pegasus and condor are identical, and many units are 7-8 or 12-13.  The behemoth is only 27 to the ontos 25.  So using the original scale indeed puts many units identical, but they are all ready all designed almost the same cost or exactly the same cost.  So they gained nothing with a larger scale, as the ratios of what you can bring are still about the same or exactly the same.

In my proposed point and stat costs in the block above, the Galleon skulker mobile hq and warrior all cost 6 points cause they all are about 300 bv.  But the warrior was a vtol sniper, the skulker is fast, the mobile he gets +1init or whatever they end up with, and the Galleon does more damage.  So unlike the Pegasus/condor of the current playtest build, every unit with the same cost has different stats in some way even if they are the same cost.

[Xotl]

Xotl, starting from the bottom.  Assets/strikes dont have to all declare and fire first in the weapon phase?

No they don't.  Unlike deployment and movement, where following the standard rules could lead to broken results, there was no reason to introduce an exception to the attack declaration phase as well.  Changes were only introduced if they were felt to be required (mostly for the sake of simplification or the assumption of no advanced rulebooks).

Next, hidden air IS in the playtest, its in the strike cards section.  Thats why I was asking about it as I read about it there.  If the 4 strike cards that talk about hidden air+bluffs are deleted from the playtest ok I get it, but for now they are in there.

Ah, they must have been added at the last minute, during the final polishing phase, so I didn't notice.  I'm glad they're there.

As for the cost inflation.  I understand the floor on strikes is low... but its low in the playtest inflated costs too.  So you didnt do anything by changing/inflating the cost.  Multiplying all costs by 2.5 just invalidates the other sources for no reason, as the ratio is the same.

The increase in points across the spectrum was to create design room to allow the vehicles to vary in cost, which they do (the ones I've converted so far range in cost from 6 points for a MASH truck to 40 points for a 3058 LRM Carrier).  I agree that there would be no point to just increasing the cost of everything by a fixed amount and calling it a day, but that did not happen, and in addition there are some wild divergences from their original BV costs (as one would expect from using a different system).  That many of the vehicles chosen for this playtest are similar in cost is more a reflection on the candidates chosen, than the system as a whole.  At this point, I'm interested in how the candidates stack up against each other in terms of points: whether or not one unit is felt to be a special bargain or wildly overcosted compared to the others.

For strikes specifically, from context im gathering that you want to de-emphasize them without removing them.

No, that was not the goal.  The hope was that they are as valid as the vehicles: not more, not less.  Playstyle, chosen maps, non-Asset units fielded etc all factor in, but on their own they should be equally appealing.  So I'd like them to stack up well against one another, and players feel free to use what they want (which includes taking into account that their opponent may choose either Strikes or Assets).

May I suggest a 'The skies are buzzing' type of rule?  Basically, make each duplicate strike card cost more.  So sure that first Light Strike is cheap, but you wont be able to do what my first playtest buddy did and take all strike and cover cards, you will want to diversify.  This honestly works for all the cards... I really dont want to see 12 infantry at 36 points (current playtest costs), so a rule about ballooning costs for spamming the same choice is gonna be a huge help.

That's an intriguing idea and I'll definitely consider it.  The ability to spam cheap units has always been an issue with games, and a way around it would be good (beyond making them weaker than they already are, which is I think a very valid counter to the worry in general).  But also bear in mind that the recommended force point amounts can be adjusted too, as part of the overall cost balancing, which would not allow as much to be placed on the board in the first place.

My suggestion is to take the BV of these units, by way of the unit they refer to on the MUL (great suggestion jasonf to ensure the MUL variant is on the card to look up), and reverse the stats based on that BV.

Apologies, but we're not throwing out the whole thing and starting over to begin work on a new rules system at this point, which would leave no time for the playtesting of it and thus defeat the purpose of the playtesting phase.  We need to make this system--rules and points--work as best it can.  There's lots of room to modify the existing system, I think.

[Xotl]

That said, the one stat I would definitely rename is DV or the suggested ADV. Lets just call it DMG and be done with it. Why? becase when I first looked at card I had no clue what some of the stats meant and needed to look them up. Yes things like DCTN unique to this card but going of the original card a stat like Damage: 5+ immediately draws the eye and you think that is what the vehicle does for damage, not what it takes.

So, no fancy card adjustments, just gonna say, I think the 'Combat Stat Block' should be from left to right:

RANGE   DMG   DT   DCTN

Infact, I would think that instead of DT it should be called TH, why? Keeps the term the same as the ALPHA STRIKE stat of Threshold, and I see a lot of players having the Alpha Strike starter set, or obtaining other Aerospace units through the upcoming Kickstarter and those use the term/stat TH, and so similar stats should ahve the same abreviation.

I like these abbreviation suggestions: thanks!

[jasonf]

Yes, preference is no skill adjustment in BSP at all. these are simply 'support' not full forces or anything of the kind. I view the BSP as simply the generic schlubs and unnamed cannon fodder we see in the background of a movie. They are there to support the Hero (the Mech's), not outshine them.

Actually, I'd argue that if all they are is cannon fodder, then all these Assets do on the tabletop is prolong what is really a 'Mech vs. 'Mech scenario with more stuff you need to shoot at. I wouldn't see that as that useful or fun, really.

I view these rules as more: I think combined-arms forces are cool but I don't want to learn a whole new detailed ruleset/constantly thumb through TW to use them.
So, simplified units, but not fodder.


@Xotl -- are you planning on posting updated versions of the rules during the playtest period at all during the beta period?

[Xotl]

@Xotl -- are you planning on posting updated versions of the rules during the playtest period at all during the beta period?

I'm not sure.  I don't have sole authority over these rules--it's a team project--so I can't do it on my own, and understandably the others are rather busy getting other BT products / the kickstarter out the door, so there might not be time.  There's also the issue that fresh drafts would require fresh communications with everyone to ensure everyone receives it, rather than me just posting something here.  So best I can say is "maybe".

[DevianID]

Ah, they must have been added at the last minute, during the final polishing phase, so I didn't notice.  I'm glad they're there.

ok so the original question on hidden air then.  I posted a breakdown of how much worse hidden air makes air cover.  Also, how in the current pricing the bluff was too good to be free and worth about 4 points.  Thoughts on adjusting hidden air?

[jasonf]

I'm not sure.  I don't have sole authority over these rules--it's a team project--so I can't do it on my own, and understandably the others are rather busy getting other BT products / the kickstarter out the door, so there might not be time.  There's also the issue that fresh drafts would require fresh communications with everyone to ensure everyone receives it, rather than me just posting something here.  So best I can say is "maybe".

Understood. :thumbsup:  I was mostly asking to see if there'd be updates along the lines of "TPTB are thinking of tweaking Rule X, so try to play with the new version of Rule X..."

[DevianID]

I posted the actual cost in BV to build each of the different strikes earlier, if there is no chance to change anyones mind on the current (but unpublished) broken construction rules (as opposed to conversion rules like how alpha strike works) and bad pricing multiplier of 2.5, at least to be constructive I took an hour and calculated by hand the BV of each of the asset cards as provided to us.  Maybe this will help more then my other suggestions, as this at least shows exactly the real, techmanual calculated, BV of each of the current units next to the current BSP cost, to see what is too cheap or too expensive.  I included the stats and the DBV as well as the offensive weapon BV with the speed multiplier so people can check the math if they are inclined.

Warrior      14   Range 24   d3   12mp   tmm4   dc4+   DBV8*1.4   59*1.89
   123BV      Beta Estimate BV 420   Ratio 29%
Mash         6   range 3   d5   8mp   tmm3   dc6+   DBV45*1.3   15*1.37
   79BV       Beta Estimate BV 180   Ratio 44%
Skulker      7   range 9   d5   8mp   tmm3   dc6+   DBV45*1.3   46*1.37
   122BV       Beta Estimate BV 210   Ratio 58%
Mobile HQ      25   range 9   d5   8mp   tmm3   dc6   DBV45*1.3   46*1.37
   122BV       Beta Estimate BV 750   Ratio 16%
Galleon      8   range 9   d5   8mp   tmm3   dc6   DBV45*1.3   46*1.37
   122BV       Beta Estimate BV 240   Ratio 51%
Pegasus      10   range 9   d10   12mp   tmm4   dc5   DBV22.5*1.4   93*1.89
   207BV       Beta Estimate BV 300   Ratio 69%
Condor      10   range 9   d10   12mp   tmm4   dc5   DBV22.5*1.4   93*1.89
   207BV       Beta Estimate BV 300   Ratio 69%
Maxim         13   range 9   d10L1   12mp   tmm4   dc5   DBV22.5*1.4   93*1.89 54x1
   309BV       Beta Estimate BV 390   Ratio 79%
Vedette      13   range 18   d5   8mp   tmm3   dc6   DBV45*1.3   93*1.37
   186BV       Beta Estimate BV 390   Ratio 48%
SRM Carrier      35   range 9   d40   4mp   tmm1   dc4   DBV8*1.1   740*.88
   660BV       Beta Estimate BV 1050   Ratio 63%
LRM Carrier      29   range 21   d30   4mp   tmm1   dc4   DBV8*1.1   648*.88
   579BV       Beta Estimate BV 870   Ratio 67%
Manticore      12   range 18   d10L1   6mp   tmm2   dc8   DBV150*1.2   185*1.12 54x1
   448BV       Beta Estimate BV 360   Ratio 124%
Demolisher      19   range 9   d40   4mp   tmm1   dc8   DBV150*1.1   222*.88
   360BV       Beta Estimate BV 570   Ratio 63%
Schrek         26   range 18   d30   4mp   tmm1   dc8   DBV150*1.1   555*.88
   653BV       Beta Estimate BV 780   Ratio 84%
Ontos         25   range 9   d40L1   4mp   tmm1   dc8   DBV150*1.1   368*.88 54x1
   536 BV    Beta Estimate BV 750   Ratio 71%
Mobile Long Tom   44   range infinite   d25   3mp   tmm1   dc8   DBV150*1.1   3256*.77
   2672BV    Beta Estimate BV 1320   Ratio 202%
Behemoth      27   range 15   d30L3   3mp   tmm1   dc10   DBV300*1.1   462*.77 54x3
   810BV       Beta Estimate BV 810   Ratio 100%
Foot Infantry      3   range 3   d10   1mp   tmm1   dc7   DBV75*1.1   31*.54
   99BV       Beta Estimate BV 90      Ratio 110%
Jump Infantry      4   range 3   d10   2mp   tmm1   dc7   DBV75*1.1   31*.65
   103BV       Beta Estimate BV 120   Ratio 86%
Mech Infantry      4   range 3   d10   4mp   tmm1   dc7   DBV75*1.1   31*.88
   110BV       Beta Estimate BV 120   Ratio 92%
Elemental      6   range 3   d12   3mp   tmm2   dc8   DBV150*1.2   38*.77
   209BV       Beta Estimate BV 180   Ratio 116%
IS Battle Armor   5   range 3   d10   3mp   tmm2   dc7   DBV75*1.2   31*.77
   114BV       Beta Estimate BV 150   Ratio 76%
MG nest      3   range 3   d4   0mp   tmm0   dc7   DBV75*.5   12*.44
   43BV       Beta Estimate BV 90      Ratio 47%
Light Field Gun   6   range 21   d10   0mp   tmm0   dc9   DBV225*.5   216*.44
   208BV       Beta Estimate BV 180   Ratio 116%
Medium Field Gun   6   range 15   d12   0mp   tmm0   dc9   DBV225*.5   222*.44
   210BV       Beta Estimate BV 180   Ratio 117%
Heavy Field Gun   6   range 9   d14   0mp   tmm0   dc9   DBV225*.5   155*.44
   181BV       Beta Estimate BV 180   Ratio +100.56%

So the winners and losers.  The Warrior H7 (its a niche 24 range unit, in 10 turns it doesnt do much in BV other then not die) is hella overcosted, but like all ac2 units there is at least a justification due to the unparalleled range.  The next worst ratio is the Vedetta and MG nest.  These do pathetic damage and arnt very hard to kill.  I ignored the mash and mobile hq, cause they need some special objective based rules.  Their cost is totally wrong and many of the current bonuses dont work, but ill err on the side of restraint there.

The winner by far is the outrageous long tom vehicle.  It has an infinite range, needs no LOS, has no time in flight, and hits on an 8.  The normal long tom has only a 17 hex range for 1 enemy movement phase of lag when shooting indirect, and an infinite range if the enemy gets 2 movement phases after your indirect guess, AND that long tom hits on an 11.  Its no wonder that the BSP Asset actual gun is thousands and thosands of BV if it actually existed--its an order of magnitude better then the book long tom artillery rules.  At a 200%+ efficiency, as long as you bring air cover and dodge any strikes, you will get value after 3 shots with it (3 long tom strikes cost more then 44 BSP and arnt as good as the vehicles long tom shots excepting preplots), and get the full 200%+ value if you manage just 5 shots with that gun.  But I can (and have) talked about how busted artillery is in the past.  Its no different with BSP assets it seems.  If you can protect this thing with enough air cover its literally a golden gun.  Strikes need to exist cause its very important to destroy this vee on turn 1.

The next winner is the manticore.  Whatever construction rules they built seem to value speed over all else, so the manticore slips in CHEAPER then a vedette... its only 24% better then average, but when so much of the other vees are not pulling their weight the Manticore is just ol reliable.

Finally, it should be no surprise that the cheap infantry options are all pretty good.  Foot infantry have been on my radar for a while as a spamable option, and the efficiency shows.  The longer ranged field guns, again to no shock, are pretty good, and BV does NOT have a value for that forward deploy rule.  So the 21 and 15 range options are solid, and THEN you stick them potentially 8 hexes from the enemy on turn 1.  Because they cant move, they will either be pointless and immediately bypassed/ignored, or they will rip the opponent to shreds if they are slow/unable to dodge them.  Elementals surprised me, I guess they hit just enough survivability and damage to be a decent purchase, and with the missing AE rules, artillery has a special rule that makes it better only versus infantry, so the elementals are safer from what is normally their biggest killer, thumper guns.

[Geg]

Some people want fluffy, video-gamey rules, so we tried to accommodate that.  They're deliberately unrealistic, and thus optional.

I would recommend rebranding these are Arcade Rules with Arcade bing a subset of optional rules.

Optional rules in Battletech generally make the game less abstract and more "realistic."   This class of optional rules go in a different direction and maybe should be highlighted as such.    The launch of the two ArcadeOps books in the last year sort of drive this point home.

[Rekkon]

Has there been any discussion on per-turn limitations of strikes?  A while back we were doing the Operation Revival Wolf Refusal campaign and had to house rule some limitations to prevent the first or second turn from becoming "front load as much damage as possible from strikes."  I imagine this is more of an issue when there is significant asymmetry in the BSP available to each side.

[NeonKnight]

Has there been any discussion on per-turn limitations of strikes?  A while back we were doing the Operation Revival Wolf Refusal campaign and had to house rule some limitations to prevent the first or second turn from becoming "front load as much damage as possible from strikes."  I imagine this is more of an issue when there is significant asymmetry in the BSP available to each side.

But that is exactly how any and every modern military action has gone down: Soften up the opposition with artillery/air strikes before the ground pounders move  in.

[nckestrel]

But that is exactly how any and every modern military action has gone down: Soften up the opposition with artillery/air strikes before the ground pounders move  in.

Real-life military actions are not intended to be fair, and so aren't a good model for how to balance a game :).

[pokefan548]

Unfortunately, though, BattleTech is trying to be more believable—and the concessions made in how aerospace works for the sake of game balance already stretches believability as is. I think people should still have the option to front-load strikes, but maybe have some sort of optional rule that can force your opponent to spread them out.

As long as there's room left for a 1-2 sentence optional rule or guideline, we can have our cake and eat it.

[NeonKnight]

Real-life military actions are not intended to be fair, and so aren't a good model for how to balance a game :).

What? I thought for sure the Normandy beach assaults were completely equal BV's on both sides ;)

of course, I also forgot on my first post the smiley.

Just like how in our Home Games for fairness when using the Init Deck's BATTLEFIELD SUPPORT we often limit to light strikes only if playing a Light heavy scenario, or no more than a single use in a round, as yess, sometimes the Battlefield Support can be overwhelming if it comes all at once.

[NeonKnight]

Also, weird but important question to Xotl and nckestrel, as this helps out greatly with viewing the BSP in Playtests, what do the writers/CGL see as the purpose of the BSP deck? I know what the Aero/Artillety/Mines were, and I applaud that deck, but with vehicles, what role does the PTB see them take?

[nckestrel]

How many strikes are people getting?  And how many are being used on the first turn?

I definitely see an issue with purely BV (converting to BSP) and spending the entire BV (minus a token unit?) and rolling the dice turn 1 and declaring victory (or loss).
But what level are you using that you see a problem?  Minor support is 32 BSPs and can get you 6 light strikes.  That's not going to win the game for you on turn 1? 
Perhaps a max "cards" per turn for the various levels?  Minor allows two strikes/bombs per turn, major 4, etc?  You don't want a limit of 2 strikes per turn when playing a regiment on regiment game.

[pokefan548]

Now there's an idea. Maybe not set hard limits, but start publishing scenarios with bespoke limits on how much of your BV/PV can be converted into BSP. Set the precedent.

Being able to spam supports is far from the most abusable part of the game, I feel the guiding-hand approach is called for.

[nckestrel]

Also, weird but important question to Xotl and nckestrel, as this helps out greatly with viewing the BSP in Playtests, what do the writers/CGL see as the purpose of the BSP deck? I know what the Aero/Artillety/Mines were, and I applaud that deck, but with vehicles, what role does the PTB see them take?

I just offer feedback not much different than what yall are doing here.

[jasonf]

I definitely see an issue with purely BV (converting to BSP) and spending the entire BV (minus a token unit?) and rolling the dice turn 1 and declaring victory (or loss).
But what level are you using that you see a problem?  Minor support is 32 BSPs and can get you 6 light strikes.  That's not going to win the game for you on turn 1? 
Perhaps a max "cards" per turn for the various levels?  Minor allows two strikes/bombs per turn, major 4, etc?  You don't want a limit of 2 strikes per turn when playing a regiment on regiment game.

Since we're on the subject, an issue I've had with the older and current Minor/Moderate/Heavy/Max support numbers is that it doesn't account for the size of the game/map.

If you're playing lance x lance (~5000 BV each) on a single 17x15 map 32 BSP is a lot. If you are playing a 6-8 map major game with 30,000 BV on each side, 32 BSP (even if all strikes) might not have much of an effect. You might also want to tweak the limits based on the type of scenario (i.e., more for an Assault, less for a Recon/Probe), though that's something that can be suggested in the rules text and doesn't need it's own set limits/tables/etc.

I think a Max Strike cards per turn is a good idea, though it likely needs to scale with game size, too.

My gut is that the numbers in the draft are good guidelines for a Company/Binary, or 15,000 BV on each side, and a standard stand-up fight.
 

[nckestrel]

I assume the idea is that the players would choose a level of BSPs to match the play size/force size they are playing with.  If you choose maximum BSPs for a one on one duel on a single map sheet, that’s what you wanted.

[Xotl]

I assume the idea is that the players would choose a level of BSPs to match the play size/force size they are playing with.  If you choose maximum BSPs for a one on one duel on a single map sheet, that’s what you wanted.

Yes, precisely this.  The current numbers were chosen with a frame of reference rather than being plucked out the air, but are up for adjustment like most everything else if playtest feedback gives good reasoning behind it (and "too much/too little" works for this).  Strikes may also need to be raised in cost compared to vehicles if it's felt to drenching the table in firepower compared to Assets, which would also affect this even without changing the BSP level.  The key point for the BSP levels though is that ultimate control in terms of points on the table is in the mutual hands of the players setting up to have a game.