Author Topic: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?  (Read 36657 times)

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3740
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #270 on: 08 April 2024, 10:39:54 »
The only building emplacement rules I'm familiar with happen to be out of the BattleTech Manual and the BMR.  And, when powering the weapons, the rating was based equipment tonnage, I think.  Been a while since I looked, though.

They're in Tactical Operations: Advanced Rules now.  It may not have been Damage, but Tonnage.  Let me check... *scrambles for backpack*...

Power Systems and Amplifiers is on pg 129, but for independent power systems, they refer you to Power Generators.

Power Generators starts on pg 131, with construction on the next page.  This is added to 10% of the Heavy Energy Weapons in the building, which is then multiplied by the generator type.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5865
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #271 on: 08 April 2024, 16:22:17 »
I wouldn't be surprised if things have changed between the BMR and Tac Ops.
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37743
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #272 on: 08 April 2024, 17:33:34 »
They put that in AR, not AUE?  WTF? ???

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3740
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #273 on: 08 April 2024, 19:11:07 »
They put that in AR, not AUE?  WTF? ???

Artillery rules, too.  I guess if it's not in a mobile unit (or a mobile unit), it's not worthy of AUE.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37743
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #274 on: 08 April 2024, 19:23:00 »
Sigh... it is what it is..

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5865
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #275 on: 08 April 2024, 22:59:33 »
And, thus the call for a rules reorganization. ;)
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Zematus737

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 109
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #276 on: 09 April 2024, 11:19:33 »
Power amps go hand in hand with regular construction of most units that don't have a fusion engine but have weapons or equipment that require extra power.  It shouldn't be in AUE imo since it is a baseline part for most CV's and construction rules.  Weights are based on weapon tonnage.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3740
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #277 on: 09 April 2024, 11:21:48 »
Power amps go hand in hand with regular construction of most units that don't have a fusion engine but have weapons or equipment that require extra power.  It shouldn't be in AUE imo since it is a baseline part for most CV's and construction rules.  Weights are based on weapon tonnage.

But those construction rules aren't in Advanced Rules, and it's usually a good idea for completion to have them there, so people don't think they need to incorporate them.  It's not like that paragraph fundamentally changes the page count of the book, after all.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5865
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #278 on: 09 April 2024, 11:50:36 »
Another one:
Infantry Ranges (that is, ranges of weapons relative to unit types they're pointed at.)

The common justification for the short-short-short range of battletech weapons, is Battlmech armors.  ATOW gives significantly longer ranges for rifles and machineguns and the like vs. human beings, than the base ranges in TM or standard Battletech.

Armor and Sensor jamming, among some other potentials. 

I apologize, but I want to take a moment to play temporary devil's advocate for moment about a concept.

People complain about the Napoleonic formations and the fact that Conventional Infantry get the same benefits of armored targets when it comes to ranges.  I happen to be one of them.

But, I recall that some of the writers have professed to adhering to the idea of ambient ECM and sensor jamming being a large factor behind the ranges.  It's possible to envision that the Conventional Infantry have to deploy in platoons so that their miniscule sensor jamming packages which comes with their standard gear is more powerful and effective when they're in large numbers, close together.  This allows them to march up in clear line of sight and not have to worry about getting sniped at Line of Sight ranges by something which relies heavily on sensors to fire a laser with pinpoint accuracy. 

This has never been officially declared as the case.  But, if they were to do so, I might be able to work with it.

However, it does create it's own conceptual problems.  For instance, what happens when you start to weaken the field when troopers start dropping?  Also, if they're able to network sensor jamming across multiple bodies, how come they can't do the same with sensor packages to help get the ranges for their heavy anti-armor weapons to reach the same ranges as what's found on Combat Vehicles like tanks, mechs and power armor?

And, it fails when you realize that it doesn't effect the Mark 1 eyeball or general cameras.  (And, what is the mk 1 eyeball but a gelatinous camera?)  The only way to jam that is to a) overpower it with light and blind it, or b)  change how it perceives the data, which can include camouflage or actively hacking and rewriting the interpretive subroutines.   

[/Devil's Advocate]
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10675
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #279 on: 13 April 2024, 07:47:04 »
Armor and Sensor jamming, among some other potentials. 

I apologize, but I want to take a moment to play temporary devil's advocate for moment about a concept.

People complain about the Napoleonic formations and the fact that Conventional Infantry get the same benefits of armored targets when it comes to ranges.  I happen to be one of them.

But, I recall that some of the writers have professed to adhering to the idea of ambient ECM and sensor jamming being a large factor behind the ranges.  It's possible to envision that the Conventional Infantry have to deploy in platoons so that their miniscule sensor jamming packages which comes with their standard gear is more powerful and effective when they're in large numbers, close together.  This allows them to march up in clear line of sight and not have to worry about getting sniped at Line of Sight ranges by something which relies heavily on sensors to fire a laser with pinpoint accuracy. 

This has never been officially declared as the case.  But, if they were to do so, I might be able to work with it.

However, it does create it's own conceptual problems.  For instance, what happens when you start to weaken the field when troopers start dropping?  Also, if they're able to network sensor jamming across multiple bodies, how come they can't do the same with sensor packages to help get the ranges for their heavy anti-armor weapons to reach the same ranges as what's found on Combat Vehicles like tanks, mechs and power armor?

And, it fails when you realize that it doesn't effect the Mark 1 eyeball or general cameras.  (And, what is the mk 1 eyeball but a gelatinous camera?)  The only way to jam that is to a) overpower it with light and blind it, or b)  change how it perceives the data, which can include camouflage or actively hacking and rewriting the interpretive subroutines.   

[/Devil's Advocate]

Not to mention, an ECM field that strong is going to absolutely ****** up a human being's body.  We used to have to sweep dead birds off the radar, it's not hard to imagine what an ECM/Jamming field strong enough to overcome eyeballs will do to troops, wildlife, plants...

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13321
  • I said don't look!
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #280 on: 13 April 2024, 08:28:39 »
Which does bring up another obvious counter to the ECM argument: Last I checked trees don't generate ECM fields.

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4900
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #281 on: 13 April 2024, 14:03:21 »
And, that supports the idea that the actual, physical power plant in a Mech isn't that heavy as the 'rating' would have you believe.  It really is extra Myomer beyond the base IS to get the MP for Mechs, and probably means more power plug-in slots to the reactor itself.

But, the power train of a modern vehicle isn't the same as more Myomer and more signal boosters to get the contractions at higher speeds, or raw strength to move heavier weights. 

However, if that's really the case, then the physical damage that Mechs should be able to do should probably also be based on the engine rating and not on pure tonnage, as well.

So, a Cicada should be kicking as hard as An Awesome with a 320 Power (Engine) Rating.


It would also be covering the extra structural material to handle the higher accelerations.  Stronger bones, stronger suspensions, etc.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5865
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #282 on: 15 April 2024, 05:49:19 »
Which does bring up another obvious counter to the ECM argument: Last I checked trees don't generate ECM fields.

You must be talking about terrain modification and targeting.  Well, that also brings into question the argument about armor, too. 

But, in all honesty, the trees are probably getting the benefit of active fields produced by the combatants.  Once there aren't enemy combatants on the field, you're no longer in combat, and I bet you could shoot to the edge of the solar system without problems.

Edit: If you want an old school rules loop to show what I mean, there's the firing beyond long range rules in the BMR.  It was usually for generating heat and wasting ammo.  But, the target would automatically be missed, ie no damage.  However, what happens when you miss a target in woods?  You can accidentally set those woods on fire. Still needed to happen on a roll of 11 or 12.

And, if you go back a rules iteration or two, there was accidentally clearing those woods on a roll of 2 or 3.

But, yeah, I kinda agree that clearing woods shouldn't be dependent on range if you want to really show off the power of Future Tech.
« Last Edit: 15 April 2024, 05:54:14 by Daemion »
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4900
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #283 on: 18 April 2024, 15:23:34 »
One thing I would write differently is that the Front-line Clan Warriors don't use Targeting Computers.

A Targeting Computer is essentially a tonnage penalty used to augment the accuracy of the Mechwarrior.  This essentially says that the Warrior needs help to be that accurate, plus is an amount of material that could be put to use elsewhere if the Warrior was better skilled.

Second-Line, Solahma, or dezgra Clan units might have a Targeting Computer, but Front-Line Warriors would not use it.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3740
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #284 on: 18 April 2024, 16:47:24 »
That's not the only use for a Targeting Computer, as they can do Called Shots on locations without Immobilizing the target.

Still, if that was the only reason to have such a device (and it being a bit lighter as a result), it would make sense.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4900
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #285 on: 20 April 2024, 17:07:02 »
That's not the only use for a Targeting Computer, as they can do Called Shots on locations without Immobilizing the target.

Still, if that was the only reason to have such a device (and it being a bit lighter as a result), it would make sense.

That would be a nice way to separate them.  Halve their tonnages and you get:
  • Clan Targeting Computer - only used to make Called Shots (so 0.5 tons per 5 tons of direct-fire weapons)
  • Inner Sphere Targeting Computer - version only for general accuracy is 1 ton per 8 tons of direct-fire weapons, version only for called shots is also 1 ton per 8 tons of direct-fire weapons.  Can put both on the same Mech.

Clanners are going around the battlefield try to damage specific components both to prove their skill and to ensure a good supply of parts (i.e. instead of only destroying left legs, they split the destruction 50-50)

The Inner Sphere pilots are hoping they can get enough accuracy bonus to return fire vs the Clan invaders.

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8777
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #286 on: 20 April 2024, 18:18:27 »
I'd cut the ECCM rules entirely, and I did heavily contribute to the current rules. Pages of dross covering all sorts of edge cases, with examples and diagrams, that nobody would ever use.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5865
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #287 on: 25 April 2024, 15:54:18 »
That's not the only use for a Targeting Computer, as they can do Called Shots on locations without Immobilizing the target.

Still, if that was the only reason to have such a device (and it being a bit lighter as a result), it would make sense.
That's not the only use for a Targeting Computer, as they can do Called Shots on locations without Immobilizing the target.

Still, if that was the only reason to have such a device (and it being a bit lighter as a result), it would make sense.

Actually, if you allow SPAs, you don't need to dedicate tonnage at all to get the Called Shot ability.  Maximum Tech had the 'Bull's-eye Marksman' advanced pilot ability which granted the pilot the same ability with some strict restrictions.  (Stationary and can only be done with one weapon and no other weapons fire from the pilot that turn.)

I imagine they ported that over to the current batch of SPAs.  It would give Trueborn pilots something to really set them apart if they're granted one SPA like this as part of their generation at the start of a game.
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10675
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #288 on: 25 April 2024, 16:23:25 »
I'd cut the ECCM rules entirely, and I did heavily contribute to the current rules. Pages of dross covering all sorts of edge cases, with examples and diagrams, that nobody would ever use.

I...might've done it differently.  ECM? Meet Active Probe.  They cancel each other out, done.

In some ways, harder to do, but in so MANY ways tabletop, easier if the hard counter is exactly that.

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8777
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #289 on: 25 April 2024, 16:50:44 »
I...might've done it differently.  ECM? Meet Active Probe.  They cancel each other out, done.

In some ways, harder to do, but in so MANY ways tabletop, easier if the hard counter is exactly that.

My job was to incorporate the errata, not to make editorial changes, but given my druthers I absolutely would've greatly simplified the whole gamut of electronic warfare and stealth equipment.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3740
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #290 on: 25 April 2024, 21:09:30 »
Actually, if you allow SPAs, you don't need to dedicate tonnage at all to get the Called Shot ability.  Maximum Tech had the 'Bull's-eye Marksman' advanced pilot ability which granted the pilot the same ability with some strict restrictions.  (Stationary and can only be done with one weapon and no other weapons fire from the pilot that turn.)

I imagine they ported that over to the current batch of SPAs.  It would give Trueborn pilots something to really set them apart if they're granted one SPA like this as part of their generation at the start of a game.

It is, twice.  One is Marksman, and the other is Sharpshooter.  It's expensive even before the "1 Weapon & Can't Move" costs are incorporated.  Basically it costs the same as Jumping Jack (Jumping AMM is +1) and Range Master (Swap Short Range Modifier with either Medium or Long).  Sharpshooter adds an auto-crit to the function.  It's not so bad with a Kit Fox or a Shadow Cat.  It tends to suck with units that tend to carry a few heavy weapons like the Nova Cat.

Guess what I can do with a Targeting Computer that you can't do with Marksman?  Move and do Called Shots with multiple guns.  Which works great with Mechs that have a lot of heavy guns like the Warhawk, or need to move and scoot to survive.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Lycanphoenix

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 205
  • Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
    • Message me on Telegram
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #291 on: 25 April 2024, 23:03:57 »
MoS modifiers? Please explain.
Edit: Crap. Once again mistook a post on the first page for a current one.

Koshirou

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #292 on: 28 May 2024, 06:35:24 »
I've basically rewritten all the rules I wanted to rewrite already.

One thing that I really can't rewrite without invalidating almost all previous 'Mech designs, but which I would do differently if I were in charge of a do-over: Heat sinks.
No more "heat sinks in engine" etc.; a BattleMech chassis has a base heat dissipation capacity of 10. Every heat sink adds 1 to that capacity. Every double heat sink, if used, adds 2. All added heat sinks (and none of the basic capacity) need to be placed on the critical sheet.

IMHO the possibility of converting the 10 basic "heat sinks" to double HS was one of two things in the original 2750/3050 tech that was totally out of balance with existing technology (the Gauss Rifle being the other one.)
I own an UrbanMech for base defense since that's what the House Masters intended!

Four Davie scouts break into the perimeter! "What the devil!" as I grab my Neurohelmet and AC/10. Blow a hovercar-sized hole into the first 'Mech; he explodes on the spot.
Ready my small laser against the second 'Mech - misses him entirely since its effective range is 90 meters and nails the neighbour's Raxx.
I have to resort to the Long Tom mounted on the top of the base, loaded with cluster ammo. "Tally-ho, Rats!" The clusters shred two 'Mechs in the blast. The sound and extra shrapnel set off DropShip klaxons.
Fire up jump jets and DFA the last terrified FedRat. He burns out on the pavement waiting for the salvage techs to arrive since Inferno rounds cooking off are impossible to extinguish!

Ah... just like the House Masters intended!

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10675
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #293 on: 29 May 2024, 12:46:55 »
I've basically rewritten all the rules I wanted to rewrite already.

One thing that I really can't rewrite without invalidating almost all previous 'Mech designs, but which I would do differently if I were in charge of a do-over: Heat sinks.
No more "heat sinks in engine" etc.; a BattleMech chassis has a base heat dissipation capacity of 10. Every heat sink adds 1 to that capacity. Every double heat sink, if used, adds 2. All added heat sinks (and none of the basic capacity) need to be placed on the critical sheet.

IMHO the possibility of converting the 10 basic "heat sinks" to double HS was one of two things in the original 2750/3050 tech that was totally out of balance with existing technology (the Gauss Rifle being the other one.)

I'd argue that the boot of Clantech was far more unbalancing, when you've got a selection of headcappers who do less heat than their IS equivalents that don't headcap.

but that's poking the dead horse.

your idea on heat sinks is actually close in line with OLD school, pre-TRO2750 battletech.

sometimes it DOES feel like someone at FASA/FanPro/Catalyst is a Monty Haul Dungeonmaster, especially when they hand out massive advantages without drawbacks to their favorite faction as equipment or special rules.

as happened with the Clan invasion.

okay, gotta stop beating the dead horse now, I'm gonna shut up, okay?
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13274
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #294 on: 29 May 2024, 13:25:20 »
IMHO the possibility of converting the 10 basic "heat sinks" to double HS was one of two things in the original 2750/3050 tech that was totally out of balance with existing technology (the Gauss Rifle being the other one.)
Well, to be fair, they were showing you "the golden age" after giving you the "salvage tech SW era"
Some of that stuff was SUPPOSED to be better
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13274
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #295 on: 29 May 2024, 13:27:18 »
I'd argue that the boot of Clantech was far more unbalancing, when you've got a selection of headcappers who do less heat than their IS equivalents that don't headcap.

What weapon(s) exactly are you talking about that do More Damage w/ Less Heat than the IS Version?  I'm lost.  I can't think of a single example of said combo.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3740
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #296 on: 29 May 2024, 14:57:44 »
Only thing I can think of is the LB-20X, but that's because the only IS equivalent at the time was an AC/20.  IS had the Gauss Rifle by then, so that's a wash.  The PPC was ER, so matched the same Heat, even if it did more damage.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Koshirou

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #297 on: 29 May 2024, 16:18:46 »
I'd argue that the boot of Clantech was far more unbalancing, when you've got a selection of headcappers who do less heat than their IS equivalents that don't headcap.
ClanTech is a different animal. But that was supposed to be unbalanced with IS tech.

Original (IS) 2750/3050 tech felt like it was "Okay, this has an advantage above the regular version... but there also is a drawback". Except DHS and arguably the Gauss Rifle.

Quote
your idea on heat sinks is actually close in line with OLD school, pre-TRO2750 battletech..
Thank you.

Quote
sometimes it DOES feel like someone at FASA/FanPro/Catalyst is a Monty Haul Dungeonmaster, especially when they hand out massive advantages without drawbacks to their favorite faction as equipment or special rules..
It's no secret that "more and better toys" sells. Problem with BTech is, it never does a reset like DnD does with new editions. Thus, more and more data to retain accrues over the years, and people either keep up or check out (as I did).
I own an UrbanMech for base defense since that's what the House Masters intended!

Four Davie scouts break into the perimeter! "What the devil!" as I grab my Neurohelmet and AC/10. Blow a hovercar-sized hole into the first 'Mech; he explodes on the spot.
Ready my small laser against the second 'Mech - misses him entirely since its effective range is 90 meters and nails the neighbour's Raxx.
I have to resort to the Long Tom mounted on the top of the base, loaded with cluster ammo. "Tally-ho, Rats!" The clusters shred two 'Mechs in the blast. The sound and extra shrapnel set off DropShip klaxons.
Fire up jump jets and DFA the last terrified FedRat. He burns out on the pavement waiting for the salvage techs to arrive since Inferno rounds cooking off are impossible to extinguish!

Ah... just like the House Masters intended!

Koshirou

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #298 on: 29 May 2024, 16:21:49 »
What weapon(s) exactly are you talking about that do More Damage w/ Less Heat than the IS Version?  I'm lost.  I can't think of a single example of said combo.
LB-20X without checking anything else. Clan LPL is also straight up (much) better in every way than an IS PPC and lighter too. Clan ER ML does almost as much damage as an IS LL and has the same range at less heat and one fifth(!) of the mass. Clan ER LL is better than the IS ER PPC (and the IS ER LL) in every respect (higher range, less heat, less weight) and equal in damage etc.
Clan pulse lasers are better than their IS counterparts in everything.
« Last Edit: 29 May 2024, 16:39:44 by Koshirou »
I own an UrbanMech for base defense since that's what the House Masters intended!

Four Davie scouts break into the perimeter! "What the devil!" as I grab my Neurohelmet and AC/10. Blow a hovercar-sized hole into the first 'Mech; he explodes on the spot.
Ready my small laser against the second 'Mech - misses him entirely since its effective range is 90 meters and nails the neighbour's Raxx.
I have to resort to the Long Tom mounted on the top of the base, loaded with cluster ammo. "Tally-ho, Rats!" The clusters shred two 'Mechs in the blast. The sound and extra shrapnel set off DropShip klaxons.
Fire up jump jets and DFA the last terrified FedRat. He burns out on the pavement waiting for the salvage techs to arrive since Inferno rounds cooking off are impossible to extinguish!

Ah... just like the House Masters intended!

Koshirou

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #299 on: 29 May 2024, 16:25:47 »
Well, to be fair, they were showing you "the golden age" after giving you the "salvage tech SW era"
Some of that stuff was SUPPOSED to be better
DHS under my rules would still be useful. Standard DHS are a no-brainer. If you don't use them, you're doing something wrong.
I own an UrbanMech for base defense since that's what the House Masters intended!

Four Davie scouts break into the perimeter! "What the devil!" as I grab my Neurohelmet and AC/10. Blow a hovercar-sized hole into the first 'Mech; he explodes on the spot.
Ready my small laser against the second 'Mech - misses him entirely since its effective range is 90 meters and nails the neighbour's Raxx.
I have to resort to the Long Tom mounted on the top of the base, loaded with cluster ammo. "Tally-ho, Rats!" The clusters shred two 'Mechs in the blast. The sound and extra shrapnel set off DropShip klaxons.
Fire up jump jets and DFA the last terrified FedRat. He burns out on the pavement waiting for the salvage techs to arrive since Inferno rounds cooking off are impossible to extinguish!

Ah... just like the House Masters intended!