Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[Scotty]

...Doesn't sound legal, unless LAC/5s dropped down to 4 tons while I wasn't looking to make room for that ammo.

[Liam's Ghost]

Ammo doesn't count for crew requirements.

[Alexander Knight]

Taurian field gun platoon. 6 light ac 5s manned by 30 men.

Hyep.  And 5 men per gun is above the minimum.  :)

[Liam's Ghost]

Hyep.  And 5 men per gun is above the minimum.  :)

Five men per gun is the minimum for LAC 5s. :P

[Alexander Knight]

Five men per gun is the minimum for LAC 5s. :P

But 2 men per gun is the minimum under discussion.  Hence, the LAC/5 platoon is above the minimum.

[worktroll]

Just think 28 SRM-2s.  Okay, saw AK's comment, still 14 SRM-2s. Or 14 SRM-4s, worse.

Would it be ridiculous to propose a 5 or 7 man minimum? Yes, 7 would nerf the canon Taurian 5-LAC platoon, but is it such a huge change?

I'm still uncomfortable with a 30-man platoon carrying 3 LRM-20s (IS), or 6 (Clan). Even with only 6 shots, that's pretty unholy. Two Gauss Rifles or UAC-20s in a platoon is also pretty unholy, admittedly.

(New Capellan unit - Miners. 30-man platoon, with 3 LRM-20s loaded with Thunder-Aug. You spend the first 3 turns spreading the joy liberally, then ditch the launchers to act as a slightly oversized standard infantry unit.)

[Scotty]

I say again: require missile weapons to use heat sinks as additional tonnage when determining personnel requirements.

Suddenly an LRM-20 that masses 16 tons isn't as attractive.  An SRM-2 that masses 3 loses a lot of the frightening bite that a single ton version does.  A five ton SRM-4 likewise.  It also neatly keeps RLs from getting absolutely out of control.  Even on the Clan side, it's suddenly 11 tons per LRM-20, which means a maximum of two of them per standard Clan point.

[worktroll]

Requiring heat sinks for missile weapons would balance things, but it adds a unique complication not found in autocannons in field guns, and distinct from the operation of autocannons and missile weapons in vehicles. Not saying it doesn't help.

[Scotty]

Balance first, fluff second.  That's the reason we've got weapon ranges that can be measured in tens of meters, and it has served BT well enough.

Since we're already talking about infantry, arguably the single unit type in the game that shares the least in terms of operation and rules with any other kind of unit, I'm inclined to say that a single exception to the effect of "towed missile weapons must account for weapon heat" isn't going to make them too terribly more complicated.

[pheonixstorm]

You really don't have to nerf Missiles so much as it is
Per latest (and earlier errata)

Each Field Gun requires a number of troopers equal to its weight in tonnage to operate, rounding up (to a minimum of 2 troopers per Field Gun). A platoon equipped with multiple Field Guns can only operate as many Field Guns as it can keep fully manned (any excess Field Guns are considered destroyed as the unit takes damage).

Just change that minimum 2 per Gun to a 3 or 4. Just look at the RAC/5 or an Ultra 20. They look powerful but aren't. And Ultra AC/20 gets one ton of ammo. 5 SHOTS.  To be an Uber weapon you would have to stay hidden and do a point blank shot.

Even having a 30 man platoon doesn't give your field gunners much of a chance in most games. Besides, only a Motorized platoon gets 30 men. Tracked 28, and wheeled 24.

Besides and alteration of minimum crew size your could also make sure that Missile field guns are restricted to Mechanized infantry only. Fluff it up to a matter of trailer size compared to the smaller autocannons (since most fluff has ACs using mostly smaller caliber shells).

Another suggestion beyond a restricted motive and larger minimum crew. Cluster penalties. It was brought up a few posts back, but since Field Guns don't have any (known) fire control the to-hit could remain unchanged just make sure to apply a cluster penalty.

There are ways to make missile field guns as scary as AC field guns w/o creating odd rules. Or breaking most current canon field guns. A HS requirement is not a good direction to go.

So, a project for all those involved. Break out two random map boards, create a LRM Field Gun company (3 platoons) based on the current field gun rules (including the changes in the 3.4 errata), setup a lance of mechs. Run a few scenarios with normal field guns and then LRM field guns and give a report on how it played out. Make sure at least one of those scenarios were on the open terrain maps, or a blank map to see how they fare with no cover. This will give everyone the best idea of how they will need to be tweaked for balance reasons. Sound good?

[ColBosch]

One suggestion: no (expletive deleted) Streak launchers for infantry.

[pheonixstorm]

That could very easily be fluffed as to why they can't be field guns. No fire control, no targeting/tracking gear normally used in mechs/vees to get said lock.

[mbear]

I disagree.  It doesn't have to be grandfathered against autocannon field gun platoons in either A) the autocannons meet the minimum trooper requirement as a matter of course or B) the minimum troop requirement only applies to towed missile weapons.  Energy weapons are already made roughly balanced by the heat sink requirement.

I fail to see any reason why B can't happen, especially since this is expressly a balance decision.

Energy weapons could be further balanced by having them incur a heat bloom effect like the one used by Battle Armor Myomer Booster,  so energy field guns can't deploy as hidden units. My thought is that the heat sinks used by the energy weapons aren't tied into a fusion reactor's control system and therefore don't run as efficiently.

Just think 28 SRM-2s.  Okay, saw AK's comment, still 14 SRM-2s. Or 14 SRM-4s, worse.

Would it be ridiculous to propose a 5 or 7 man minimum? Yes, 7 would nerf the canon Taurian 5-LAC platoon, but is it such a huge change?

I'm still uncomfortable with a 30-man platoon carrying 3 LRM-20s (IS), or 6 (Clan). Even with only 6 shots, that's pretty unholy. Two Gauss Rifles or UAC-20s in a platoon is also pretty unholy, admittedly.

(New Capellan unit - Miners. 30-man platoon, with 3 LRM-20s loaded with Thunder-Aug. You spend the first 3 turns spreading the joy liberally, then ditch the launchers to act as a slightly oversized standard infantry unit.)

How about reducing the ammunition from one ton to a half ton? Or making them One Shot versions? Still doesn't help with Rocket Launchers, but just wanted to suggest it.

[ColBosch]

The other thing that comes to my mind is that we already have infantry SRM and LRM launchers. Perhaps field gun versions of heavy weapon missile launchers would be redundant.

[Scotty]

Observation: AES is not mentioned in either the Alpha Strike main book, or the Companion.  Is this omission deliberate?

[nckestrel]

Observation: AES is not mentioned in either the Alpha Strike main book, or the Companion.  Is this omission deliberate?

No.

[pheonixstorm]

Perhaps field gun versions of heavy weapon missile launchers would be redundant.

Not really as those infantry scale weapons don't do much compared to a true towed field unit. Remember there is also an infantry autocannon support weapon. Is that redundant?

If you limit all types of field guns to a minimum crew of three then you can keep the smaller launchers (RL, SRM 2/4/6, LRM 5/10) to a more manageable number. It might not be perfect, but the rules don't allow for perfect. There is also a tradeoff somewhere.

[Sartris]

even with a minimum crew of three, you're allowed some horrific beatsticks like x10 IS SSRM-4s. That's 80 potential damage, which outperforms pretty much any autocannon-equipped platoon by a bunch.

I like the idea of lasers feeling cumbersome as field guns with all that added weight for heat sinks and power amplifiers. I feel like four as the minimum allows for less egregious exploitation while still lining up with the lightest Autocannon (LAC/2). If I had my druthers, I'd probably set the minimum to five as to hard cap the number of field guns in any platoon at 6.

[Maingunnery]

How about reducing the ammunition from one ton to a half ton? Or making them One Shot versions? Still doesn't help with Rocket Launchers, but just wanted to suggest it.

A combination of higher minimum crew per towed weapon combined with One-Shot versions would nerf the Field Launchers.

As for Field Gun energy weapons, ideas:
- Having them run on batteries/capacitors (like BA weapons). The number of shots can be made as a function of the weapon weight (weapon+SHS), thus more weight  = less shots.
- Or forcing them near a stationary combat vehicle (2 hexes?) that provides power, forcing the player to either take out the power source or the guns.

[BirdofPrey]

It's probably better to have it be a function of damage rather than mass.
Near as I can tell,  ballistics have around 100 damage in a ton of ammo, though gauss runs a but higher.

[HABeas2]

Observation: AES is not mentioned in either the Alpha Strike main book, or the Companion.  Is this omission deliberate?

I believe it basically has no real effect at the Alpha Strike level.

-

[Scotty]

Evidently.  That seems silly.  It's certainly neither a stretch nor difficult to apply the typical *1.1 multiplier to weapons mounted in a limb with AES, just like a targeting computer.

[Xotl]

We're examining the AES issue.

[BirdofPrey]

Evidently.  That seems silly.  It's certainly neither a stretch nor difficult to apply the typical *1.1 multiplier to weapons mounted in a limb with AES, just like a targeting computer.

Makes sense, but there's also the matter of AES giving a bonus to piloting rolls (arm AES gives a -1 to melee attacks, and leg mounted AES gives a -2 to PSRs)

[Liam's Ghost]

It's a fact of life that Alpha Strike is an abstraction of an abstraction. There may be no way to fit everything in.

[Weirdo]

Poor M-Pods... :'(

[Scotty]

Makes sense, but there's also the matter of AES giving a bonus to piloting rolls (arm AES gives a -1 to melee attacks, and leg mounted AES gives a -2 to PSRs)

I'd be much happier if AES included weapon damage modifiers under the AS ruleset and nothing else than the current absolute zero effect.

[Maingunnery]

It's probably better to have it be a function of damage rather than mass.
Near as I can tell,  ballistics have around 100 damage in a ton of ammo, though gauss runs a but higher.

So?:
The number of shots that a Field Weapon has is equal to 100 divided by the weapon damage (rounded down) or that of a single ton of ammunition, choose whichever option has the least number of shots. 

[Scotty]

Will the notable pilots' 'Mechs from the Alpha Strike Lance Packs be added to the MUL at any point?  Several are non-standard, and at present a sufficiently dedicated stickler could claim that by not appearing on the MUL they're not canon.

[nckestrel]

Will the notable pilots' 'Mechs from the Alpha Strike Lance Packs be added to the MUL at any point?  Several are non-standard, and at present a sufficiently dedicated stickler could claim that by not appearing on the MUL they're not canon.

Ok, I can make a listing for them.  Wouldn't want a stickler to miss out.
But I presume you really want to know is whether or not the Alpha Strike cards would also be included on the MUL.  To that, I don't know yet.  I need to go ask.
This should really be in the MUL thread though, this isn't errata.

EDIT: And...Nope, we won't be adding those cards to the MUL at this time.

EDIT2: Note that except for the Vulcan (Carras) and Catapult "Butterbee 2", all of the rest are already on the MUL.  Many just have different pilots.   The Battlemaster from the Ad Hoc deck is a K3.  The Nightstar is a 9J.  The Zeus is a Zeus (Leonidas).  The Hellstar...is a Hellstar.  From the Lance Packs, the Wolfhound (Finn) is a WFL-1 (Allard).  The Grasshopper "Gravedigger" is on the MUL already.  Awesome (Mink) is an Awesome (Smith).   The Grand Dragon (Kisomata) is the Grand Dragon 5K (Mark).  The Banshee (Bauer) is a copy of the Banshee (Vandergriff).   Only the Vulcan and Catapult were new designs.