Battlefield Support Rules Open Beta - Feedback and Discussion

[Xotl]

EDIT: Update 28 has the link for the 2nd beta.

This thread is for rules-based discussion of the latest Battlefield Support playtest document to be included in the upcoming BattleTech: Mercenaries Kickstarter.

The idea is that you submit your primary playtesting reports via email, as the playtesting document asks.  However, as an exception to the normal rules forum protocols, I encourage rules-based discussion here.  If you want to get a bit more detailed in terms of questions, concerns, what happened during your playtest session, etc, and perhaps engage in some back and forth, I'm happy to entertain deeper discussion.  The BT community, and in particular the forums, have proven invaluable time and again in helping us make BT rules less confusing and just plain more fun, and I'm really excited about drawing on that.  Every BT beta has resulted in a massive improvement to the final product.

Important caveats:

1) A certain amount of gut-checking and theory-crafting is helpful.  These have had some playtesting, but compared to the number of players out there that's a drop in the ocean, and part of further review is simply going to be reading it and bringing your eyes and personal play experience to bear.  That having been said, actual playtest experience will always be prioritised over gut checks.  Make it clear in your posts if your comments reflect play at the table, or instead opinions upon reading.

2) The assumed playerbase is one who owns the AGOAC and Clan Invasion box sets, and is using these to supplement Battlemech (and perhaps battle armour) play.  This is why so many wider TW/BMM concepts are not included/referenced.  That's not to say that these Support rules form a new rules level or new edition or anything like that: merely that they were written with a specific assumption in terms of products you own (in the same way that, say, TacOps assumes ownership of TW but not IO).  You'll see evidence of this in a variety of places, such as a lack of mention of how ATMs clear minefields.

3) There's no intent here to eliminate the current, long-standing vehicle rules.  In the same way that the publication of the original Battlefield Support rules in the BMM didn't wind up with us removing the full-on aero rules from TW or the full artillery and minefield rules from the redo of TacOps, these new rules simply give people a way to keep the primary focus on the mech while not playing mech-only games.  It's just a new tool in the chest, something BT is rather fond of adding.

4) Suggestions are okay, especially for fixes, though I'm much more interested in playtesting of what we have than adding all-new material at this point (which for the most part is not likely to happen, due to the need to test everything and this being the last round of playtesting).  The primary idea is "keep it simple".  Bear in mind this "keep it simple" mantra when giving feedback, because if a suggestion requires notable added complexity it's likely to be rejected outright no matter its merits otherwise.

5) Questions about the kickstarter and other wider production/line dev-related stuff are all outside this thread's purview: I'm a rules monkey, not a guy running a business.  This thread is for playtesting only and exists solely to hone the rules.  Use Ask The Devs or the current General Discussion Kickstarter thread for questions of wider scope.  At the same time, while general impressions and opinions are fine, I'd request you leave detailed playtest comments out of other threads.

6) The point-costing system is not part of this campaign and so is not available.  I realize this makes balancing points somewhat trickier; my apologies.

7) I am not looking for a new rules or point system.  Please limit your comments to the system actually under discussion, and small fixes/variants thereof.


What am I primarily hunting for?

• Skewed points costing (the BV/BSP conversion, the suggested points totals, or the costs of units and strikes)
• Unclear rules
• Broken rules
• Clumsy wording
• Missing rules interactions
• Ways to improve the Asset cards

[Rekkon]

A couple things from my first read-through.
1.  The optional rules for Ammo Containers say they can reload Assets that track ammunition, but according to the Combat section, assets do not track ammunition.  Were Containers intended to be used by mechs and other "full rules" units?  Same question for Parts Caches and MASHs since I assume Assets do not the things they reference (and in once case uses a MechWarrior as an example).
2.  The stacking rules say infantry and emplacements are destroyed if in the same hex as enemy battle armor.  Does this also happen if friendly battle armor (or I suppose a friendly mech or something) are also in the same hex or is the intent for destruction only for unopposed enemy battle armor having a little rip and tear moment?
3.  If an Asset takes only heat damage in a turn, does the amount of heat damage stack into equivalent damage?  The current wording could be interpreted as only requiring a base Destroy Check for any amount of heat damage, as long as there is no regular damage to trigger the check.

[Xotl]

A couple things from my first read-through.
1.  The optional rules for Ammo Containers say they can reload Assets that track ammunition, but according to the Combat section, assets do not track ammunition.  Were Containers intended to be used by mechs and other "full rules" units?  Same question for Parts Caches and MASHs since I assume Assets do not the things they reference (and in once case uses a MechWarrior as an example).

That's an error, the result of last-minute relabelling.  The ability would not affect Assets as you say, since they don't track ammo.  It's only meant to work with traditional, non-Asset units.

2.  The stacking rules say infantry and emplacements are destroyed if in the same hex as enemy battle armor.  Does this also happen if friendly battle armor (or I suppose a friendly mech or something) are also in the same hex or is the intent for destruction only for unopposed enemy battle armor having a little rip and tear moment?

Currently, even if friendly battle armour are in the hex.  This may change: as with a lot of things in these rules, there's a need to weigh adding caveats that might feel more accurate, vs bogging things down with lots of rules subclauses.

3.  If an Asset takes only heat damage in a turn, does the amount of heat damage stack into equivalent damage?  The current wording could be interpreted as only requiring a base Destroy Check for any amount of heat damage, as long as there is no regular damage to trigger the check.

No, you've read it right: any amount of heat = one Destroy Check.  I'm tempted to simply change it to something like every point of heat = 2 damage (regardless of circumstance), which makes all examples of heat-taking the same and rewards dumping a lot onto a single unit.

[DevianID]

The sequencing of initiative and assets is unclear to me.  It says "All Assets perform all movement actions first in each Movement Phase. Only after movement for all Assets have been resolved is non-Asset movement resolved, per the normal rules."  So if I have Asset units, do I move all assets as my first action regardless of normal uneven unit initiative activation, do I have to move asset units before non asset units following normal uneven unit activation rules, or do I move all Assets before anyone moves anything even if I win initiative.  How does the +1 initiative to assets from the mobile HQ interact with this if Assets never act on initiative (unless both sides have assets).

Just wondering if I have 3 elemental Asset units and 5 clan mechs, versus 4 inner sphere mechs, and I roll a 10 for initiative versus my opponents 4, what is the intended sequence of elemental asset and IS/Clan mech activation.  I see either 3 asset, then IS/Clan/IS/Clan/IS/Clan/IS/Clanx2, or IS/Assetx2/IS/Asset+Clan/IS/Clanx2/IS/Clanx2, or IS/Assetx3/IS/Clan/IS/Clanx2/IS/Clanx2.  The old rules were 3 assets first, but Like the AE damage bit below im trying not to use old rules to base opinions on how these new assets work.

The rules portion doesnt make mention of bombs, artillery, and mines being area of effect damage.  The AE tag comes from the strike cards only.  Are the new BSP attack rules ment to deal AE damage, and if so probably need the rules to say that explicitly, instead of 'infantry take double damage from artillery' under the damage to assets table.  Or does none of the strikes deal AE damage now, using only the rules portion and ignoring the AE damage type on the cards as an artifact from the old card.

The mobile long tom has both a TMM and an attack that cant be replicated with the normal long tom strike.  The mobile long tom reduces scatter by half, and takes no time in flight, but also hits on a 8 instead of a 10 like a 'standard' direct fire attack with a unit generating a TMM; further it has no range instead of a 17 hex direct fire range.  This is more of a question asking if a shot from a mobile long tom is supposed to be better then the one purchased with 18 points.  It seems like a Mobile long tom is strictly the most superior indirect attack vehicle of any BSP asset unit but Id like to make sure (edit: being many many times more damaging/accurate/longer ranged for the cost compared to the LRM carrier).

For spotting/weapon attacks, in the normal rules infantry of all kinds (conventional and battle armor) do not take a movement modifier to TMM.  In the rules section, it says conventional infantry assets do not take a +2 spotter running penalty but all others do (Battle armor, immobile weapon implacements).  It goes further to say that things that refer to infantry do not refer to battle armor for these rules.  So is it intended that immobile assets and battle armor can no longer spot well to make infantry somehow different in asset form compared to battle armor?  Also, weapon emplacements hit on a 5 (but didnt move to get a skill4+2run penalty) and infantry/battle armor hit on a 6 (but are not penalized by a run so normally hit on a 4).  Should the hit values represent the spirit of the unit per normal total warfare, or be at 6 as some kind of abstraction.  Finally, battle armor can make swarm attacks against assets in the same hex.  Normally all infantry (conventional and battle armor) can shoot units in the same hex with weapon attacks.  If an infantry unit or battle armor unit is in the same hex as a mech, can it attack the mech like in total warfare, or does it lose the ability to shoot in the same hex when used in asset form?

Edit: As an aside, the AI damage tag and AE damage tag on weapons carried by battlemechs have effects versus conventional infantry, such as a machine gun dealing 2d6 damage to conventional infantry.  Does the 2d6 damage to conventional infantry from a mech's machine gun weapon treat infantry assets as such, meaning you deal 7 damage on average to infantry assets instead of 2.  Same for all the battlemech special ammos such as frag SRMs, do they have any effect on infantry assets?

[jasonf]

Hi Xotl, thanks for starting this thread! I did a careful read-through of the rules and have a bunch of "gut-check" comments, but I'll save most until after I can playtest a bit before I post them.

Before that, though, I had a couple clarifying questions...

What am I primarily hunting for?

• Unclear rules
• Broken rules
• Clumsy wording
• Missing rules interactions

For these comments, should we treat the rules summary PDF as the draft of the actual rulebook that will go with the box set (so, go full-force on grammar/exposition comments), or more of a summary of the rules that will be wordsmithed heavily after the beta period?

6) The point-costing system is not part of this campaign and so is not available.  I realize this makes balancing points somewhat trickier; my apologies.

What am I primarily hunting for?

• Skewed points costing (the BV/BSP conversion, the suggested points totals, or the costs of units and strikes)

Along those lines... these two points confused me. Do you mean that you can't give us the formulas for how the BSP costs were derived for vehicles and infantry, but just let you know if any of them look out of whack?

I did have a couple bigger-picture gut-check comments before playtesting, though:
1. I feel like the Optional Rules for the combat support vehicles on p. 6 seem a bit too unrealistic for the BT universe, even as an optional rule. They seem more like bonuses you'd get in a video game to be honest. Plus, it seems like to be balanced, the healed/repaired/rearmed unit should need to not move/fire in the turn it is tended to, which may attract taking more damage than its trying to fix. I *do* like having these units as Assets, since they can make great objectives to protect, capture, or destroy in a scenario, but I think these effects like these are better left to play between scenarios in any linked/Chaos campaign. 

2. I also feel like having some vehicles take up 2 hexes violates rule #4 above. Multi-hex (support) vehicles are a TacOps advanced rule, and I think issues that aren't worth dealing with are likely to come up because of it. Plus, all the multi-hex vehicles included are actually single-hex vehicles in TW.  As an example, consider a Mobile LTIII that moves from clear Lv1 to Lv0 light woods. Its front gets +1 THM from the woods and has LOS blocked from behind by the hill, but its rear is on that hill and in the open--can a unit take the easier/unblocked attack to its rear? And if not, what is added to gameplay from making the Asset 2 hexes long (since making all movement and attack decisions based on the front hex of the Asset would make it a de facto 1-hex Asset)?

3. After reading through the rules, I get the feeling that the final rulebook might work best if it followed the free Chaos Campaigns PDF format... that is:

• Pp. 1-8 or so: the most basic of Battlefield Support rules for players who only own the AGoAC and CI box sets to dive right in. (and maybe even a simpler version that only focuses on IntroTech related stuff... so would just be support for the AGoAC box set.
• Pp. 9+: expansions on these rules for those who are familiar with the TW rules, but want to use the simpler system here. Stuff like urban combat and the existing BSP rules might fit better here, since neither of these are in the AGoAC or CI rulebooks, but are in the BMM

[Fear Factory]

So, just so I understand this right for taking damage:

- Each asset has a rating to knock them out in a turn and an amount of hits they can take.
- If an asset takes damage higher than it's threshold you make a check, hit or miss, mark the damage down by 1
- If an asset takes damage lower than the threshold you mark the damage down by 1 - OR - do you ignore it?

So my main question is if you have a 'Mech like a Vulcan plinking a Demolisher with an AC/2... Is it going to do damage if it just uses the AC/2 OR is it essentially just ignored because it can't meet the damage threshold? Because if this is the case then it's a place where abstraction went a little too far (IMO).

The only other thing that I think needs work (if I understand correctly) is the damage caused by the asset. An SRM carrier doesn't really look like it's going to feel like one other than damage output. And even so, it's not much different than say a PPC carrier that's doing 10 points per location. There should be an ability that if an SRM carrier causes damage that hits internal structure it gets like a +1 on the critical hit chart (crit-seeking ability).

If this isn't allowed or if I missed something, I apoligize.

[Xotl]

The sequencing of initiative and assets is unclear to me.  It says "All Assets perform all movement actions first in each Movement Phase. Only after movement for all Assets have been resolved is non-Asset movement resolved, per the normal rules."  So if I have Asset units, do I move all assets as my first action regardless of normal uneven unit initiative activation, do I have to move asset units before non asset units following normal uneven unit activation rules, or do I move all Assets before anyone moves anything even if I win initiative.  How does the +1 initiative to assets from the mobile HQ interact with this if Assets never act on initiative (unless both sides have assets).

You have read it right: it's as it says.  This is so you can't use Assets as initiative sinks.  Resolve them all, then get to the regular rules that non-Asset units use.

The Commander wording is messed up as a result of some last minute changes I see (it says it both affects and doesn't affect Assets).  I'll have to go back and figure out what people want to do with that now.  Originally the idea was that it affected only non-Asset units.

Just wondering if I have 3 elemental Asset units and 5 clan mechs, versus 4 inner sphere mechs, and I roll a 10 for initiative versus my opponents 4, what is the intended sequence of elemental asset and IS/Clan mech activation.  I see either 3 asset, then IS/Clan/IS/Clan/IS/Clan/IS/Clanx2, or IS/Assetx2/IS/Asset+Clan/IS/Clanx2/IS/Clanx2, or IS/Assetx3/IS/Clan/IS/Clanx2/IS/Clanx2.  The old rules were 3 assets first, but Like the AE damage bit below im trying not to use old rules to base opinions on how these new assets work.

It should be the same as the BoT rules.  Assets always go first, so they are moved regardless of initiative result (though you follow initiative to resolve this Asset movement portion, if both sides are using Assets).  Then you handle all your non-Asset rules per the normal rules, as if the Assets didn't exist.

The rules portion doesnt make mention of bombs, artillery, and mines being area of effect damage.  The AE tag comes from the strike cards only.  Are the new BSP attack rules ment to deal AE damage, and if so probably need the rules to say that explicitly, instead of 'infantry take double damage from artillery' under the damage to assets table.  Or does none of the strikes deal AE damage now, using only the rules portion and ignoring the AE damage type on the cards as an artifact from the old card.

As above, the target audience is assumed to only own the base box sets, which don't have damage types.  The cards I believe shouldn't reference AE damage for that reason.  However, I might just add the damage types back to the table and add a small explainer note on them, since AGOAC does mention they exist and feature them on its record sheets even if it doesn't explain them.

The mobile long tom has both a TMM and an attack that cant be replicated with the normal long tom strike.  The mobile long tom reduces scatter by half, and takes no time in flight, but also hits on a 8 instead of a 10 like a 'standard' direct fire attack with a unit generating a TMM; further it has no range instead of a 17 hex direct fire range.  This is more of a question asking if a shot from a mobile long tom is supposed to be better then the one purchased with 18 points.  It seems like a Mobile long tom is strictly the most superior indirect attack vehicle of any BSP asset unit but Id like to make sure (edit: being many many times more damaging/accurate/longer ranged for the cost compared to the LRM carrier).

Balance is a big thing we're hoping to get feedback on.  You lose the ability to pre-plot hexes, any possible -1/-2 spotter bonus, and are now vulnerable to air strikes and other destruction.  Is that still too good?  If people think so / playtest experience bears that out, we'll raise the cost.  I'd only note it's being compared against the Long Tom strike (which also hits on an 8), not the TacOps version, since you're not using those rules presumably if you're using these.

For spotting/weapon attacks, in the normal rules infantry of all kinds (conventional and battle armor) do not take a movement modifier to TMM.  In the rules section, it says conventional infantry assets do not take a +2 spotter running penalty but all others do (Battle armor, immobile weapon implacements).  It goes further to say that things that refer to infantry do not refer to battle armor for these rules.  So is it intended that immobile assets and battle armor can no longer spot well to make infantry somehow different in asset form compared to battle armor?

Yes, that's the intent: it's conventional infantry's niche, along with being transportable.  However, emplacements should have that ability as well, since they're never moving: I'll make a note.  Thanks for pointing that out.

Also, weapon emplacements hit on a 5 (but didnt move to get a skill4+2run penalty) and infantry/battle armor hit on a 6 (but are not penalized by a run so normally hit on a 4).  Should the hit values represent the spirit of the unit per normal total warfare, or be at 6 as some kind of abstraction.  Finally, battle armor can make swarm attacks against assets in the same hex.  Normally all infantry (conventional and battle armor) can shoot units in the same hex with weapon attacks.  If an infantry unit or battle armor unit is in the same hex as a mech, can it attack the mech like in total warfare, or does it lose the ability to shoot in the same hex when used in asset form?

None of those rules exist for the reader of this ruleset and so only what is there matters.  There's no assumption that the reader has TW, which is why units in this ruleset work like mechs in so many ways.  Take the Asset rules as they are written.  It is conceivable that infantry has their Skill ratings improved to 5.  Originally I was very strongly against any Skill changes, as a way of keeping things manageable ("everything uses 6" is extremely easy to remember and manage).  But that has been watered down over time and so it's possible there may be further changes in that regard.  However, it would more be in the service of wider balance than fidelity to TW/BMM.

Edit: As an aside, the AI damage tag and AE damage tag on weapons carried by battlemechs have effects versus conventional infantry, such as a machine gun dealing 2d6 damage to conventional infantry.  Does the 2d6 damage to conventional infantry from a mech's machine gun weapon treat infantry assets as such, meaning you deal 7 damage on average to infantry assets instead of 2.  Same for all the battlemech special ammos such as frag SRMs, do they have any effect on infantry assets?

None of that applies.  The idea is that the player stands a good chance of not having all those rules.  Infantry have been made more generically vulnerable as a sort of compensation.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Xotl]

For these comments, should we treat the rules summary PDF as the draft of the actual rulebook that will go with the box set (so, go full-force on grammar/exposition comments), or more of a summary of the rules that will be wordsmithed heavily after the beta period?

Full on (minus typos).

Along those lines... these two points confused me. Do you mean that you can't give us the formulas for how the BSP costs were derived for vehicles and infantry, but just let you know if any of them look out of whack?

Yes.  Are their units you'd always take / never take under this costing scheme?  If so, I want to know what they are.

1. I feel like the Optional Rules for the combat support vehicles on p. 6 seem a bit too unrealistic for the BT universe, even as an optional rule. They seem more like bonuses you'd get in a video game to be honest. Plus, it seems like to be balanced, the healed/repaired/rearmed unit should need to not move/fire in the turn it is tended to, which may attract taking more damage than its trying to fix. I *do* like having these units as Assets, since they can make great objectives to protect, capture, or destroy in a scenario, but I think these effects like these are better left to play between scenarios in any linked/Chaos campaign.

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

2. I also feel like having some vehicles take up 2 hexes violates rule #4 above. Multi-hex (support) vehicles are a TacOps advanced rule, and I think issues that aren't worth dealing with are likely to come up because of it. Plus, all the multi-hex vehicles included are actually single-hex vehicles in TW.  As an example, consider a Mobile LTIII that moves from clear Lv1 to Lv0 light woods. Its front gets +1 THM from the woods and has LOS blocked from behind by the hill, but its rear is on that hill and in the open--can a unit take the easier/unblocked attack to its rear? And if not, what is added to gameplay from making the Asset 2 hexes long (since making all movement and attack decisions based on the front hex of the Asset would make it a de facto 1-hex Asset)?

I have no idea why some vehicles were made multi-hex.  At the same time, this deals with production issues, in that the model is going to be based on renders already complete and printed using those renders.  So they're not changing.

3. After reading through the rules, I get the feeling that the final rulebook might work best if it followed the free Chaos Campaigns PDF format... that is:

• Pp. 1-8 or so: the most basic of Battlefield Support rules for players who only own the AGoAC and CI box sets to dive right in. (and maybe even a simpler version that only focuses on IntroTech related stuff... so would just be support for the AGoAC box set.
• Pp. 9+: expansions on these rules for those who are familiar with the TW rules, but want to use the simpler system here. Stuff like urban combat and the existing BSP rules might fit better here, since neither of these are in the AGoAC or CI rulebooks, but are in the BMM

There is an idea to release the full-on, points and all, assume-the-reader-has-all-the-rules version in a future sourcebook.

[Xotl]

So, just so I understand this right for taking damage:

- Each asset has a rating to knock them out in a turn and an amount of hits they can take.
- If an asset takes damage higher than it's threshold you make a check, hit or miss, mark the damage down by 1
- If an asset takes damage lower than the threshold you mark the damage down by 1 - OR - do you ignore it?

So my main question is if you have a 'Mech like a Vulcan plinking a Demolisher with an AC/2... Is it going to do damage if it just uses the AC/2 OR is it essentially just ignored because it can't meet the damage threshold? Because if this is the case then it's a place where abstraction went a little too far (IMO).

Ignored.  You can destroy the vast majority of units with a single medium laser shot.  It was felt that the larger tanks needed something a bit more, to give them reason to be fielded and provide a better sense of differentiation at the top end of the scale.

The only other thing that I think needs work (if I understand correctly) is the damage caused by the asset. An SRM carrier doesn't really look like it's going to feel like one other than damage output. And even so, it's not much different than say a PPC carrier that's doing 10 points per location. There should be an ability that if an SRM carrier causes damage that hits internal structure it gets like a +1 on the critical hit chart (crit-seeking ability).

That's perhaps getting too far in the weeds.  If more feel the same we will take a look at such, but for now the idea behind a SRM Carrier is "scary unit that explodes if you look at it and has a 3/6/9 bubble" and I feel the current one captures that.

[Daryk]

*snip*
I have no idea why some vehicles were made multi-hex, and will check on that.  I agree that it seems quite odd.
*snip*

Please do, because looking at the counters, it seems Mobile HQs and MASHs became two hexes in size, and Mobile Long Toms grew to three.  ???

[Xotl]

Please do, because looking at the counters, it seems Mobile HQs and MASHs became two hexes in size, and Mobile Long Toms grew to three.  ???

Just edited my response to this.  Basically, anything with a basis in production (i.e. physical product) is likely already set, and so is not changing because these things have enormous lead times.  Based on images in the Kickstarter thread, when talking about the production miniatures only the Long Tom is multi-hex, and miniatures are going to have precedence over any stop-gap counters representing the same thing.  But that's only my quick read from the images posted there.

[Daryk]

Thank you, kind sir!  :thumbsup:

[Fear Factory]

Ignored.  You can destroy the vast majority of units with a single medium laser shot.  It was felt that the larger tanks needed something a bit more, to give them reason to be fielded and provide a better sense of differentiation at the top end of the scale.

I see why you would go that route... but I don't really agree with it. Damage should always do something even if it is a single point.

A Vulcan consistantly hitting the same Warrior with an AC/2 will never do anything? An SRM'2 can't do anything? An LRM-5 can only do something if you hit with all missiles?

If a lance of Vulcans fire their AC/2's and connect with all 4 on a Demolisher, even if it is 8 points total, because it's from more than one unit, they do no damage? No effect?

I like to use 'Mechs like the Vulcan, Assassin... all of the sub par units. To me they just end up being useless until you decide to just run in and kick. Pretty one-dimensional.

Edit: Sorry... I'm a weirdo.

[Xotl]

I see why you would go that route... but I don't really agree with it. Damage should always do something even if it is a single point.

A Vulcan consistantly hitting the same Warrior with an AC/2 will never do anything? An SRM'2 can't do anything? An LRM-5 can only do something if you hit with all missiles?

If a lance of Vulcans fire their AC/2's and connect with all 4 on a Demolisher, even if it is 8 points total, because it's from more than one unit, they do no damage? No effect?

I like to use 'Mechs like the Vulcan, Assassin... all of the sub par units. To me they just end up being useless until you decide to just run in and kick. Pretty one-dimensional.

If you allow 1 pt of damage to do anything you get a different, and far worse absurdity: standing a good chance of blowing up even the toughest combat units with 1 pt of damage: far more likely than regular BT.  Abstractions require sacrifices: it's the price you pay for speed and ease of play.

However, 8 pts of damage still matters if it comes from multiple sources ("If an Asset takes sufficient damage in a turn").  You add up all damage from all sources when resolving if a damage check happens and the modifier applied to it.

[Fear Factory]

If you allow 1 pt of damage to do anything you get a different, and far worse absurdity: standing a good chance of blowing up even the toughest combat units with 1 pt of damage: far more likely than regular BT.  Abstractions require sacrifices: it's the price you pay for speed and ease of play.

I get it.  :-\

There are just units that exist that will never ever get a roll against heavier units on their own. If you're in a situation, even if one of your assets is a Vedette and the other a Demolisher, you can outmaneuver it all day but never ever destroy it for the entire game even if you keep hitting it. You could basically field large assets against recon 'Mechs and use them to sink damage without ever taking damage themselves. Have you guys/gals playtested using smaller unit compositions? Like just lance v lance of light/medium 'Mechs?

However, 8 pts of damage still matters if it comes from multiple sources ("If an Asset takes sufficient damage in a turn").  You add up all damage from all sources when resolving if a damage check happens and the modifier applied to it.

That certainly changes things... but I'm still on the fence about it. But hey if it works then it works, just another set of rules to learn for this game.

[DevianID]

Fear Factory, im not Xotl, but you get more then a vedette versus a demolisher, so the idea that you need a vedette+something else is potentially fine, as you have a minimum of 6 points of 'something else' to match the value of the demolisher.  Also, if testing shows that the demolisher is too cheap or the vedette too expensive, that sounds like the exact sort of in game feedback they are looking for.

As for a demolisher versus recon mechs, almost all recon mechs can do 8 damage, such as the locust doing 5+2+2, +4 from a kick.  So in general while a vulcan can destroy a demolisher in current total war, from the side to burn through the 30 armor and 8 structure it takes 19 rounds if every attack hits the side and none hit any other location.  So you wouldnt see a vulcan destroy a demolisher in a standard 10-20 turn game of battletech either, thus the abstraction saying that 2 damage doesnt ever kill a demolisher asset with a vulcan is probably one of the more accurate things they got right with the asset rules.

Xotl, you said in your response

You have read it right: it's as it says.  This is so you can use Assets as initiative sinks.

  From context later in the post it seems you meant to say CAN'T use assets as init sinks.  Which is how it was in tukayyid, and what Im used to, but I want to make sure the wording is stone cold clear for my players as I subject them to the new BSP beta rules instead of the old ones in Tukayyid for my ongoing tukayyid campaign.

Xotl, question.  The no-asset card "optional rules" assets, especially the flat bed truck, are all really problematic as I see it.  They add the ability to do something that does not exist in any other form in a normal game of battletech (which sends a bad message I think as players move between or beyond the BSP rules), and are complex enough that multiple rules need to cover them.  IF they are getting minis, then its fine and they should have a card and be a cheap transport (since the BSP rules here have transport as a thing) as thats what flatbeds are after all.  If they are not getting minis, then a 2 point flatbed that uses the up armored card of the galleon tank with no weapon (very odd) is far too spammable, as they are the cheapest assets you can buy, and are decently tough to kill, with lots of complicated rules that are easy to mess up.  I would like to see these as non-interactive mission objectives personally, but I dont have all the information yet on what models are being made.

Off hand, if used as objectives, then the side controlling them at the end of a game would get to heal one mechwarrior per MASH level captured, and refill x amount of ammo per ammo crate, ect, without paying the warchest cost/needing a doctor roll (in place of a warchest reward like all the normal victory objectives in chaos campaigns).  But if the mercs KS isnt including any structure for linked battles or chaos campaign support, then its more trouble then worth for balance--we use the chaos campaign in one of my games and campaign ops in the other, and for both giving free heals to a damaged mechwarrior mid battle is hugely problematic with how both the existing campaign rules interact with healing.  Yes, it seems that these rules pretend all other rules dont exist, but to add cumbersome special rules that WORK AGAINST integration with other systems feels bad, as its super easy to design the rules to integrate seamlessly with the outside systems.

With the cards for strikes, in addition to the AE tag mentioned earlier, there is the orphaned bluff card.  The optional hidden aerospace rules are in the support deck but not in the main document.  If the support deck is going to be a separate product with the optional hidden aerospace rules only found there, that is fine, but if it is meant to be one package it should be in the main document.  Also, the bluff is free and limited to 1 per player, thus the cost should not be 1 but 0*.  Off the bat, compared to the current rules the hidden aerospace rules make intercepting air attacks much harder for air cover.  Say I declare and use 2 light strikes and 2 heavy strikes, and my opponent uses 2 light covers and 2 heavy covers.  With the standard rules, the light covers to to each strike, and stop each on a 3, and the heavy covers stop each heavy strike on a 5.  This means the air covers reduce the air attacks by 90%.  Now, the same interaction with hidden air plus the one bluff, there are 5 face down attack cards.  You have a 2/5 of matching a light to a light, 2/5 of light to heavy, and 1/5 of matching to a bluff.

There are 7 unique combos, A, match perfect.  B, Heavy hits the bluff. C mismatch 1 light 1 heavy D mismatch 1 light 1 heavy  and heavy hits bluff E mismatch 1 light and light hits the bluff, F Mismatch everything, G missmatch 2 heavies 1 light light hits bluff.  These combos reduce the damage reduction from matching air cover from 90% reduction to 53%.  If you dont use the bluff, then the hidden card caused mismatch reduced damage from 90% to 59%.  So 52% more air cover is needed with hidden cards and with no bluff used, and 70% more air cover needed when a bluff card is used.
When using hidden cards plus free bluff air cover costs exceed the costs of the attacks while still not stopping 100% of potential damage.  If the attacker uses 28 BSP of air power, the defender needs 18 BSP to reduce the 28 air strikes effectiveness by 90% normally, or 27.5 BSP in air cover to reduce 28 BSP in strikes by the same amount with just hidden cards, and 31 BSP in air cover to reduce 28 BSP in strikes with hidden cards and a bluff card.

So the 1 bluff card a side is allowed should not be free, it should cost 3 or 4 BSP per the math.  Also, hidden aerospace in general means you probably should ignore air cover all together, as you dont fully cover the damage done, as hidden card (with no bluff) means that if you spend equal in air cover to the enemies air strikes, they still deal 5-10 damage through your cover and you spent all those points inefficiently as if they dont buy lots of air strikes you waste all your points.  With the face up rules, air cover is good at countering air power if they take it, and you still run the risk of the enemy not buying any air power so air cover NEEDS to be better then air power for air cover to make sense at all.  Suggestions?  Assuming you make the bluff card cost 4 BSP and not be a free upgrade, if the player correctly guess a light to light or heavy to heavy air cover card to a face down strike card, the attack is stopped with no roll needed.  This is STILL worse for air cover then the base rules (its a 40% cost increase in air cover to be as effective as base rules), but it at least gives the player who wants to use air cover a reason to agree to hidden aerospace, as he gets something when he guesses right and loses something when he guesses wrong and mismatches his cover to the wrong type.  Like I said, its still worse on average for the person who wants to use air cover to agree to hidden aerospace, but at least its not ALL bad and they get to play the minigame too.

[Xotl]

Xotl, you said in your response   From context later in the post it seems you meant to say CAN'T use assets as init sinks.  Which is how it was in tukayyid, and what Im used to, but I want to make sure the wording is stone cold clear for my players as I subject them to the new BSP beta rules instead of the old ones in Tukayyid for my ongoing tukayyid campaign.

Oops, that was a typo on my part.  I did indeed mean *can't* use them as initiative sinks, and have gone back and edited my post to read as such.

I'll have to get to the rest of your post tomorrow.

[Fear Factory]

It’s cool. I’m just trying to understand.

[jasonf]

Full on (minus typos).

Ok, just remember you asked for it... ::)  I'll go through it in some more detail after playtesting another scenario or two, and may just post a marked up PDF rather than posting a mini-novella of edits, if you think that would work.

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

Some people want to eat a well-done tetatae burger in front of these people, and then let them know the thing's going extinct once I finish the last two patties.  :brew:

I have no idea why some vehicles were made multi-hex.  At the same time, this deals with production issues, in that the model is going to be based on renders already complete and printed using those renders.  So they're not changing.

I see. In that case, I think it would make the rules much simpler if they just treat the Asset as 1-hex unit, regardless of the size of the mini. That is, I would write the rule along the following lines:

• Multi-hex tokens include a small black hexagon on one hex. When moving, that is the only hex the Asset is considered to occupy. Specifically, the Asset pays its movement cost based on the terrain (and any elevation change) of any hex entered by this part of the Asset's token. This hex is also the only one that matters for determining LOS for the Asset and any unit that attacks the Asset, and it is the only hex that matters for determining any terrain modifiers (including intervening terrain) when the Asset is attacked., However, at the end of movement, the player must legally be able to place the full token.

There is an idea to release the full-on, points and all, assume-the-reader-has-all-the-rules version in a future sourcebook.

I thought that might be the case, which actually makes me double down on the earlier suggestion. The full Chaos Campaign rules are in the back of CC:SW and in the latest CampaignOps. So, there is precedent for this. Plus, there already look to be some things in the current draft that I would move to an "Expanded and Optional Rules" section. The main ones that immediately come to mind are:
--The Veteran Skill Rating option (and I think this might open the door a bit to expanding and allow for Green and Elite Assets, which would make the rules more compatible with campaign play, the future Force Manuals, etc.)
--Urban  Movement and Combat Rules (since these are in BMM but not the AGoAC or CI boxed sets)
--The video game Support Asset rules
--Something about the Passive specials (the cryptic note to just ignore them all over the cards and wait until another product gives more detail is probably going to be very unsatisfying for players)
--Anti-'Mech BA (and maybe Infantry) rules [Swarm attacks are referenced on p. 4 but never described... see below]
--Maybe other things like that are referenced in BMM that players may run into if they took playing with Assets and 'Mechs using those rules (for example: advanced terrain and weather, hidden unit rules, maybe forced withdrawal rules?)

I managed to play through a scenario with Assets on both sides (but did not use strikes). It was a 6k vs. 6k fight using the BV Force Building rules in the draft (so 1 BSP = 30 BV). It ended up being 2 vs. 2 'Mechs, each with either 2 lances of vehicles or 1 vehicle lance and 1 BA/infantry company. FWIW, the actual BV for each side (i.e., directly from the MUL) was closer to 7500 vs. 7100, so the conversion was closer to 40 BV:1 BSP. I essentially played it as a Hold the Line/Breakthrough scenario, and the defenders managed to win handily.

Before I go into too much detail on thoughts from one playthrough, I had a couple more questions:
1. How set in stone are the rules ported over from BoT? Because most of the game balance issues I ran into stem from those rules, and I had a few suggestions how to deal with them. The most notable things I noticed right off the bat were:
--VTOLs are likely too deadly vs. most Assets < 70 tons, especially vs. low-TMM ones. Between their MP and TMM, they are able to easily get into the rear of most Assets on the map and add the 5 damage bonus to their piddly 3 pts, which is usually enough to force a DCTR roll and destroy the unit. With the TMM, it is very difficult for an Asset to counter the attack (starting with a 10+ to-hit)
--A kick from any 'Mech of at least 25 tons is enough to wipe out an entire BA squad/point (Sweep the leg, Johnny!)
--Larger vehicles with a TMM of 2+ become great for sticking on a wooded hill to create a nice kill zone. This wouldn't be too OP if it weren't for the +2 TMM (or more) they get while sitting still
--In general, the first playthrough made me want to keep track of whether adding Assets to the game felt more like the combined arms were augmenting the tactics I'd normally use in a 'Mech-only game, or whether they were just adding cannon fodder to the game board (still TBD at this point).

2. Also, how set in stone is the format of the Asset Cards? Coming at it from the point of view of a new player, there are likely a couple bits of info missing that would not be obvious to them (like motive type). And in a minor-but-maybe-not-minor point, there are too many items that start with a "D" (DV, Damage, DCTR). I found myself getting tripped up on the Asset's attacking damage and its Destroy roll a few times.

Independent of those questions, here are some comments on the rules draft that I ran into when playing that were either clearly missing from the draft, or just unclear what the rule should be:
a. When describing alternating deployment and movement of Assets, it might be worth making clear that the player can move the greater half of Assets second when they have an odd number of Assets and both sides have Assets deployed (i.e., if a player has 7 Assets, he/she can deploy/move 3 the first round, and then 4 the second round).
b. You might need a special subsection on BA/Infantry movement and combat. Things that were missing from these rules that have their TW-version included in the CI box set rulebook:
--there is nothing mentioned about whether/how BA can mount/dismount an OmniMech (or OmniAsset?)
--as noted above, Swarm attacks are referenced but there is nothing to describe what they are or how to conduct them (presumably the same is true for Leg Attacks, if allowed).
--I'd also suggest that these might be candidates for the "Expanded and Optional Rules" section I suggested above.
c. There is nothing about terrain restrictions for infantry (and the Mot/Mech version in particular) -- do they still have restrictions even though the motive type is abstracted here?
d. It was unclear if a friendly 'Mech or Asset could pass through a hex occupied by 2 friendly units during their movement (only clear that it cannot end its movement in such a hex)
e. Especially for newer players, the Combat Section should probably be explicit about the rules for when Assets can declare and roll for attacks relative to each other and to the 'Mechs (this can matter for who gets a kill, who is more likely to crit a 'Mech, etc., in a scenario)
f. It was unclear if vehicle Assets apply a +1 THM when attacking BA (same for 'Mechs for that matter, though it is specified in the CI box set rules for them)
g. If VTOLs are always assumed to be 2 levels above their hex's terrain, does intervening terrain ever matter for their attacks? [I'm guessing no except for maybe very high elevations, but this should likely be made explicit in the rules.]
 

[Xotl]

Before I go into too much detail on thoughts from one playthrough, I had a couple more questions:
1. How set in stone are the rules ported over from BoT?

Difficult to give an easy summation.  Some things are distinctly preferred by the bosses or myself and so more likely to be set (though everyone is amenable to changes if the data suggests it's a needed one).  And some things won't change just because they're part and parcel of the "keep it simple" ideal or the "box sets-only frame of reference" or even greater production needs (like the size of some of the minis, as discussed above).

The most notable things I noticed right off the bat were:
--VTOLs are likely too deadly vs. most Assets < 70 tons, especially vs. low-TMM ones. Between their MP and TMM, they are able to easily get into the rear of most Assets on the map and add the 5 damage bonus to their piddly 3 pts, which is usually enough to force a DCTR roll and destroy the unit. With the TMM, it is very difficult for an Asset to counter the attack (starting with a 10+ to-hit)

This is a perennial problem with BT and the 2D6 curve and I'm not sure what to do about that: the problem exists just as clearly in classic BT, even in TR 3025.  My general feeling on the issue was that Assets are something that can be fielded in large numbers, and so like AS you should generally be able to have units in echelon watching backs to some degree (plus any non-Asset units on the board), and they only have an 8% chance of survival if tagged (~2.5% if it was a PPC or other 10+ pt attack).  So I don't think there's much to change in terms of core capabilities there.  At the same time, an eye can be kept on whether or not they're costed fairly: certainly my experience redoing the AS PV scheme showed that high TMMs need to be worth a lot, and I might have underpriced them here.

--A kick from any 'Mech of at least 25 tons is enough to wipe out an entire BA squad/point (Sweep the leg, Johnny!)

I want to be careful with reports like this because there's a host of possible ones like it and they all come from the same core cause--it's an abstraction--and have the same core answer--it's an abstraction.  The question is whether, even for an abstraction, it's felt to be a bridge too far (which has a high threshold on my part) or it causes undesirable gameplay results.  "It's kind of unrealistic" isn't really a thing I feel needs tackling on its own, because that's broadly expected (and could still potentially be explained: in this case, for instance, by a mix of deaths, wounding, and morale breakage).  There would need to be more there.

--Larger vehicles with a TMM of 2+ become great for sticking on a wooded hill to create a nice kill zone. This wouldn't be too OP if it weren't for the +2 TMM (or more) they get while sitting still

The rule about rear hit zone attacks making it easier to kill Assets is meant to discourage total stationary play.  However, it might not be enough.  Any thoughts as to a path to take here?

2. Also, how set in stone is the format of the Asset Cards? Coming at it from the point of view of a new player, there are likely a couple bits of info missing that would not be obvious to them (like motive type). And in a minor-but-maybe-not-minor point, there are too many items that start with a "D" (DV, Damage, DCTR). I found myself getting tripped up on the Asset's attacking damage and its Destroy roll a few times.

I'm sure there's room for alteration here if need be (pre-release playtesting already resulted in some changes), and so I'm taking suggestions on that as well (I'll add it to the OP, in fact).

Independent of those questions, here are some comments on the rules draft that I ran into when playing that were either clearly missing from the draft, or just unclear what the rule should be:

I'll run through these and tighten up the draft / add notes for a future examination with the bosses.  Thanks a ton for the detailed feedback, and feel free to add more if you play further sessions.

[DevianID]

So I subjected another player to the beta rules.  For background he was used to the bsp rules from the BMM but not the tukayyid ones.

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.

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.

He LOVED that all bsp units go first and can't sink init.  He's complained about my regular vees in the past doing the same as I constantly run vee swarms for my garrison forces.

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.

For my side, I was outnumbered on the mech side in BV so I took some extra tanks.  I tried out 3 13 point vedettes and a 26 point schrek.  The vedettes were terrible.  Their evasion was ok but the damage and destroy numbers were so low that they were unable to deal any damage before all three were destroyed.  I think combined the did 5 or 10 damage.  They all died to random low damage stuff.  First on to 17 damage, second to 12 damage, third to 27 damage.  The schrek faired better.  It did 40 damage before dying as the higher destroy TN meant he waited until he could get close and really put damage on it.  With a grasshopper and 2 other mechs in base, the combination of kicks and short range damage versus tmm1 plus 1 light woods was 60+, enough to auto make the check needed.

We both didn't like that you had guaranteed destruction chances with exactly 60 damage.

We tried to see what would happen after he won the game with strikes versus the much more expensive tanks (He used all his strikes to help generate psrs on my mechs in the real game).  T1, he puts 1 strike on each tank.  We tried that you'd allocate all the attacks first in init, only resolving them after allocation (instead of whenever you want) since the timing in strikes was unclear.  1 missed a Vedette on a 5+ since evasion doesn't help, and the schrek didn't die as he didn't roll the 7+ needed.  Turn 2 the schrek died, it was degraded so only a 6+ was needed but a 10 was rolled.  Versus the Vedette that he missed snake eyes rolled to destroy, so the Vedette lived but was degraded.  So the 6 strikes killed 2 vedettes and the schrek by t2.  If he bought a 7th strike instead of air cover, he rolled and killed the Vedette on t3.  So 30 points in strikes killed 52 points of tanks and degraded the last tank, and 35 points in strikes killed all 65 points in tanks.  Vedettes are too expensive, tmm is good but ignored and they die to a stiff breeze.

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.

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.

[NeonKnight]

Getting ready to run a scenario this weekend and looking to try some of these for the weekend. That said, I cannot find what the following specials mean, and even did a search on the PDF for the rules to see if they were there, but no luck.

So, please explain the following specials (with certain assets listed)

Warrior VTOL
Firepower -1
Long Range x5

SRM Carrier
Firepower +6
Weak x2

Behemoth
Firepower +2
Slow
Short Range

[NeonKnight]

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.

[nckestrel]

So, please explain the following specials (with certain assets listed)

All of those are specials that change the movement, range, damage or toughness, and are already reflected in those stats.
They have no effect other than what's already been calculated for those stats. 

[NeonKnight]

All of those are specials that change the movement, range, damage or toughness, and are already reflected in those stats.
They have no effect other than what's already been calculated for those stats.

ok...and sorry, not trying to be difficult, but if they have already been calculated included in the stats, etc, then, why include them in the Specials? You just get folks like me asking questions on them ;) And in turn needing to explain to someone else while teaching

[Empyrus]

I have to say i found the "passive specials" to be confusing. The way the rules are phrased feels like they're getting explained in another product... but if they're not, why are they even printed on the cards?


Also, regarding the cards themselves, printer-friendly versions would be nice. That is, no black background....

[DevianID]

The passive specials can be cleaned up.  I think they refer to battleforce or some similar scale game.  So you put an SRM carrier in a battleforce tank stack, the stack does +6 damage over the 'average' tank thanks to 'Firepower +6'.  But its weak x2, so take 2 off your armor compared to a 'normal' tank stack.  A warrior on the other hand gets to move 5x more then a normal tank stack thanks to long rangex5, but the behemoth moves less thanks to the short ranged rule.  Or something like that.  Battleforce has the free rules already, not sure if those keywords match up to the newer version as I didnt buy the new book post strat ops split.  I wanna say they are in the split interstellar ops book now?

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.  I made the point above that a 12 point BSP asset and a 13 point BSP asset is so close anyway that there is no value in using the new costs when you can just make the 12 and 13 point tanks 5 BSP points in the old system and lose no fidelity--you still get 2.5 light strikes against the medium tank whether the light strike is 2 and the tank is 5, or the light strike is 5 and the tank is 12-13 points.  Thus with the number so far there is no reason to change the scale, especially as changing the scale ruins older products for no benefit.

As a bonus, here is the BV costs of real, total warfare built versions of the various strikes.  I made a 2 page document 'showing the math' but the following is the cost, in BV, to make an identical attack using total warfare equal choices, such as a jump bomber with bombs and veteran skill as a light bombing strike--both hit exactly on a 5 with no target mods for example.  Obviously some things in the game are stupid cheap, but the balance of things in total warfare is beyond the scope of this.  I just recreated the exact attacks and TNs of the various strikes and got their total warfare/techmanual/tac ops BV for you.  Youll notice that adding more damage to a bombing run isnt all that expensive (light strike to light bomb).  This is because the base flyer is the expensive part in total warfare, a 10 damage HE bomb is only 12 BV so once you buy the fighter loading up on bombs is pretty cheap.  Same with mines... mines are dummy cheap and its only the deployment vee that adds a cost.  The BSP rules actually account for more mines getting more accurate and thus costing more, but tac ops doesn't do this so 30 damage minefields are just flat better then the same cost in 5 damage minefield per the base rules--the BSP mine costs are more balanced ironically, as the Tac Ops version REALLY want only 30 damage minefields, anything less is wasteful.  So as always, making your own units with the construction rules can be much more efficient, but at least using only canon sources we can recreate all the BSP effects.

Light Strike: 91.2 BV
Light Bomb: 98.4 BV
Heavy Strike: 167 BV
Heavy Bomb: 161.1 BV
Strafe: 279.6
Light Air Cover: 154.8 base/77.4 theorized 2 light intercepts with 1 light fighter on a 3 map aero game
Heavy Air Cover: 398 base/132.6 theorized 3 heavy intercepts with 1 heavy fighter on 3 aero maps
Light Mine: 126 (with delivery unit)
Medium Mine: 140 (with delivery unit)
Heavy Mine: 154 (with delivery unit)
Thumper Artillery: 262.4
Sniper/Arrow: 283.2
Long Tom: 376.25

[jasonf]

...snip...

Ok, well the ideas I had to deal with some of these things are as follows. I realize some might be too much of a rules change, and a couple are more brainstorming than something I think is a definite fix.

1. For stationary Assets, I think I'd prefer the Alpha Strike rule: they get a -1 THM bonus when firing, but lose their TMM (+0 to hit) as a target. It's hopefully simple enough, and has been through the ringer in AS play.
...On a related note, I think it also would be a good idea to include a couple cards with the Asset cards that on one side had the prohibited terrains and MP costs specific to Assets and to-hit mods specific to Assets on the other. This would give a quick reference just like how the BSP (strike) cards are currently sold.

2. For the issues with VTOLs and wiping out of a full BA squad with a single kick, along with some of the issues DevianID raised, I had a bit more radical idea:
--a. Buff the DCTR's of *all* Assets by 2 to 4 (I don't know the magic number quite yet). This would include DCTRs > 12 for some of the larger units
--b. Revise the Degradation effect so that it reduces the DCTR by 1 point for every 10 points of damage inflicted.
The idea is that it would be harder to get the instant kill against all but the lightest units, but at the same time, a unit that took a beating, even if a Demolisher, could still get knocked out. The added staying power should make the vehicle Assets more worth it but the bigger potential Degradation effects should maintain the game balance that was originally intended (i.e., my goal is to increase survivability without actually increasing the amount of damage they can absorb by much).

Take the example of the Daishi doing 35pts of damage to a Behemoth in the draft's example. Under the current rules, the Daishi needs only a 7+ to destroy the Behemoth (DCTR = 10+, -3 for 30-39 damage). If it fails, the Behemoth's DCTR falls to 9+ next Turn.
Suppose instead you used the above rule and that the Behemoth had a DCTR = 13+. The Daishi would now need a 10+ to destroy it, and if it failed, the DCTR would fall from 13+ to 10+. If the Daishi were able to deliver the same damage again in Turn 2, it would just need a 7+ as in the original example, but one turn later. Furthermore, a failed roll would leave the Behemoth as an easy kill in Turn 3 (since its DCTR would now fall to 4+ in that case). [This compares to a DCTR of 8+ in Turn 3 if the Behemoth took 35 pts of dmg in each of the 1st two Turns but the Daishi rolled < 6 both times under the current rules.]

Under the alternative here, medium and heavy vehicles would likely have DCTRs in the 7-10 range, so high enough to survive a sneaky VTOL but still low enough to allow a lucky VTOL shot. I'd also envision BA as high DCTR/low Damage threshold units... so any damage might kill a trooper or two, but you'd need a couple turns or a real barrage to wipe out the Squad/Point.

2b. A related tweak that is more fixing an edge-case issue than a suggestion: I'd change the degradation dmg ranges  from 0-9, 10-19, 20-29,... to 0-10, 11-20, 21-30,...  It's a minor fix but it deals with the fact that an Asset with a Damage threshold of 10+ automatically has its DCTR reduced by 1 when receiving exactly 10pts of damage, so it would never use the DCTR listed. This would fix that.

3. I'm on the fence about having all Assets move first. On the one hand, I agree it stops players from using them as Initiative sinks, but on the other hand, it limits the combined-arms aspect the Assets are supposed to provide. For example, how useful are infantry as spotters if they always have to move before their potential targets? I also wonder how much moving Assets first tips a player's hand on what they intend to do with their 'Mechs. I don't have any great suggestions, though... maybe count Assets as 1/2 a unit for Initiative purposes (so they must be moved in pairs, at least)? I agree it's not a great solution, though.

4. I'm also on the fence on whether 6 is the right base to-hit number for the Assets (assume Flank speed always), or if it's 5. The issue is that the damage Assets deal feels all-or-nothing because it's harder to hit, but some units do a buttload of damage if they hit. For example, I got behind an Ontos with a 'Mech and it missed me and was summarily destroyed in one Turn. I got behind another Ontos with another 'Mech but missed the Ontos, and lost a torso to 40pts of damage. It's not fun to miss a bunch (which is why we usually recommend 3/4 MechWarriors when introducing new players), but at the same time, a lower base to-hit likely makes Assets too deadly with their current DVs.

And here are a couple other suggestions that are more brainstorming from the first playtest and comments so far:
5. Have you guys considered streamlining the Damage Values to *all* reflect 5-point groupings? Currently, that's the way it is for the Strikes and Indirect Fire Special. So, a Vedette would have a DV = 1, an SRM Carrier would have a DV = 16, and a Warrior H-7 could have a DV = 0* (with the * meaning the same as it does in AS). If they were all that way, it would make it easier for players to use (and not confuse 10 x 2pt rolls with 2 x 10pt rolls). It would also lend itself to a version of the AS optional rule of allowing experienced players to use multiple to-hit rolls for damage if they wanted.

6. For VTOLS, maybe their MP should be their TW Cruise MP? Part of their balance issue is that they never have to pay MP for elevation changes as an Asset, so can cover more ground, despite always being assumed to be 2 levels above whatever terrain they occupy. Using Cruise MP would implicitly assume they are paying for elevation changes while moving across the game board without making the movement rules more complicated.

7. For relating TW rules to infantry damage, I don't think abstracting from the 2D6 damage a MG does is a big an issue as abstracting from most other weapons doing only 1pt of damage. If a Clan ERPPC does as much damage to an infantry platoon as it does a 'Mech, why would I ever need to bring an "S" Omni variant (or any other anti-infantry unit) to the table when playing with the BSP/Asset rules? Maybe include the TW infantry damage as a "Variable Infantry Damage" optional rule for players?

All of those are specials that change the movement, range, damage or toughness, and are already reflected in those stats.
They have no effect other than what's already been calculated for those stats.

I'd agree that if these are already included in the stats, then they shouldn't be on the card (or in the rules). If you guys add a section to the rules that describes how players can create cards for units that already exist in the MUL from their RS/TRO stats, this would be a better place for them.

Also, regarding the cards themselves, printer-friendly versions would be nice. That is, no black background....

I was actually going to suggest including a page of 2x4 blank cards at the back of the rules, so that players can fill them out on their own. The color laminated cards will be nice, but I honestly use pen/pencil and paper everywhere except at Cons, so the ability to fill out a sheet with the Assets I'm bringing to the table would be nice.
 

[nckestrel]

ok...and sorry, not trying to be difficult, but if they have already been calculated included in the stats, etc, then, why include them in the Specials? You just get folks like me asking questions on them ;) And in turn needing to explain to someone else while teaching

Same reason endo steel is on record sheets.  There will be rules for "construction", and players will want to know how it was constructed. if they get removed, then once the "construction" rules are publsihed, players will complain that they are missing.
Perhaps separating them out would be worthwhile. Active versus Passive.

[NeonKnight]

Same reason endo steel is on record sheets.  There will be rules for "construction", and players will want to know how it was constructed. if they get removed, then once the "construction" rules are publsihed, players will complain that they are missing.
Perhaps separating them out would be worthwhile. Active versus Passive.

Or...just a line of text in the 'rules' document stating something akin to:

These specials are already included in the stats and have no bearing in game play, and are included for construction purposes from a future product

Thus folks know, because I can look up Endo Steel in the rules, these I cannot, and thus have no way of knowing if I should or should not do something about them.