Author Topic: Battlefield Support: Assets  (Read 535 times)

butchbird

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 380
  • In loving memory
Battlefield Support: Assets
« on: 20 July 2024, 21:17:46 »
Battlefield support belongs in this sub-section, right?

Haven't noticed a thread on the subject yet and I just tried it so I'm eager to see what others think and learn of their experiences. Don't really have a specific point to defend...but oh well.

So we just finished a game with 240 tons per team with a limit of 4 'mechs per team (3 vs 3, two new players, one with some WH40K experience, the other with zits nada in terms of anything ressembling a wargame, though being apparently skilled in basic maths, she caught on the basics quite well) and something like...85 points worth of assets. Game lasted for approximately 7 hours before there was a clear winner (though you have to count 2 meals and the cigarette breaks), whitout all that much game changing critical hits.

Honestly I liked it. While the rules for vehicles are much less satisfying then BMR (or TW, I would presume), I was quite satisfied with how it enabled to field more units while not adding any complexity nor making any difference on the lenght of the turns. That's really the biggest pro. Playing the vehicles was really a jiffy.

The firepower they weild was also far more accuretly depicted then I tought at first glance. That Shrek really is a menace that you take out as soon as you have a chance. You don't want that Drillson on your six. While it has far less character to have a "firepower rating" then actually "using" weapons, it speed things up immensely, same thing for the fixed TMM.

But yes, the lack of character. That warrior Vtol is only a golden BB now. The firepower rating just doesn't offer the flexibility your used to. I was also a bit offput by the gimped movement points. We had an Ontos on the table (map was open terrain) and, a team being long range heavy and the other more short range oriented (Ontos on this team), that tank simplyrolled at a snail pace, never managing to keep up with the battle, merely taking long range shot at backstabbers. Now I know the Ontos ain't exactly mobile, but that was a clear limitation on its role.

The treshhold and destroy check were also...odd. Unbattletech like. Can't say I disliked it, but can't say I'm a fan.

Again, it really streamlined the use of the vehicles. Applying damage couldn't be simpler. At the same time, well, you know, didn't feel very "CBT" and was much less filling. I did like how it made vehicles go "pop" quite quickly, but then for this game we were pretty lucky on those rolls. Their was only one survival on the 7 roll of the game, might not give me the correct view on their survival rate.

All in all, very good "introductory rules" for getting the conventionals on the table and hence adding more units on the table while having absolutely no impact on the lenght of said game.
Battlemech scale hockey. No playtesting whatsoever. https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=85714.0

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1914
Re: Battlefield Support: Assets
« Reply #1 on: 21 July 2024, 00:30:51 »
How did you find the damage tracking and degrade tracking?  What did you use to keep count of the rolling damage number before the end of turn destroy roll?

The simplified movement and shooting I understand, its the damage part I get hung up on.  Tracking damage is needed, but there is no damage tracking bubbles or anything on the cards is there?

butchbird

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 380
  • In loving memory
Re: Battlefield Support: Assets
« Reply #2 on: 21 July 2024, 19:15:09 »
Actually there is a square over the "damage treshhold" stat and next to the "destroy check" stat.

We didn't have to track the damage. Anytime we shot at a vehicle, if we hit, we'd bust the treshhold, rendering the point moot. I suppose you can track it in the square at first.

Degrade tracking is, again, in the square. It works real well really.

I suppose that if we hadn't been lucky on the destroy checks (or unlucky, depending on the owner of the unit), both the degrading and the "current turn damage" could be inserted into the grey square with a fine point marker.

Ours was a big point (one of my players said he'd bring one so I didn't take care of it myself) so that would've been out of the question, but I'm pretty sure a fine point (and by that I mean the kind of fine point you'd use for tracing for metal working and such) could enable you to fit in both variables in the square.

Do keep in mind that the treshhold is pretty low. It must be said that we used 3039 tech, but the Shreck had a...8 I believe? So a large laser can core it. Doesn't take that much to force a destroy check.
« Last Edit: 21 July 2024, 19:16:53 by butchbird »
Battlemech scale hockey. No playtesting whatsoever. https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=85714.0

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1914
Re: Battlefield Support: Assets
« Reply #3 on: 21 July 2024, 19:31:22 »
As I havent got my kickstarter yet, doesnt tracking if the tank took 18 versus 23 damage still matter?  At least in the beta, you had to keep a running total from shooting phase to assault phase with kicks and stuff.  If the final rules are just 'exceed 8 threshold' and 'made the destroy check, so -1 for next time', that would be a lot simpler to track.

butchbird

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 380
  • In loving memory
Re: Battlefield Support: Assets
« Reply #4 on: 22 July 2024, 18:36:56 »
Huh, in my haste I'd skipped a bit.

So basically, yes, you have a low treshhold to bust ( most need just a medium laser). BUT, Thinking maybe I'd misread and not wanting to mislead others, I went back to check and it seems that you also get a +1 to your dice roll for every 10 damage thereafter, or something like it (like 11 for first +1 one , read it pretty fast).

Still easy enough to track .

Battlemech scale hockey. No playtesting whatsoever. https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=85714.0

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1914
Re: Battlefield Support: Assets
« Reply #5 on: 31 July 2024, 23:32:15 »
I finally got my kickstarter and was able to read the new rules for them.

The big one seems to be the loss of run speed making the 'faster' BSP units way weaker.  I crunched the numbers in the general thread, but basically the 'best' BSP assests are those that dont move very much to begin with, and have some range.  The savannah masters, for example, with its 13h BSP speed, loses 7 hexes compared to normal rules where they have 20.  A Manticore though only loses 2 hexes of speed being a 4t BSP instead of 6MP in full rules on a run.  So the Savanah overall lost more in BSP card form, and the efficiency kinda shows that.

 

Register