Why can't you just subtract OV heat from damage to reduce built up heat?

[Stormed]

As the heat can simply be added as damage. Why can't it be subtracted the next turn as well, instead of having to do no damage at all to remove waste heat?

[Hellraiser]

I don't know but I like that idea.

Probably to really punish you for daring to use OV.

Its a wasted stat really, unless your killing the only mech visible then its basically not worth using.

[theagent]

Because Alpha Strike is all about simplification.  The primary assumption of AS over CBT gameplay is that you're not having to micromanage your heat tracking; the stats card has already calculated out exactly how much damage you can inflict each turn to remain heat-neutral.  But while OV allows you to add additional damage per "heat" point, it doesn't correspond to a decrease in heat.

Take the Warhammer -8D, -8D2, & IIC 3.  They are similar in PV (45 vs. 43 vs. 49).  All 3 have OV1, so they can add 1 point of damage to Short or Medium if they're willing to go up on the heat scale.   But while their damage profiles are similar, they're not identical:

• WHM-8D:  4/4/2
• WHM-8D2:  3/4/3
• Warhammer IIC 3:  7/7/0

Let's say you used the rule that you could use negative OV to reduce damage to offset built-up heat.  The -8D2 has to give up 33.33% of its short-range firepower to do that, vs. 25% for the -8D, but the IIC 3 only has to give up 14.3%.  Medium-range, both the -8D and -8D2 would give up 25% of their firepower to offset a prior round's heat, but the IIC 3 only has to give up 14.3%.

You also have to remember that the heat progression in AS is not as linear as in CBT.  At 1, 2, & 3 on the AS heat scale, you add that to your to-hit number (equivalent to 8, 13, and 17 heat on the CBT scale) and you subtract 2"/1 hex from your AS movement (equivalent to 5, 10, & 15 heat on the CBT scale), & at 4/S you automatically shutdown.  Technically speaking, this would be equivalent to 30 heat on the CBT scale, but if you were to treat it as a "4" instead of "S" you'd be looking at a +4 to hit (24 heat) and -8"/-4 hexes (20 heat).  Again, it's much more abstract & less math-critical than CBT combat.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it, as it makes it too complex (& almost as confusing as the rules about deliberately overheating for Alpha Strike...why you'd do that is anybody's guess).

[Hellraiser]

Take the Warhammer -8D, -8D2, & IIC 3.  They are similar in PV (45 vs. 43 vs. 49).  All 3 have OV1, so they can add 1 point of damage to Short or Medium if they're willing to go up on the heat scale.   But while their damage profiles are similar, they're not identical:

• WHM-8D:  4/4/2
• WHM-8D2:  3/4/3
• Warhammer IIC 3:  7/7/0

Let's say you used the rule that you could use negative OV to reduce damage to offset built-up heat.  The -8D2 has to give up 33.33% of its short-range firepower to do that, vs. 25% for the -8D, but the IIC 3 only has to give up 14.3%.  Medium-range, both the -8D and -8D2 would give up 25% of their firepower to offset a prior round's heat, but the IIC 3 only has to give up 14.3%.

Those %'s mean nothing however since they can also go backwards the other way, each of those mechs only GAINED those % figures as well based on their existing damage values. 

[Stormed]

Because Alpha Strike is all about simplification.  The primary assumption of AS over CBT gameplay is that you're not having to micromanage your heat tracking; the stats card has already calculated out exactly how much damage you can inflict each turn to remain heat-neutral.  But while OV allows you to add additional damage per "heat" point, it doesn't correspond to a decrease in heat.

Take the Warhammer -8D, -8D2, & IIC 3.  They are similar in PV (45 vs. 43 vs. 49).  All 3 have OV1, so they can add 1 point of damage to Short or Medium if they're willing to go up on the heat scale.   But while their damage profiles are similar, they're not identical:

• WHM-8D:  4/4/2
• WHM-8D2:  3/4/3
• Warhammer IIC 3:  7/7/0

Let's say you used the rule that you could use negative OV to reduce damage to offset built-up heat.  The -8D2 has to give up 33.33% of its short-range firepower to do that, vs. 25% for the -8D, but the IIC 3 only has to give up 14.3%.  Medium-range, both the -8D and -8D2 would give up 25% of their firepower to offset a prior round's heat, but the IIC 3 only has to give up 14.3%.

You also have to remember that the heat progression in AS is not as linear as in CBT.  At 1, 2, & 3 on the AS heat scale, you add that to your to-hit number (equivalent to 8, 13, and 17 heat on the CBT scale) and you subtract 2"/1 hex from your AS movement (equivalent to 5, 10, & 15 heat on the CBT scale), & at 4/S you automatically shutdown.  Technically speaking, this would be equivalent to 30 heat on the CBT scale, but if you were to treat it as a "4" instead of "S" you'd be looking at a +4 to hit (24 heat) and -8"/-4 hexes (20 heat).  Again, it's much more abstract & less math-critical than CBT combat.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it, as it makes it too complex (& almost as confusing as the rules about deliberately overheating for Alpha Strike...why you'd do that is anybody's guess).

Those percentages are nonsensical. The rule I propose adds no complexity to the game because its simply the inverse of the OV damage increase, but for the next turn. It is simple. I have 3 heat, therefore I subtract 3 damage from whatever amount I might do in order to become heat neutral again by the next turn. 

This is also parallel to how it works in other BT games, table top or video game just like the increase does. You wanna reduce your heat? Fire less weapons, not the fire no weapons.

[Failure16]

I like this rule and it matches with an internal houserule of mine.

Keep in mind that Alpha Strike is but a child of BattleForce going back to 1986 (and BF2 in 1997 more directly). In the first edition, overheating was really dangerous as it damaged your unit, which was actively nonsensical. So, it has gotten better, and this idea would be better yet.

It requires no record extra keeping, really, and is in keeping with how the game works: I have heat from last turn, so I fire more/do less this turn, and my heat is gone (or reduced) next turn.

[Moonsword]

MODERATOR NOTICE

All discussion of non-official rules belong in the Fan Designs and Rules board and this thread has been moved to facilitate further discussion.

[Stormed]

MODERATOR NOTICE

All discussion of non-official rules belong in the Fan Designs and Rules board and this thread has been moved to facilitate further discussion.

This is not discussion of an unofficial rule. This is discussion of a official rule and how to fix it. Isn't this forum for completely new ideas?

[MarauderD]

Fixing it assumes it is broken.  While one might prefer the rules to work differently, this proposal is absolutely a house rule.

[zakumaru]

I agree that the suggestion from OP is indeed a house rule in and by itself, however that aside I must say that I have also been wondering about the same thing as OP regarding why a unit in Alpha Strike should not have finer controls regarding managing its heat. The suggestion from OP is pretty simple and straightforward "fix" (which I coincidentally have been using myself as well), so I believe there might be some other reasoning why the rules stick to what it is and not even having an optional rule to do heat management differently leaving only 2 options (in practice): a. stop firing for a turn or b. find water... pretty inflexible I think and probably on purpose. So asking the question "why" seems like a valid discussion to have and I think that is more what the OP is after and not so much as promoting his "fix". Perhaps the intention of not allowing a more refined heat management was to emphasis overheating as a "last ditch" effort? Or maybe it was to promote considering physical attack? Or was it to "encourage" players to go to even higher heat levels?

Not saying that the rules must change, but it would be interesting to hear more of the thought process or opinions whether current heat management is fine as is or not.

[Retry]

This is not discussion of an unofficial rule. This is discussion of a official rule and how to fix it. Isn't this forum for completely new ideas?

The long and short of it is, saying that "rule X is bad/broken/needs tweaked" doesn't fall under unofficial rules, but the moment you say "having rule Y would fix it" it immediately becomes an unofficial rule discussion, even if rule Y is hypothetical.

[theagent]

Those percentages are nonsensical. The rule I propose adds no complexity to the game because its simply the inverse of the OV damage increase, but for the next turn. It is simple. I have 3 heat, therefore I subtract 3 damage from whatever amount I might do in order to become heat neutral again by the next turn. 

This is also parallel to how it works in other BT games, table top or video game just like the increase does. You wanna reduce your heat? Fire less weapons, not the fire no weapons.

Because the damage values in AS are also based on rounding, and because in CBT damage is not tied to damage directly.  An IS ER Large Laser (12 heat, 8 damage) could result in an AS conversion having an OV2 value, but on another design an AC/10 (3 heat, 10 damage) might be the trigger for an OV1.  Yet the less-damaging weapon in a design is making your damage output even worse than the other design.  And that's also because heat management in CBT is extremely detailed.

Let's consider 2 'Mechs with the same OV (OV4):  Black Hawk Prime (18 DHS, 12 Clan EML), & Black Hawk H (20 DHS, 10 Heavy ML).  For the Black Hawk Prime, the OV4 is the result of having max weapon heat of 60 & only dissipating 40 in the calculation...but it also has to round down from 5.6 to 5.  For the Black Hawk H, max weapon heat is 70 and dissipation in the calculation is 44...& it rounds down from 6.286 to 6. 

If you reversed that, for the Black Hawk Prime the question is how many EMLs does it take to get to 20 weapon heat (60 - 40 = 20; 40 - 20 = 20), which gives you not quite 3 (3 EMLs gives you 21 weapon heat).  You can fire that until the cows come home...but your CBT damage (21) would convert to 3 in Alpha Strike (3 x 7 / 10 = 2.1; no heat adjustment, so round up all fractions).  Your use of "negative" OV move only costs you 2 damage points.  With your rule, you're only firing ONE EML (except that if you've used OV4 you're shutdown anyway).

With the Black Hawk H, you need to get to 18 weapon heat (70 - 44 = 26; 44 - 26 = 18).  That's not quite 3 Heavy MLs (21 weapon heat), but we're not going to go up on the heat scale, so that's fine.  In this case, your CBT damage (30) also converts to 3 points in Alpha Strike (3 x 10 / 10 =3.0, no rounding required).  Your use of "negative" OV only cost you 3 damage points (but again, if you used OV4 previously, you're shutdown anyway).

What you're forgetting, though, is that in the Alpha Strike conversion it includes the "4 heat point" pass that CBT's Battle Value system uses.  In an actual CBT fight, if your Black Hawk Prime wants to remain heat-neutral (or as close as possible), you have to watch your heat & eventually alternate your fire; firing 7 EMLs & Walking (equivalent to moving in AS) leaves you heat-neutral & dealing out 35 CBT damage, but firing any additional EML means you're overheating.  Same with the Black Hawk H:  firing 5 Heavy MLs & Walking lets you stay super-chill (no overheating, spare 3 heat points, 50 points of damage), but you could alternate every 3rd turn by adding a 6th Heavy ML (4 points on the heat scale that turn, takes 2 turns to go back to heat-neutral, & does 60 points).

And then, of course, there's the issue with those designs that don't have an OVx value.  If you allow them to also drop their damage with a "negative" OV method, then why can't the ones with an OV value use more "negative" OV?  And these were designs where it simply carries multiples of the same weapon system; the comparisons get extremely complex when it

What you end up getting with it is that your units in Alpha Strike last longer than they do in CBT combat, because you're dropping the equivalent damage value down so low that it doesn't mesh with the CBT equivalent.  And consider that, for that Black Hawk Prime, is it really that useful to drop its damage profile down to a Wasp or Stinger, especially on a design that, unless it doesn't use its full OV in the prior turn, is going to be shut down anyway...& if it's sitting at a high-enough AS heat level, the chances of it being able to successfully hit the target are going to be in the cellar?

Alpha Strike is meant to simplify the tabletop experience, either to allow for a shorter game session or to allow for more units on the board.  Adding additional rules & making it more complex doesn't seem like a good idea.

[Retry]

Alpha Strike is meant to simplify the tabletop experience, either to allow for a shorter game session or to allow for more units on the board.  Adding additional rules & making it more complex doesn't seem like a good idea.

Alpha Strike's main simplicity gain is from abstracting component-level features of battlefield units like 'Mech limbs and individual weaponry, or said individual weaponry's dozens of missiles or LB-X pellets.  Adding an option to withhold OV heat simply would not - actually, does not - have the major impact on Alpha Strike's rule complexity that you appear to believe it does.

Some quirks interact in the Alpha Strike system, and they don't meaningfully slow down an Alpha Strike game, and most of them have greater impact than an OV heat modification.

[Descronan]

I generally agree with the idea of reducing heat by reducing damage. However, to preserve some of the penalty of using overheat, I prefer a 2 to 1 ratio. To reduce 1 heat you must reduce your damage by 2. While not as severe a penalty as the standard rules, it preserves the intent of a significant penalty for overheating and rebalancing your heat. Also, heat and damage are not directly linked, as others have noted. The conversion rules create some ambiguity in the damage to heat ratio and every weapon system has a different ratio. Two AC/5s only generate 2 heat but 10 damage. That's a 20% heat ratio vs. a medium laser with a 60% heat ratio. A PPC is 100% while an IS ER PPC is 150%.

So, due to the variability of heat/damage, the 2-to-1 ratio covers all the bases IMO.

[Failure16]

Now that is a good and well-reasoned idea. I will give it a try at some point. Thanks!