BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Administration and Moderation => BattleTech News => Catalyst Asks You! => Topic started by: Adrian Gideon on 05 November 2015, 15:53:24
-
Catalyst Game Labs is releasing Combat Manual: Mercenaries in a “Beta Release” PDF book. Until the 10th of December [end of day, PST] we’ll be watching this thread to see what problems the community discovers. At that point we’ll address those issues that need work, and then ship the to the printers. Keep in mind, though, that there’s a difference between “error/broken” and “don’t like it that way” when it comes to the rules; the prior is what well be addressing, not the latter.
Thanks!
-
There are a couple of typos in the text that make for confusing sentences. One particular case is in the second paragraph of p. 79, "Unlisted Mercenaries": "Doing so not provide access to non-mercenary availability lists..."
Is this meant to be something more like "Doing so will prevent the unit from accessing non-mercenary availability lists etc."?
Also, is there a way for unlisted commands to get access to the new SCAs in the book? the random roll chart that unlisteds have to roll on does not include any of the new SCAs.
-
The example Standard Security Lances on page 95 violate the Security Lance construction rules by including SZ 1 Scouts.
Either the lances should be redesigned, or (my preference) is the lance composition rules should be altered to allow non size 2/3 scouts.
-
One other one... I don't know if this was intentional, but the Cranston Snord's Irregulars logo in the "Guns For Hire" section does not match the logo in the unit writeup -- the writeup has the usual "Eagle quarter" symbol, the "Guns For Hire" shows it as the reverse of a Buffalo Nickel.
-
One other one... I don't know if this was intentional, but the Cranston Snord's Irregulars logo in the "Guns For Hire" section does not match the logo in the unit writeup -- the writeup has the usual "Eagle quarter" symbol, the "Guns For Hire" shows it as the reverse of a Buffalo Nickel.
Did that as a compromise. The logo was always supposed to be (and described in text as) the buffalo nickel, but always shown as the eagle quarter. So thought this would give the proper log some exposure.
-
Page 100 - SHD-2H Shadow Hawk - Deployment
"The light 'Mechs scattered as he approached, but not before he lamed the Locust with his LRMs" I'm guessing it should be maimed or crippled?
-
Lame:
1. crippled or physically disabled, especially in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2. impaired or disabled through defect or injury:
a lame arm.
3. weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy:
a lame excuse.
Nope, "lamed" is entirely appropriate. The modern third use is based on the first.
-
Did that as a compromise. The logo was always supposed to be (and described in text as) the buffalo nickel, but always shown as the eagle quarter. So thought this would give the proper log some exposure.
Ah.. that makes sense! :) I do remember reading somewhere about them using a Buffalo nickel for their logo, but I'd never seen it in any of the depictions.
-
Does either "I wish there was more" or "I'm sad that I have to wait for the other manuals to come out" count as input?
-
On page 46 under the Second Kell Hounds heading you have the sentence "Each battalion includes command lance." I presume you meant to say "a command lance".
-
Pg. 40, Glory Warriors Write-up:
"A recent dispute among Major Kent’s company commanders led to the departure of Second and Third Companies’ officers."
Should be "Major Clark", as the name is given as "Kent Clark" in other parts of the write-up.
-
On page 89 the rule "Esprit de Corps" is incorrectly spelled "Espirit de Corps".
-
Killer Bees Write-up (pg. 48)
The move would *have* adversely affected the command’s reputation, except the Bees publicized the details of their orders and shamed their erstwhile Canopian employers for trying to use them as cannon fodder.
The Bees handled a number of near-Periphery contracts for several years before returning to Lyran service in time for the War of 3039, in which *they/the Bees* distinguished themselves by raiding the Draconis Combine.
-
I'm going to call bullshit on Waco Rangers not having Wolf's Dragoons as a common enemy.
Edit: They may not be a House, but Wolf's Dragoons have units on the faction list that should probably be extra expensive for Waco Rangers to purchase using the Faction Points rules.
-
Up until Coventry, weren't the Rangers commanded by Col. Waco's son, not the old man? One wonders if for most of the Clan Invasion period the Dragoons cared about the Rangers, given the Rangers were in Marik service.
A thought ...
-
The Rangers may have hated the Dragoons, but they just didn't get very many chances to fight them. I think prior to Coventry the Rangers engaged the Dragoons...twice.
-
Not necessarily a fan of royal battlemechs appearing in inner sphere units on the eve of the clan invasion, even in the relatively limited quantities described in the book. Wasn't the underlying narrative surrounding them that they were completely extinct in this time period, outside of a handful of comstar examples?
-
Pg. 37, 151st Light Horse, Special Rules
"If using the Battlefield Intelligence and Hidden Unit rules, units in the Dark Horse Regiment with the RCM special
ability confer a BI rating of 3 instead of 2."
RCM should be RCN.
-
The Rangers may have hated the Dragoons, but they just didn't get very many chances to fight them. I think prior to Coventry the Rangers engaged the Dragoons...twice.
I just figured that the Waco Rangers (or at least Wayne) would rather go 'mechless than deal with the Dragoons, but if the definition of an enemy is just based on how often they found themselves on opposite ends of contracts then that's fair.
How is Availability determined? I'm kind of surprised to see Mercenary availability on so many 3050 refits (as opposed to General or being off the list entirely because it's House-specific) and I'm surprised to see the Canopian-specific BNC-3MC as a General 'mech.
-
While not an official answer, it's my recollection that the Free Worlds League were selling refit kits to anyone with cash in hand. The question would be then where the mercs would be getting support to install the kits; and many mercs - including, appropriately enough, the Waco Rangers - were known for the high levels of tech support they had available.
-
Page 89, under "False Flag":
On the turn the controlling player declares the False Flag Units are entering the map, before initiative is rolled, roll 2d6. On an 8+, the Unit has not been discovered as false, and may enter on any map edge, including the opposing player’s home edge. In addition, the controlling player receives +2 to their Initiative rolls on the turn the False Flag Forces enter the map. On a 6 or less, the ruse was discovered
I roll a 7, and the map catches fire? ;)
-
Pg 25 in the ComStar sidebar
"To rebuild the hyperpulse generator interstellar communications network severaly damaged during the war between the SLDF and the Usurper Stefan Amaris."
Pg 68
"What is on record, howevers"
-
Several Wolf's Dragoons' units are missing from the Faction Lists. Notably, the Falcon FLC-4N, Firefly FFL-4A, Flea FLE-4 and -15, Hoplite HOP-4C, Hornet HNT-151, and Imp IMP-2E are all missing from the Late Succession Wars list. While some of these might conceivably appear on other factions' lists, the Imp in particular is very much a Dragoons' machine, being that they had the only examples of this early Clan 'Mech in the Inner Sphere. I suggest adding these all in; the Fleas will be shared with the Free Worlds League (but are being contract-built for the Dragoons, and thus are not battlefield salvage and should not cost the extra FP for such) and the Hornet is listed on the MUL as being Mercenary General, but the remainder should be Wolf's Dragoons-exclusive (again, per the MUL).
-
I know this might be skirting dangerously close to “don’t like it that way” but can we please have the Faction lists broken up and sorted by BattleMech role?
The "eyestrain edition" is rather difficult to use when picking out units when trying to put together lances.
Also, if each sub-category (Brawler, Sniper, Missile Boat, etc) could be sorted by Unit Size, this would help loads.
Basically, something like:
Sniper
Blackjack BJ-2 Sniper BM 2
Griffin GRF-3M Sniper BM 2
Hoplite HOP-4D Sniper BM 2
JagerMech JM6-DD Sniper BM 3
Cyclops CP-11-A Sniper BM 4
Cyclops CP-11-A-DC Sniper BM 4
Goliath GOL-3M Sniper BM 4
Marauder II MAD-5C Sniper BM 4
Zeus ZEU-9S Sniper BM 4
-
P. 29, Crescent Hawks writeup seems to ignore the fact that Jeremiah Youngblood was commanding a LAM lance in the Kell Hounds until 3016 and took part in the fighting on Mallory's World (as per the Kell Hounds sourcebook).
P. 51, "Marie's Golden hammers" needs an uppercase "H"
In the mercenary listing in sidebar on p. 52, "Hansen's Rough Riders" is wrong; the unit is spelled "Hansen's Roughriders".
McCarron's Armored Cavalry sidebar on p. 57 end of second paragraph, they didn't raid Defiance Industries but Kincaid Defiance Industries (a separate corporation elsewhere on the planet).
-
Not a correction, but a question... why does the Esprit De Corps SPA ignore Forced Withdrawal? Ignoring morale checks makes sense, but isn't Forced Withdrawal more of a self-preservation thing?
-
I'm not sure why this is something that I have a habit of doing, but I think there's a mistake anyway:
Pg 116, Phoenix Hawk 3M is listed as an Ambusher.
I suspect it should be a Striker.
-
Typos/Spacing issues:
p80 / Aerospace Organization / Table - Shouldn't the Squadron be 12 aerospace fighters?*
p80 / Aerospace Organizagtion/ Table - Lance should be 2 aerospace fighters not 3
p33 / Third Dismal Disinherited / 1st Paragraph: "conflictsgradually" doesn't have a space between the two words in my PDF :)
* See nckestrel's post below - THANK YOU! :)
-
p80 / Aerospace Organization / Table - Shouldn't the Squadron be 12 aerospace fighters?
Actually it is the Lance (Flight) that should be 2 aerospace fighters.
-
Page 89, under "False Flag":
I roll a 7, and the map catches fire? ;)
No, the Robber takes your sheep.
-
I realize now that I misunderstood force building a bit and I thought that you had the ability to use neutral faction units at a point cost in between friend and enemy. Since you can only use out-of-faction units from common friends (from rewards or purchases) or common enemies (from salvage) then it wouldn't make sense for Waco Rangers to have Dragoons as an enemy because aside from only fighting them on a few occasions they'd probably sell or let any salvaged Dragoon-specific rot out of spite instead of using it.
Some typos:
Page 46, 48 - Earl Clan Invasion should be Early Clan Invasion
I know this might be skirting dangerously close to “don’t like it that way” but can we please have the Faction lists broken up and sorted by BattleMech role?
The "eyestrain edition" is rather difficult to use when picking out units when trying to put together lances.
Also, if each sub-category (Brawler, Sniper, Missile Boat, etc) could be sorted by Unit Size, this would help loads.
Basically, something like:
Sniper
Blackjack BJ-2 Sniper BM 2
Griffin GRF-3M Sniper BM 2
Hoplite HOP-4D Sniper BM 2
JagerMech JM6-DD Sniper BM 3
Cyclops CP-11-A Sniper BM 4
Cyclops CP-11-A-DC Sniper BM 4
Goliath GOL-3M Sniper BM 4
Marauder II MAD-5C Sniper BM 4
Zeus ZEU-9S Sniper BM 4
That's not a bad idea but I expect that the MUL is supposed to be the sorted version of this. If they let us sort by the simplified Availability as seen in this book, then it should be perfect for finding the right 'mech for the job.
-
Table of contents, index and page numbers should be clickable to their respective pages in the PDF. :)
I've tried it in Adobe Reader and Preview (Mac), no PDF hyperlink were available.
-
I have what amounts to a rules question about infantry formations... asking it here rather than the formal Alpha Strike rules forum.
Alpha Strike Companion force composition rules (pre-Combat Manuals at least) takes a bit of liberty with the established lore of the BTU and treats infantry platoons as units of organizational equivalency to battlemechs, rather than entire lances of battlemechs. I.E. 4 platoons of infantry are a "lance", despite that in-universe a platoon already is equivalent to a lance.
Page 80 of the Combat Manual explains the in-universe way of doing things... 3 platoons equals a company.
Lance construction rules remain untangled for battle armor.. 4 squads = 1 lance still works. But unarmored infantry just became a problem. Does one platoon become its own lance? It seems that it must. You can't have 1 and 1/3 company being a lance, after all...
-
Infantry-I thought I took care of that but it may have reverted in editing (or it was adjusted in the text but not the table, or vice versa). Noted.
-
Infantry-I thought I took care of that but it may have reverted in editing (or it was adjusted in the text but not the table, or vice versa). Noted.
I don't suppose we get to be teased with what the intended rule is? :)
Another infantry suggestion: This is definitely in the realm of "what I'd like to see" but it stems directly from what is a very counter-intuitive example given on page 80.
For example, a lance of Goblin Medium Tanks each have IT1.
Sniper infantry have CAR1. The lance may include the four Goblin
Medium Tanks and four Sniper infantry.
I presume this (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2978/sniper-house-dai-dai-chi-snipers) is the sniper infantry that sparked the example. Unfortunately, it's got some lostech that precludes its use in SW era games and worse still, it is limited to use only by House Liao, which is not appropriate to the Merc book. I was hoping to see a SW era sniper squad squeezed into the late SW infantry table on page 113, but alas there is none.
Maybe add one? Don't even need to add it to the MUL... the statline would all be right there. IT1 transports that are common to the SW era are so disappointing in Alpha Strike b/c CAR1 infantry in the SW era are nonexistent (outside the Clan Homeworlds..) A SW era translation of the sniper squad would go a long way towards making IT1 not being a waste of a special.
-
On page 107 it shows 3 Wolf's Dragoon mechs but the letters should be Gamma, Delta, Epsilon and not Gamma, Epsilon Zeta.
-
In the rules governing rare units, the Grasshopper-5N is specifically mentioned as a rare unit in the text. However, it does not appear in the faction list. Instead the -5H is there, and it doesn't have an asterisk marking it out as a rare unit. Was this a typo (was the -5N in the example meant to be a -5H) or an oversight in compiling the list? I ask because the 21st Centauri Lancers specifically also mentions this rule as they have a explicit exception to it (that the Grasshopper [no variant called out] is not considered a rare unit for terms of building a 21CL force -- in fact a player building a canon force is obligated to break the rule).
Never mind, I think I answered my own question by looking at the Clan Invasion list AS WELL AS the Succession Wars List [face palm]
-
More of a question than a suggestion (but maybe a suggestion too): Since the Demi-Company costs 4 FP, but both parts of a company must be a Demi-Company if one is, does that mean that fielding a Company of two Demi-Companies actually costs 8 FP, or if it merely costs 4 FP to convert from Lances to Demi-Companies for the whole force?
-
Up until Coventry, weren't the Rangers commanded by Col. Waco's son, not the old man? One wonders if for most of the Clan Invasion period the Dragoons cared about the Rangers, given the Rangers were in Marik service.
A thought ...
Colonel Wayne Rogers was the Ranger's CO in 3050 through Coventry. As for Col. Waco's son, his death is the reason why the Rangers hated the Dragoons. AFAIK, Waco only had the one son....
Craig
-
I know this might be skirting dangerously close to “don’t like it that way” but can we please have the Faction lists broken up and sorted by BattleMech role?
The "eyestrain edition" is rather difficult to use when picking out units when trying to put together lances.
Also, if each sub-category (Brawler, Sniper, Missile Boat, etc) could be sorted by Unit Size, this would help loads.
Basically, something like:
Sniper
Blackjack BJ-2 Sniper BM 2
Griffin GRF-3M Sniper BM 2
Hoplite HOP-4D Sniper BM 2
JagerMech JM6-DD Sniper BM 3
Cyclops CP-11-A Sniper BM 4
Cyclops CP-11-A-DC Sniper BM 4
Goliath GOL-3M Sniper BM 4
Marauder II MAD-5C Sniper BM 4
Zeus ZEU-9S Sniper BM 4
Seconded!
-
Page 82, last paragraph, lines 2-3
Each Unit costs from 0 to 5 or more FPs to add to a Force.
Suggested edit:
Each Unit costs 0 or more FPs when added to a Force.
-
P. 29 21st Centauri Lancers
Lancers Command force composition is listed as 1 heavy BattleMech regiment
Am I confused by the page layout, or should it be a company, rather than a regiment?
Not that I'd necessarily complain, mind you....
-
1. (BUG) ALPHABET ISSUES
In the table of contents, the last four mercenary companies are listed as follows:
- Waco's Rangers
- 12th Vegan Rangers
- Wylie's Coyotes
- Wolf's Dragoons
The correct order should be:
- 12th Vegan Rangers
- Waco's Rangers
- Wolf's Dragoons
- Wylie's Coyotes
2. (OPINION) ARTWORK COMPLAINTS
p. 55: Not sure if "racist," "sexist," or just "tacky."
p. 75: Pale skin, leather straps, bare midriff, and tights. Is Natasha Kerensky a Twilight (TM) vampire?
I like that there are a lot of named female characters in this book, but I really feel like BT should be putting its best foot forward art-wise when it comes to female representation. Natasha Kerensky is the most iconic MechWarrior the distaff set gets to look up to, what with being featured in the quick-start's fiction and all. So I strongly suggest getting the perspective of a BattleTech fan who identifies as female, on what her idea of a badass looks like. Or, failing that, the perspective of a female sci-fi fan.
4. (CONCERN) COPYRIGHT STUFF
Among the paint schemes in the miniatures gallery are ones for the "Fighting Urukhai" and "Greenburg's Godzillas." I refer you to the scene in one of the Austin Powers films (don't ask me which one, I haven't watched them) where one character exclaims "It's Godzilla!" and another says "No, it is not, due to international copyright law!"
5. (COMPLAINT) WASTE OF DEAD TREES
There are eight pages of advertisements in the back. Isn't that a little ... excessive?
6. (COMPLAINT) ALPHA STRIKE COMPANION REQUIRED
The sheer number of "ASC" references throughout the book, along with basic things like pilot and command abilities only being found in the Companion, de facto elevates it to the status of a required purchase for people who want to use Combat Manual: Mercenaries.
In order to preserve customer goodwill, Catalyst should indicate that the ASC is a required purchase on the back of the book, using its logo in the same place and at the same size as Alpha Strike proper's. Catalyst should also stop selling the CM:M plus Alpha Strike PDF bundle, as this will leave people disappointed when they realize they should have sprung for the bundle that includes the Alpha Strike Companion and now have to forego the discount.
I'm personally in the situation of having bought Alpha Strike but not the Companion, and thus being left out of not only this, but also the last RPGNow bundle they did of AS + ASC. (As well as AToW plus AToWC.) So this is really something that irks me.
7. (CONCERN) "TECHNICAL READOUT" REFERENCE UNCLEAR
In all of BattleTech up to this date, a "Technical Readout" is a book supplement that gives original BattleTech stats for an era or faction's selection of units. Saying that this book includes "a mini Technical Readout" could create the impression that original BattleTech players will find new stats relevant to their system of choice in this book.
Suggested alternatives: "an Alpha Strike Technical Readout," "a unit list".
8. (CONCERN) "CREATE YOUR OWN" REFERENCE MISLEADING
The back cover also says you can create your own mercenary command. The only support this book has for doing so is a paragraph on page 79:
A Force may also be fielded from an unlisted Mercenary Combat Command. Doing so not provide access to non-mercenary Availability Lists or Unique Characters, and any Special Command Abilities must be rolled randomly (see p. 85).
That kind of feels like a rip-off.
Suggested resolution: Remove the back cover text which lists this as a feature, or add some kind of system for creating more balanced and personalized MCCs.
9. (CONCERN) JARGON-Y RULES
The chapter on Force Building introduces terms like "company," "lance," and "regiment" in its rules text, before explaining what all of those mean. It forces players to wade through a section on "Unit Organizations" before reading the relevant part which explains how to "Build a Company," and asks newbies and casual players to worry about what their in-universe subcommand's composition is like before telling them how to make their own force derived from it.
(There is a sidebar called "What if I just want to start playing?", but it is on page 83, when it should be right at the start of the Force Building section.)
Suggested resolution: Put the "just ... start playing" sidebar at or near the start of the Force Building chapter, and explain the process of building your own force more clearly. Here are some suggestions:
- Lead with the "Regimental Table of Organization," with graphics modified to make it clear that there are typically four units in a lance (the three dots above each one make that unclear).
- Go straight into "Build a Company." Cut out the first two paragraphs, which explain extraneous stuff and caveats. Just tell people to take these lances in this combination. Don't use "Formation" as a synonym for "company;" either assume that players will be building a company by default, or use "Formation" as the default and offer more types of Formations than companies.
- Treat Special Command Abilities as an extra. Tell players that they can either roll on the table, or limit their company to the units available to the Command and Sub-Command they want their company to be a part of.
So basically, it explains things out-of-order and it was really confusing to me on the first read-through. I'm also still disappointed that I have to buy a separate book in order to actually use this one, especially this part of CM:M, and that I've been left out of the past couple of bundles which included it.
-
Did that as a compromise. The logo was always supposed to be (and described in text as) the buffalo nickel, but always shown as the eagle quarter. So thought this would give the proper log some exposure.
That isn't a good excuse for confusing new players. This explanation should be present in the book itself. Perhaps the two logos could be shown together, with captions like "(c. 3039)" and "(c. 3050)", if you'd like to make up a fluff reason for why they've been depicted as having two logos.
-
On page 46 it mentions that the Kell Hounds enemis are House Kurita and Smoke Jaguars should that be House Kurita and the Jade Falcons? I didn't think they had contact with Smoke Jaguars till operation Bull Dog?
-
On page 46 it mentions that the Kell Hounds enemis are House Kurita and Smoke Jaguars should that be House Kurita and the Jade Falcons? I didn't think they had contact with Smoke Jaguars till operation Bull Dog?
Luthien.
-
On page 46 it mentions that the Kell Hounds enemis are House Kurita and Smoke Jaguars should that be House Kurita and the Jade Falcons? I didn't think they had contact with Smoke Jaguars till operation Bull Dog?
They did fight in the Battle of Luthien, but I think you may have a point about Jade Falcons being a better candidate for their recurring enemies.
-
After writing that I forgot about Luthien LOL :P
-
They did fight in the Battle of Luthien, but I think you may have a point about Jade Falcons being a better candidate for their recurring enemies.
The Combat Manuals only cover up to about 3054. And Luthien was 3052. Hmm, but I had forgotten about the Kell Hounds on Twycross.
-
The Combat Manuals only cover up to about 3054. And Luthien was 3052. Hmm, but I had forgotten about the Kell Hounds on Twycross.
Speaking of the era they cover, it has a table for combat command special abilities for the "Late Succession Wars" era but not the "Early Clan War" era that I could find.
-
Speaking of the era they cover, it has a table for combat command special abilities for the "Late Succession Wars" era but not the "Early Clan War" era that I could find.
Where? Command special abilities are not tied to an era.
-
Where? Command special abilities are not tied to an era.
Page 85, sidebar: "Special Command Ability Assignment Table."
Column 1 is titled "2d6 Roll," and column 2 is titled "Late Succession Wars."
-
Page 85, sidebar: "Special Command Ability Assignment Table."
Column 1 is titled "2d6 Roll," and column 2 is titled "Late Succession Wars."
Thanks, yes, that needs to be removed.
-
Thanks, yes, that needs to be removed.
YW!
-
2. (OPINION) ARTWORK COMPLAINTS
p. 55: Not sure if "racist," "sexist," or just "tacky."
That's the same line-art from the House Liao SB. Granted the 80s wasn't an exemplary period for inclusive artwork in RPGs, but in contrast to your complaint I, for example, found it fun to have my nostalgia bone tickled.
p. 75: Pale skin, leather straps, bare midriff, and tights. Is Natasha Kerensky a Twilight (TM) vampire?
Much of Natasha Kerensky's in-universe fame comes from her posing for cheesecake posters. Sex appeal has always been a part of her persona (meta and otherwise). At least she's got a shirt on this time under that tiny vest.
-
We appreciate all the errata, feedback and opinions, but please no debating here.
Everyone's feedback is welcome.
-
A possible continuity error.
According to field Manual mercenaries page 60 the Filthy Lucre were destroyed in 3031 by Hell's Black Aces. IIRC the Filthy Lucre does not appear in 20 year update nor in any other publication hence.
-
That's correct, consider that old information to be in error.
-
Under 'Common Enemies' I would have thought the 12th Star Guards would have Clan Jade Falcon and/or Clan Wolf listed.
-
HT1 Special should be changed to HT1/-/- for the following units:
p.92 ECI Standard Mercenary Pursuit Lance Firestarter FS9-S
p.92 LSW Standard Mercenary Recon Lance Firestarter FS9-H
p.92 ECI Standard Mercenary Recon Lance Firestarter RS9-S
p.92 LSW Standard Mercenary Striker Lance Firestarter FS9-H
p.92 ECI Standard Mercenary Striker Lance Firestarter RS9-S
p.93 LSW Stanard Mercenary Support Lance Firestarter FS9-H
p.93 ECI Stanard Mercenary Support Lance Firestarter FS9-S
p.93 LSW Stanard Mercenary Security Lance Firestarter FS9-H
p.93 ECI Stanard Mercenary Secutrity Lance Firestarter FS9-S
p.108 Late Succession Wars: BattleMechs Table Firestarer FS9-H
p.111 Late Succession Wars: Vehicles Table J.Edgar Light Hover Tank (Flamer)
p.115 Early Clan Invasion: BattleMechs Table Firestarter FS9-S
-
LRM infantry should be removed from pg 113. They don't exist before 3057.
-
I can't mock anything up, I'm at work right now.
The faction list is a great tool but I would suggest including a truncated list with less options OR place a picture of a miniature next to unit in brackets.
For instance if you have got a list of four awesomes include a picture of an awesome miniature to the right of the stats/listing.
It would help newer players identify with the mechs and make it less of a table of names.
Alternatively make an alternative beginners list that only lists the mechs from the Boxed Set / Mech Packs and includes the pictures in the list.
It should help cross promote miniatures, box sets, mech packs and then also help newer players identify more and learn those mechs and give them fewer choices so they aren't overwhelmed with massive lists.
-
Error: Rank Title (Page 06):
"It was the voice of Kommandant Mandingo Gluck. With Hauptmann General Miguel James and his XO Leftenant General Jean Andrews in the arctic on a training operation with the Dixie TMM, Gluck was the senior officer in the area."
Problem: Assuming that Jean Andrews is the XO of Miguel James and James is a Lyran general, the correct title of Jean Andrews would be Leutnant-General. (Source: Handbook House Steiner, p. 113).
Suggested Fix: Change the title of Jean Andrews to Leutnant-General.
****************************
Error: Missing hyphens (page 06):
With Hauptmann General Miguel James and his XO Leftenant General Jean Andrews in the arctic on a training operation with the Dixie TMM, Gluck was the senior officer in the area."
Problem: Rank titles like Hauptmann General and Leutnant General (see suggested edit above) require a hyphen. (Source: Handbook House Steiner, p. 113).
Suggested fix: Change titles to Hauptmann-General and Leutnant-General.
-
pg 12, 1st paragraph under Star League
The role of mercs during Star League seems overly downplayed to me. It stood out to me because I recently read the 2765 Field Reports. I might suggest saying their roles were limited as Independent Defense Contractors or used in "Hidden Wars" for covert operations to have plausible deniability. The Northwind Highlanders, featured in this book, would fall under this category.
It is also stated in this paragraph that mercs did not own their own battlemechs because they were rare and expensive. I could think of a few reasons why mercs leased battlemechs instead of owning them, but saying it is because mechs are rare during the Star League is a reason I don't buy. I assume the primary reference for this comes from the intro to Field Manual: Mercs. However, FM:M said that merc battlemech commands were rare during the Star League, not battlemechs.
At any rate, I know this is suppose to only be a simple intro, but I ask you to take a second look at other sources, Field Manual: Mercs and Field Report 2765 (CC, FS, DC), to make sure you have the right, consistant description of mercs during the Star League.
-
On page 88, the last sentence of the first paragraph reads:
"For example, a single tree does not constitute not Woods, but several small areas (or one large area) of forested terrain should be counted as Woods for the purposes of the SCA specialization."
There's an extraneous not after "constitute". It should read:
"For example, a single tree does not constitute Woods, but several small areas (or one large area) of forested terrain should be counted as Woods for the purposes of the SCA specialization."
-
Clarification on Demi-Companies:
Is it 4 FP per 6 units or 4FP to cut split a company into two Demis?
-
Page 107, "Guns For Hire."
The last two Wolf's Dragoons models have the wrong Greek letters. "Delta" has an epsilon, and "Epsilon" has a zeta.
-
To pile on to the Demi-Company confusion, the way I read it is you pay 4FP and to use Demi-Companies throughout your force, and can't use Lances.
If this is what was intended, on page 90 I recommend replacing:
"If a Force uses a Demi-Company, all Lances must be Demi-Companies. Two Demi-Companies make up a company instead of three Lances per company. It costs 4 FP"
with:
"If a Force uses two Demi-Companies instead of three Lances per company, the change must be made throughout the Force, and costs 4FP total."
-
Graphic on page 4. Warhammer looks amazing but that other mech, horrible. What is it supposed to be?
-
I believe that's a Grasshopper.
-
I just realized that this book is set around 3049 but Wilson's Hussars didn't return to Outreach until 3056 according to Field Manual: Mercenaries. If this is a retcon I'm perfectly okay with it because I love the implication that they may have fought Clanners and won, or at least survived long enough to take some loot.
-
Minor rules issue:
Page 62: Captain Victor Simonson's modified Blood Stalker SPA allows him to redesignate a new target each turn on an 8+ on 1d6.
That's almost assuredly supposed to be a 2d6.
-
I have only glanced through it as I do not do anything with Alpha Strike. I did not know it was a AS sourcebook when I got it as the cover says Battletech combat manual, not AS combat manual. This may have been know if you follow AS. Other than that Under Zeta Battalion (Wolf Dragoons) it says that every unit must be heavy or assault, how firm is that rule? As the official list from the old Wolf Dragoons book has them having a couple of mediums in it. Specifically a Hunchback and Whitworth in the Fire Lance of Garrett's Company ("Blue Company")
-
Proposal for Security Lance
Requirements: The Formation must have one Scout or Striker and one Sniper or Missile Boat. There can be no more than 1 Assault (Size 4) in the Formation.
Bonus Ability: If acting as the Defender in a scenario, 75 percent of the Units in the Formation are assigned a Terrain Master or Environmental Specialist SPA of their choice (must be the same SPA for all units) at the beginning of play. Otherwise, 75 percent of the Units in the Formation are assigned the Speed Demon SPA at the beginning of play.
Change to requirements are because I really think it should have a Scout, and most are Size 1 (like the Standard Lance), and there's a canon King Crab in a Security Lance that I wanted to make legal. The bonus ability changes are proposed to differentiate it more from a Command Lance.
-
Proposal for Security Lance
Requirements: The Formation must have one Scout or Striker and one Sniper or Missile Boat. There can be no more than 1 Assault (Size 4) in the Formation.
Bonus Ability: If acting as the Defender in a scenario, 75 percent of the Units in the Formation are assigned a Terrain Master or Environmental Specialist SPA of their choice (must be the same SPA for both units) at the beginning of play. Otherwise, 75 percent of the Units in the Formation are assigned the Speed Demon SPA at the beginning of play.
Quick fix for above:
Change bolded text to "for all units."
-
Proposal for Security Lance
Requirements: The Formation must have one Scout or Striker and one Sniper or Missile Boat. There can be no more than 1 Assault (Size 4) in the Formation.
Bonus Ability: If acting as the Defender in a scenario, all Units in the Formation are assigned a Terrain Master or Environmental Specialist SPA of their choice (must be the same SPA for all units) at the beginning of play. With the exception of any Size 4 Unit, which must be assigned with the Speed Demon SPA.
Another modification (ontop of ColBosch's correction): I think that if there is an Assault in a 'mobile' force then that Unit must get the Speed Demon SPA.
-
Errata
Pg.26, Com Guards Organization sidebar - Number of soldiers in Com Guards Level I infantry platoon is given as 28, different from what is described in the Tech Manual. According to Tech Manual, the number should be 36 (6 squads of 6 instead of 4 squads of 7).
Opinion
Pg.35, Battle for Ares sidebar - The scenario may benefit from more precise victory conditions to measure success - Victory Points, percentage of attacking forces that achieve their objective (perhaps the same as Breakthrough on pg.23 AS), etc.
Pg.104 or 107, Guns For Hire - If it can be fit into the layout, a line referencing more color schemes online at CamoSpecs.com would be perfect for those pages.
Unnecessary Petty Quibbling
Pg.52, Other Notable Mercenaries sidebar - Missing units:
Bronson's Horde
Laurel's Legion
Hsien Hotheads (they at least get a mech in the lineup on pg.104)
-
Just a suggestion for an in between Pre-formed Lances and the giant smorgasbord that your veteran battletech players usually interact with.
So this incredibly ugly hacked jpeg down here shows what could possibly be done in the middle of the two other options.
Sticking to boxed set mechs (or boxed set and lance pack sets) This gives new players that want some control and customization an option to build their own thing but avoids analysis paralysis by being confronted by too many choices. It also builds familiarity with the mechs that we're trying to build familiarity with anyways.
The challenge is really implementing those boxed set mechs that don't have a lot of different variants. The Stalker/Awesome etc work well because they've got four or five things to choose from and enough space to slap a picture in. But the Assassin...
I feel like battletech always starts with an emotional connection to one of the machines anyways. The people I've known that have really fallen in love with battletech generally attach themselves to some design and really care about it.
Hey can we get a unseen crusader? ;D
-
Overall seems like a short book. I love the idea of the simple battle scenarios but I expected many more battle scenarios of famous battles from the famous mercenaries especially when they faced off against each other or in a famous battle. I am disappointed by the one page for many of the famous merc units. There is so much history here. I should not expect to read all of the old books. Spend 3-4 pages on the famous mercs. I have to say though I am excited by what this book could be. For me, this is the most important book outside of the rule books. Seems like a lot of wasted space on no name merc units but that is just my opinion. I wish the PDF’s would be easier to read on tablets. I love reading the print of the BattleCorps books. It is a shame you couldn’t do this here and get rid of the grey background to make the text easier to read.
Opinions
Page 28 – Why no profile for Cranston Snord?
Page 42 – Why no profile for Grayson Carlisle or his son? I like having his wife in the back with her mech. Perhaps call this out on this page referring to her profile.
Page 46 – Why no profile for Morgan Kell?
Page 67 – Why no profile for Wayne Waco?
Page 72 – Why no Jaime Wolf profile?
Page 75 – The post 3040 BWC is cool but I and many others stay in 3025 or 3039. I love to see an earlier BWC.
Page 75 – Bounty Hunter profiles over time as he/she were different people would be cool.
Page 81 – I love the force building regimental table of organization for new people to BattleTech.
Page 86 – I like the overview of the different contract types but again famous battle scenarios that tie back to the contract types would have been useful here.
-
While Contract Types are discussed, there's no mention of Contract Payment. Given the Campaign Rules' (AS p. 114) basis in the Total Chaos Campaign System (AS p. 116) payment presumably happens via Warchest Points. Should this be covered in the Combat Manual: Mercenaries book or is this material for the coming Campaign Companion?
-
Suggestion
With the current pdf version, facing pages are not shown together in the Adobe Reader.
Please consider inserting another page (either a page C or a Page 1.5) into the pdf version only. This will allow Adobe PDF Reader to show the correct pages together when the reader uses the View>Page Display>Two Page View. This makes the pdf look like how the DTF would look if you opened it to a double page spread.
-
Suggestion
Page 37 - The badge of the Seventy-First Light Horse, could you please consider putting a fine black border around the white horse so that the head of the horse shows up a bit more clearly against the background. Unfortunately, on my PC monitor the white horses head does not show up very well against the light grey background and it looks like the horse's head has been borrowed by the mafia.
-
Suggestion
With the current pdf version, facing pages are not shown together in the Adobe Reader.
Please consider inserting another page (either a page C or a Page 1.5) into the pdf version only. This will allow Adobe PDF Reader to show the correct pages together when the reader uses the View>Page Display>Two Page View. This makes the pdf look like how the DTF would look if you opened it to a double page spread.
In the "Page Display" menu (under "View"), the second item below "Two Page Scrolling" is "Show Cover Page in Two Page View". That fixes the display problem.
-
I think I may have found a fluff error. Page 70
"Wilson’s Hussars, often referred to as Wilson’s Wimps, descends from a prestigious Liao House
unit called Lafarge’s Hussars, a battalion of the Seventh Andurien Hussars."
I took a quick look at my Cap Com books and could not find the Seventh Andurien Hussars listed as a Laio house unit, should it be House Marik or a different House Liao unit. Or did I totally miss the Seventh?
-
I took a quick look at my Cap Com books and could not find the Seventh Andurien Hussars listed as a Laio house unit, should it be House Marik or a different House Liao unit. Or did I totally miss the Seventh?
Field Report 2765: Capellan Confederation p.8
-
Haven't read that much of the 2765 books yet, thanks!
-
Most of the things I noticed have already been covered so the only real things I have to chip in on are opinions.
Firstly I believe the product should be called a 'Alpha Strike Combat Manual' as it does not use Battletech rules and thus will be confusing to potential customers.
Secondly I agree that the tables of 'Mechs at the back need to broken up. Doing so by role seems to make sense.
-
Page 13 and 15 - Maps of the Inner Sphere:
I noticed that the Maps show some proper Successor states' names (Lyran Commonwealth, Draconis Combine, etc.), but both the FWL and Capellan Confederation were labeled by the Great House names (House Marik, House Liao).
Page 48-49: Some grammatical errors.
Page 68, The Rangers Code: 4th line: A Ranger must be prepared body, mind and, and soul to fight for what is right.
-
Re: the maps, I also feel like the 3050 one needs to replace the Lyran and FedSuns emblems with a single FedCom one.
-
on page 39
Lieutenant Benson Pillbox's Hatchetman 3F has two stat lines. Is the later one meant to be a custom upgrade or another variant of the mech? I cannot a variant that matches those stat lines.
Thanks
-
on page 39
Lieutenant Benson Pillbox's Hatchetman 3F has two stat lines. Is the later one meant to be a custom upgrade or another variant of the mech? I cannot a variant that matches those stat lines.
Thanks
Looks like it should say Axman AXM-1N.
-
Most of the things I noticed have already been covered so the only real things I have to chip in on are opinions.
Firstly I believe the product should be called a 'Alpha Strike Combat Manual' as it does not use Battletech rules and thus will be confusing to potential customers.
Secondly I agree that the tables of 'Mechs at the back need to broken up. Doing so by role seems to make sense.
I have been reading everything, and first time I see it say anything about Alpha Strike is at the very end of page 13.
-
In the "Page Display" menu (under "View"), the second item below "Two Page Scrolling" is "Show Cover Page in Two Page View". That fixes the display problem.
Thank you, I learn something new every day O0
-
Under Snords Irregulars is says for the command company that "...; post-3039, all Mechs are heavy and assault (Size 3 and 4) mechs" However the Rhondas Irregulars book has the command company made up of a command lance, Attack lance, and a Recon Lance.
The Recon lance contained a Mercury, a Hussar, a Champion, and a Kintaro. So three of the mechs in this lance are no longer allowed?
Third Company (H'Chu's Diggers) It says "2 Mech laces, 1 mixed reinforced infantry company. All mechs must be light and medium (Size 1 and 2)" and yet the list given for it is not even close with five of the eight mechs falling in the heavy class, two in the assault, leaving only one following the new rule as it is a medium. There is not a single light in the entire unit.
Again from the Rhondas Irregulars book the Command Lance contained a Exterminator, a Lancelot, a Excalibur, a Champion. The fire lance contained a Crockett, a Sentinel, a Flashman, a Highlander, and in 3039 they replaced the sentinel with an Enforcer.
-
Under Third Dismal Disinherited it has "The Third Armored Regiment is a reinforced regiment with two companies of heavy tanks, one of fast hovercraft, and one of artillery. The Third Attack Wing specializes in close air support of ground units." And under "Force Composition 1 medium ’Mech regiment, 1 heavy aerospace fighter wing, 1 medium vehicle battalion, 1 mechanized infantry battalion, 1 artillery battalion. At least half of the Force’s ’Mechs must
have a jump Move rating." As every regiment of the Dismal Disinherited only has a battalion of armor, I am guessing that the reinforced regiment is supposed to a reinforced battalion.
-
115th Dracon about half way down has "whether or attacking or defending" I am guessing the first or is a typo.
-
Re: the maps, I also feel like the 3050 one needs to replace the Lyran and FedSuns emblems with a single FedCom one.
Technically, no.
Up until Hanse Davion's death it was legally just an alliance of the Federated Suns and the Lyran Commonwealth. The Federated Commonwealth only came into being as a single unified state when Victor Steiner-Davion inherited both realms and united rule over both in his person.
-
Technically, no.
Up until Hanse Davion's death it was legally just an alliance of the Federated Suns and the Lyran Commonwealth. The Federated Commonwealth only came into being as a single unified state when Victor Steiner-Davion inherited both realms and united rule over both in his person.
I still feel like there has to be a better way than a blue Lyran emblem and a yellow FedSuns emblem both labelled "Federated Commonwealth" while the entire territory is solid yellow. At least a gradient from yellow in the FedSuns territory to blue in the Lyran half. Or making the Lyran emblem yellow to match.
Edit: Obviously I'm no cartographer, I just think that the map as it exists would be a bit confusing to anyone who isn't down with the lore and I think that maps should be self-explanatory when possible
-
Suggestion:
Under each of the standard lances, add a single line with that lance's stats for Strategic Battleforce.
I know it's not technically appropriate for an Alpha Strike book, but we all know this series is meant to appeal to Battletech players of all stripes, and sample lances like these are exactly what SBF players need to quickly create forces for that ruleset.
-
pg 12, 1st paragraph under Star League
The role of mercs during Star League seems overly downplayed to me. It stood out to me because I recently read the 2765 Field Reports. I might suggest saying their roles were limited as Independent Defense Contractors or used in "Hidden Wars" for covert operations to have plausible deniability. The Northwind Highlanders, featured in this book, would fall under this category.
It is also stated in this paragraph that mercs did not own their own battlemechs because they were rare and expensive. I could think of a few reasons why mercs leased battlemechs instead of owning them, but saying it is because mechs are rare during the Star League is a reason I don't buy. I assume the primary reference for this comes from the intro to Field Manual: Mercs. However, FM:M said that merc battlemech commands were rare during the Star League, not battlemechs.
At any rate, I know this is suppose to only be a simple intro, but I ask you to take a second look at other sources, Field Manual: Mercs and Field Report 2765 (CC, FS, DC), to make sure you have the right, consistant description of mercs during the Star League.
As a note, the Field Report 2765: CCAF, says that Capellan-employed mercs were notable for having at least 9 regiments of battlemechs among them. Overall, it looks like the issue with merc BattleMechs back then was one of expense, training, and possibly policy rather than any sort of general BattleMech rarity being involved. If we're trying to say that "BattleMechs were rare among mercs because of these other issues," it might be good to make that clearer.
-
That's the same line-art from the House Liao SB. Granted the 80s wasn't an exemplary period for inclusive artwork in RPGs, but in contrast to your complaint I, for example, found it fun to have my nostalgia bone tickled.
Much of Natasha Kerensky's in-universe fame comes from her posing for cheesecake posters. Sex appeal has always been a part of her persona (meta and otherwise). At least she's got a shirt on this time under that tiny vest.
In specific, Natasha was noted in-universe for posing on freshly secured battlefields in highly contrived situations and in improbable outfits. She was also known for taking advantage of combat injuries to get plastic surgery done during convalescence. The outfit she's shown in appears in varying forms in several early sourcebooks (complete with the arm straps). Some of her artwork was also previously very stylized to indicate that effects had been added by fashion photographers, so black and white with strategic color splashes would fit, especially since the picture appears to be a throwback to 80's art style.
She was a combination publicity machine and social manipulator, very conscious of what she was doing. Think of a crazier, frequently homicidal version of Madonna, which again, is appropriate given the decade that spawned her.
Hopefully that adds some context.
-
Concerning the equipment tables, particularly the BattleMechs....
The Merlin does not appear on either the Late SW or Early Clan Invasion tables. It is listed as a "Mercenary" faction unit in the MUL for Late SW (Renaissance) and Clan Invasion.
Mercenaries were the most prominent users of the Merlin, in fact. A shame to leave a signature merc machine out of this book.
Same for the Cronus where the Early Clan Invasion table is concerned (MUL lists it as "FWL" for Renaissance and adds "Mercenary" among others during the Invasion).
-
I have what amounts to a rules question about infantry formations... asking it here rather than the formal Alpha Strike rules forum.
Alpha Strike Companion force composition rules (pre-Combat Manuals at least) takes a bit of liberty with the established lore of the BTU and treats infantry platoons as units of organizational equivalency to battlemechs, rather than entire lances of battlemechs. I.E. 4 platoons of infantry are a "lance", despite that in-universe a platoon already is equivalent to a lance.
Page 80 of the Combat Manual explains the in-universe way of doing things... 3 platoons equals a company.
Lance construction rules remain untangled for battle armor.. 4 squads = 1 lance still works. But unarmored infantry just became a problem. Does one platoon become its own lance? It seems that it must. You can't have 1 and 1/3 company being a lance, after all...
Infantry-I thought I took care of that but it may have reverted in editing (or it was adjusted in the text but not the table, or vice versa). Noted.
Some more thoughts IRT the conventional infantry:
Page 80 also gives the example of 3 platoons of conventional infantry and 3 APCs being a complete company. Would this company get 12 FPs or 6 FPs? Would it be composed of constituent lances, or would it behave as a lance in of itself for game purposes? (force construction benefits, lance movement, etc)
Just mentioning it b/c I hope the revisited text answers all those kinds of questions :) Non-squad based infantry are a very niche problem, but they require explicit treatment/exceptions to the force structure rules that assumes 1 game unit = 1 squad or equivalent.
-
Heavy APCs, all varieties, are entirely absent from the Mercenary Faction Lists pages. That leaves Maxims and Kestrels as the only options for transporting any Infantry Platoons. The MUL lists plain vanilla Heavy APCs (all varieties) as generally available in both periods. These would provide slight PV savings. Should they be added?
-
9. (CONCERN) JARGON-Y RULES
The chapter on Force Building introduces terms like "company," "lance," and "regiment" in its rules text, before explaining what all of those mean. It forces players to wade through a section on "Unit Organizations" before reading the relevant part which explains how to "Build a Company," and asks newbies and casual players to worry about what their in-universe subcommand's composition is like before telling them how to make their own force derived from it.
I second this, because the ComGuards organization sidebar on page 26 defines Levels I-VI, and assumes that the reader is already familiar with the standard IS organization scheme. Even putting a note on page 26 to the effect of
...and the lance-company-battalion-regiment system is ubiquitous throughout the Inner Sphere (see p. XX).
so the new player could find that quickly would help.
page 5, Warhammer and Grasshopper are used several times without being italicized. They should be as they're 'Mech names.
page 23, Special Rules section, second paragraph:
Finally, certain Combat Commands include a Unique Characters which...
Remove the "a" or the "s" from Characters for verb agreement.
Page 25, ComStar Sidebar: Someone already mentioned that severaly should be severely, but in the last two paragraphs it appears that the double dashes weren't converted to em dashes correctly. Note the third example between Board and taking, which is an em dash with a regular dash.
...a psuedoreligious Order with technology-- especially the HPG network--the idol of worship.
Today ComStar presents a face of peace and the protection of technology. It smoothly runs the Mercenary Review Board—-taking only a modest cut--while sending
page 39:
...and High Command is rapidly considering reassigning the Fusiliers...
Shouldn't that read "...and High Command is considering rapidly reassigning the Fusiliers..." (Rapidly moved to be an adverb for "reassigning" instead of "considering".)
-
Page 57 Northwind Highlanders
Captain Donald MacDonald Highlander HGN-733 has ENE instead of IF1
Is it a custom weapon change?
If not custom change ENE to IF1
-
more proposals based on feedback yall have brought up.
Infantry Squads
Infantry Squads are Conventional Infantry with a Cargo (CAR) Special Ability of 1. They are smaller infantry forces that accompany some combat vehicles as support. Infantry with CAR1 are separate units for gameplay and Point Value costs, but can be treated as part of the combat vehicle (with Infantry Transport IT1) for force building, using only the Combat Vehicle's Role and Alpha Strike stats for Formation requirements.
Foot Squad (Flamer), (MG) and (Rifle) have the same AS stats. CI, Size 1, 2"f, 0/1 A/S, 0*/-/-, AM,CAR1. PV1.
Foot Squad (Laser) and (SRM) have the same AS stats. CI, Size 1, 2"f, 0/1 A/S, 0*/0*/-, AM, CAR1. PV2.
-
Pg. 29
Jason Youngblood's entry lists his Phoenix Hawk LAM designation as PXH-HK2.
The MUL lists all Phoenix Hawk LAMs as PHX, as does TRO 3085.
While I am on that page, a question comes to mind. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think I've seen it addressed; when a Unique Character has a 'Mech that is not on any availability chart for the command, do they need to use Faction Points to "pay" for it? Primary case in point: Jason Youngblood's PXH-2 is not available to 'Mercs (and rather, is quite extinct by this time according to the MUL); even if it showed up on the Star League list, the Crescent Hawks do not have access to that list as an Ally or Enemy.
-
p84 under Unique Characters, says Unique Characters do not cost FPs.
-
p84 under Unique Characters, says Unique Characters do not cost FPs.
Ah. Thank you. I did miss that.
-
more proposals based on feedback yall have brought up.
Infantry Squads
Infantry Squads are Conventional Infantry with a Cargo (CAR) Special Ability of 1. They are smaller infantry forces that accompany some combat vehicles as support. Infantry with CAR1 are separate units for gameplay and Point Value costs, but can be treated as part of the combat vehicle (with Infantry Transport IT1) for force building, using only the Combat Vehicle's Role and Alpha Strike stats for Formation requirements.
Foot Squad (Flamer), (MG) and (Rifle) have the same AS stats. CI, Size 1, 2"f, 0/1 A/S, 0*/-/-, AM,CAR1. PV1.
Foot Squad (Laser) and (SRM) have the same AS stats. CI, Size 1, 2"f, 0/1 A/S, 0*/0*/-, AM, CAR1. PV2.
It's a neat idea and I like it, but in light of concerns about how much harder 4 squads are to kill instead of one platoon, maybe make such squads only available as an optional "add-on" for vehicles with the IT1 special. That way there's no danger of displacing gestalt platoons.
-
more proposals based on feedback yall have brought up.
Infantry Squads
Infantry Squads are Conventional Infantry with a Cargo (CAR) Special Ability of 1. They are smaller infantry forces that accompany some combat vehicles as support. Infantry with CAR1 are separate units for gameplay and Point Value costs, but can be treated as part of the combat vehicle (with Infantry Transport IT1) for force building, using only the Combat Vehicle's Role and Alpha Strike stats for Formation requirements.
Foot Squad (Flamer), (MG) and (Rifle) have the same AS stats. CI, Size 1, 2"f, 0/1 A/S, 0*/-/-, AM,CAR1. PV1.
Foot Squad (Laser) and (SRM) have the same AS stats. CI, Size 1, 2"f, 0/1 A/S, 0*/0*/-, AM, CAR1. PV2.
This has real potential for Munhkin abuse.
3 Squads of Flamer / MG / Rifle Foot Infantry = 3 PV
1 Platoon of Flamer / MG / Rifle Foot Infantry = 4 PV
3 Squads of Laser / SRM Foot Infantry = 6 PV
1 Platoon of Laser / SRM Foot Infantry = 7 PV
6 PV requires 3x the successful attacks to destroy as 7 PV.
Perhaps a restriction should be added that the Squad may only be taken as part of a force with their IT1 transport. Stated another way, the Squad MUST include its APC. That adds another 6PV minimum per Squad or 18 minimum per 3-Squad Platoon.
-
Errata
Pg.63
Lieutenant Lissa Gompers - One of her available SPAs is Jumping Jack. Her mech, like many Crusader variants, does not possess jump jets.
Opinion
Pg.67
There's a large empty space at the bottom of the Waco Rangers entry. That could be a great opportunity for a colorful character in a unit known for offering second-chances.
-
One of my friends who is a major Wolf's Dragoons fan read the writeup on them and said "this is wrong."
It seems to read that every Regiment has AeroSpace Fighter support, but he said only one of the regiments has ASF support according to previously published material. I don't know the Dragoons well enough to know which one, but I figured I would report it since I'm sure there are others here who know them better than me. :)
-
One of my friends who is a major Wolf's Dragoons fan read the writeup on them and said "this is wrong."
It seems to read that every Regiment has AeroSpace Fighter support, but he said only one of the regiments has ASF support according to previously published material. I don't know the Dragoons well enough to know which one, but I figured I would report it since I'm sure there are others here who know them better than me. :)
He is incorrect. WDSB has aerospace support for each regiment pre-Misery.
-
Got it. Just me passing along the observations of another.
I'll talk to him and see if he's got any hard data on that. It may be a case of conflicting sources.
Like we've EVER had that problem before...
:-X
-
One of my friends who is a major Wolf's Dragoons fan read the writeup on them and said "this is wrong."
It seems to read that every Regiment has AeroSpace Fighter support, but he said only one of the regiments has ASF support according to previously published material. I don't know the Dragoons well enough to know which one, but I figured I would report it since I'm sure there are others here who know them better than me. :)
He is incorrect. WDSB has aerospace support for each regiment pre-Misery.
If memory serves one of the later source books (Battle of Coventry?) says that Delta Regiment of Wolf's Dragoons doesn't operate well with infantry and so traded in those forces for additional aerospace units. Maybe that's what he's thinking of.
Anyway, some more errata.
Page 41, Free Rasalhague Republic sidebar, fourth sentence:
The new nation built its military from former DCMS troops, but recognized the need for mercenaries.
Change to "The new nation largely built its military from former DCMS troops,..." because otherwise you forget the Tyr regiment.
Next sentence:
The Republic shares some of the Combine distrust of mercenaries, but...
Replace with: "The Republic shares some of the Combine's distrust of mercenaries, but..." to indicate possession.
Page 44: Illician Lancers, third paragraph, first sentence:
Change to "Each of the Lancers' four regiments..." Use apostrophe to indicate possession as in second paragraph, second word after semicolon.
Page 53: Little Richard's Panzer Brigade, first paragraph, second sentence.
...the executive officer threw out him and all his cronies.
Wow that's awkwardly phrased.
"...the executive officer threw his former commander and his cronies out."
Page 72: Wolf's Dragoons, fourth paragraph, second sentence:
They returned a year later fully rebuilt—though The Successor States...
Remove capital "T" on "The Successor States."
Page 78: Force Building Terms, Unit, second sentence: Need a period after "etc."
Page 78: Force Building Terms, Formation, second sentence: Should the number 4 be spelled out "four" here?
Page 79: Choose a Combat Command, Force Composition, second paragraph, third paragraph: Should the number 6 be spelled out "six" here?
Page 79: Sidebar: Can you insert some space at the bottom of the sidebar? Other sidebars have what looks like one or two text rows of padding at the bottom between the text and the bottom border of the sidebar.
Page 80: Unit organizations, Armor/infantry organization:
Armor Formations can include any combat vehicle or support vehicle as well as conventional fighters. No more than a third of the entire armor Formation may be conventional fighters; however, a Force does not need to follow this requirement unless it contains more than one-third of the entire armor Formation.
Infantry Formations can include any infantry (or battle armor if available). They may also include conventional fighters, combat vehicles and support vehicles. No more than a third of the entire infantry organization may be non-infantry Unit types; however, a Force does not need to follow this requirement unless it contains more than one-third of the entire infantry Formation.
What? This makes no sense to me. It sounds like you're saying only one third of the force can be non-armor/infantry units unless your Force has more than that many armor/infantry units. Isn't that redundant?
Page 83: Rare Units section: Grasshopper and Assassin need to be italicized as they're 'Mech names.
Page 89: Environmental Specialist (Clear) Benefits List, Last benefit: Need a closing parenthesis so it reads:
"A Force cannot choose this option with Environmental Specialization (Clear)"
Page 90: New Lance (Formation) Types: Should the Killer Bees swarm lance be listed in this section?
Page 90: Demi-company, requirements section, second sentence: Should 6 be spelled out "six" here?
Page 90: Demi-company, requirements section, last sentence: Should end with a period. "It costs 4 FP."
Page 94: Captain "El Guapo", second sentence before the dash: Change "Regular" to "Regulars".
Page 102: Right column first full paragraph uses boldly twice in quick succession:
Instead of boldly sallying boldly forth from their defensive perimeter,
Remove one of the boldlys.
-
Killer Bees should have Marik (Early Clan Invasion), replacing Steiner (Early Clan Invasion), but leaving Steiner (Late Succession Wars) for Common Allies.
-
The Special command ability is spelled "Esprit de Corps" in all the unit write ups but then it is spelled "Espirit de Corps" in the write up on page 89.
This makes it a little inconvenient for searching the PDF document.
Thanks
-
Errata:
Pg.65 12th Star Guards Unit Profile
Seventh Regiment
“Scovy’s Ironmen”
"The Seventh is a combined arms regiment... Force Composition 1 light ’Mech battalion, 1 light vehicle battalion, 1 infantry
battalion..."
However.
From House Steiner: The Lyran Commonwealth:
"The 12th Star Guards spent the beginning of the third war
in the Federated Suns. Due to its chronic money problems,
two battalions of the 6th regiment defected to the Draconis
Combine when Kurita attacked them on the Davion world of
Elidere IV. As a result, the 7th regiment contains four battalions..."
The 7th is supposed to be an over strength regiment, not under strength.
You can keep the conventional elements, perhaps expand their size. CamoSpecs and Technical Readout 3026 both confirm the Guards' access to them. You might also want to mention "El Magnico", the 12th's elite combat engineer team.
From TR 3026 pg. 40:
"El Magnifico" is the code name for the 12th Star Guards' engineering unit. The Guards employed some of the best engineers in the Inner Sphere. An apocryphal tale tells of the unit actually building New Rome in a day but, not wanting to show off, tearing down part of the city and rebuilding it the next day.
Also, the Guards have integral Aerospace assets, as confirmed by the House Steiner SB:
‘Mech Weight: Medium
Fighter Weight: Medium
Armor: Yes Infantry: Yes DropShip: Yes JumpShip: Yes
I just want to make sure the Guards get portrayed in line with previous canon, since the Combat Manual is their day in the sun, so to speak.
-
In specific, Natasha was noted in-universe for posing on freshly secured battlefields in highly contrived situations and in improbable outfits. She was also known for taking advantage of combat injuries to get plastic surgery done during convalescence. The outfit she's shown in appears in varying forms in several early sourcebooks (complete with the arm straps). Some of her artwork was also previously very stylized to indicate that effects had been added by fashion photographers, so black and white with strategic color splashes would fit, especially since the picture appears to be a throwback to 80's art style.
She was a combination publicity machine and social manipulator, very conscious of what she was doing. Think of a crazier, frequently homicidal version of Madonna, which again, is appropriate given the decade that spawned her.
Hopefully that adds some context.
Oh yeah, I get the context. BattleTech's dripping with 80's style as it is.
I was just pointing out the obvious, which is that here in 2015, that's going to alienate people. :P Especially when she is the most prominent role model for aspiring female MechWarriors.
-
Noted on all sides. Now I ask for the second time not to debate in this thread. Thanks.
-
He is incorrect. WDSB has aerospace support for each regiment pre-Misery.
I would be the one Medron was citing, any chance you could provide me page number on were it is said that they regiments have attached air wings? I went through the book last night, and only need to read into Alpha and Beta regiments to double check. They have a lance of fighters attached in the TO&E to two companies for a total of 4 fighters specifically assigned to those regiments.
Just to pull out Alpha Regiment
WDSB pg 51 - Alpha Regiment: Baker Battalion: Laskowski's Company - Aerospace Lance
WDSB pg 52 - Alpha Regiment: Charlie Battalion: Stane's Company - Aerospace Lance
Now if TPTB are extrapolating from the Aerospace Support or that the assigned Dropships have their full compliment of fighters, then this is a different story.
But in the Dragoon Sourcebook, a fighter wing is not specifically referenced as attached support to the regiments.
In a Field Manual mercenaries, Delta is specifically stated that they gave up their armor battalion for a dedicated fighter wing.
Field Manual - Mercenaries pg 101
"Delta has never worked will with armor units, and so it is the only Dragoon's regiment to trade off armor for a permanently attached aerospace wing."
I don't know about the rest of you, but that read pretty clear to me. Yes I understand that this is more recent material but inferring from the above statement, permanently attached aerospace wings were not attached to the regiments in 3025.
I am not trying to start anything here, I am just looking for clarification on where that information is coming from. Those that know me know I am kinda (read major) fanboy and I kinda pride myself on knowing what is going on with my chosen mercenary group and this is news to me.
Again, just looking to understand so I can have my information correct.
Thanks.
-
I am not trying to start anything here
Not at all. Don't have an answer for you right now though—could be an honest mistake (very possible), or it may have been a set of changes to make integration with Alpha Strike easier (not as likely, but we'll have to take another look). Or it is possible this is a flat-out change. Regardless I'm glad it was pointed out and we'll look into it.
-
Adrian thank you. First, thanks for taking my comments in the spirit they were offered. This is basically more of a personal check for myself than anything.
If TPTB have decided that this is the way it going to be, that is fine with me (not that it matters). I will be the first to say that the Dragoons are a powerful unit already and that addition is a significant change. Just wanted to make sure that it is the right change.
All three possibilities are viable. If I can help in anyway, you know how to reach me. I would love to help.
-
Since these books are geared specifically towards Alpha Strike players, I agree with the idea of these being called AS Combat Manuals instead of BattleTech ones. Will help to prevent any confusion. Other than that I don't really have anything to suggest, the book is amazing! O0
I thought I had read somewhere that these will be hardback books (could just be my wishful thinking...though they really should be....)
-
I would be the one Medron was citing, any chance you could provide me page number on were it is said that they regiments have attached air wings? I went through the book last night, and only need to read into Alpha and Beta regiments to double check. They have a lance of fighters attached in the TO&E to two companies for a total of 4 fighters specifically assigned to those regiments.
Well, if you'll notice the deployment of the Dragoons in the Combat Manual, you see they're missing the Fire Support Group, Orbital/Aerospace Operations Group, and Support Battalion, all of whom have aerospace fighters. Given the deployment patterns of the Dragoons, the attached non-'mech elements in the five line regiments can be assumed to draw from them.
-
I don't think taking BattleTech out of the name or off the cover is a good idea.
I say this not to debate or provoke a discussion with those who have voiced support of the idea of renaming the series "Alpha Strike Combat Manuals"... but to express support to TPTB and voice this one opinion that they're on the right track in this area.
This customer supports the idea that the name "BattleTech" is not and should not be directly equated to the CBT/TW rules, especially not at the expense of excluding Alpha Strike rules from the "BattleTech" identity.
-
Yup, no debating please, just offer your comments, thanks. The name is very unlikely to change.
-
Quick thought, but have you considered adding quirks to the 'Mechs covered in these books?
It would be an easy way to somewhat retroactively add canon quirks to those older staples.
-
Alexander, that clarifies where the addition came from. WDSB doesn't state that they have permanently attached aerospace units. The various combat commands are discussed and the flexibility of the various combat commands give the Dragoons the ability to tailor a force to the situation. If that is what was the intention that is understandable but your earlier statement wasn't correct and I wanted to understand where that came from.
I now have my answer and understand the assumptions.
Thank you for the clarification.
-
This is not an issue with the content of the pdf, but I purchased the pdf the other day and put it onto my phone. I have the TW pdf also on my phone, an android, and rarely have issues with it unless I skip 50+ pages or it is a graphic heavy page such as the short stories, but the issue is resolved within a few seconds. With the Combat Manual the PDF attempts to open and all I get is a pop up window that says "Not enough memory" and closes.
I was wondering if there is a specific amount of free RAM that is required to run this particular PDF. It may sound odd, but perhaps there should be a mention of the amount of RAM required to run it properly. I believe the highest amount of RAM that I had free, when paying attention to it, was at least 330MB.
-
I don't know if this has been pointed out, yet, but I just noticed that the entries for Kestrel, Kestrel (Scout), and Kestrel (SRM) all still have 0.5 damage values on the availability chart.
-
I have been thinking about the Dragoon change and their various combat commands and to maybe balance them a bit more.
Idea: For certain units have a special ability, command ability, call it what you want ability, that give those units the ability to augment their force with a specific augmentation for some sort of cost (aerospace, commandos, artillery, support, what have you). This could be applied to various House commands, Mercenaries, and the like. I know that this might be a bit much or difficult to iron out but thought it might be worth the conversation.
I have been mulling this around since last night and thought I would throw it out there to see what people think.
-
We have a picture of a 'Mech (Atlas) in their colors... WHY is there no entry for Hansen's Roughriders? :o They were mentioned in almost every Mercenary entry in the past and I would think they are important enough to put in this book.
EDIT:
I know I'm pulling this from Sarna, but they have a pretty big bibliography:
20 Year Update
BattleTech Board Game rulebook
BattleTech: 25 Years of Art & Fiction (short story Starfire)
FedCom Civil War (sourcebook)
Field Manual: 3085
Field Manual: 3145
Field Manual: Mercenaries
Hector (short story)
Historical: War of 3039
House Steiner (The Lyran Commonwealth)
Jihad: Final Reckoning
Jihad Hot Spots: Terra
MechWarrior: The BattleTech Role Playing Game
Mercenaries Supplemental
Mercenaries Supplemental 2
Mercenaries Supplemental Update
Objective Raids
Patriot's Stand
Shrapnel anthology (short story The Race Is Not To The Swift)
Starterbook: Sword and Dragon
Technical Readout: 3025
Technical Readout: 3039
Technical Readout: 3145 Free Worlds League
Technical Readout: 3145 Mercenaries
The Fourth Succession War Military Atlas Volume 1
The Fourth Succession War Military Atlas Volume 2
Total Chaos
Wolf's Dragoons (sourcebook)
IIRC, they were also a unit mentioned in the 4th edition box set "intro to battletech" book... and I don't have the original BattleTech box but I believe they are one of the original Merc units (with the Dragoons, Light Horse, Lancers, etc).
-
I had been wondering about this too...
-
Did that as a compromise. The logo was always supposed to be (and described in text as) the buffalo nickel, but always shown as the eagle quarter. So thought this would give the proper log some exposure.
If it's supposed to be the buffalo nickel, then make it the buffalo nickel throughout. Error carried forward is still error. Why not be consistently right, rather than inconsistently wrong?
-
Lame:
1. crippled or physically disabled, especially in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2. impaired or disabled through defect or injury:
a lame arm.
3. weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy:
a lame excuse.
Nope, "lamed" is entirely appropriate. The modern third use is based on the first.
Lamed is not a verb. Lame is an adjective.
-
Lamed is not a verb. Lame is an adjective.
It being an adjective does not rule out it also being used as a verb.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/lame
Has lame as a verb. As did Meriam-Webster.
-
It being an adjective does not rule out it also being used as a verb.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/lame
Has lame as a verb. As did Meriam-Webster.
That's lame. #P
I stand corrected, but it sounds lame as a verb. Maimed/Disabled sounds better IMO.
-
You can be lam without being maimed. And "lame" speaks to mobility loss, not generic disability.
English as she is spoke, wot?
-
Might be a nit pick but I had to look at this for a bit to see it. The listing for the ELH Dark Horse Regiment looks like 1515T instead of 151ST Light Horse "Dark Horse Regiment"
I am getting old too so that might be it. Just an observation.
-
Could someone describe to me Simonson's Cutthroats Captain Victor Simonson's special rules:
At the end of each turn, his controlling player rolls 1d6. On an 8+, a new "Chosen Enemy" for Simonson may be designated.
What am I missing about the Blood Stalker ability and a roll of 1d6 equaling 8+?
Thanks.
-
Normally, you cannot choose a new Chosen Enemy until the previous one has been destroyed. Given that Blood Stalker gives you a -1 to hit your chosen enemy, but a +2 to shoot everyone else, the chance to redirect your attention if your designated enemy simply hides from you is extremely powerful.
-
Thanks Weirdo, I guess to refine my question further, how would this Special Rule be possible to achieve given that an 8+ needs to be rolled on 1d6 to be able to choose a new target. I guess I am questioning the wording in the Special Rule for this character to see if it is correct. Last time I checked you could only roll a 6 on 1d6. I don't know if there is a positive modifier to be added to the roll to get you the 8+ from someplace...
-
It's a typo, should be 2d6.
-
There's the answer I was looking for. Thank you nckestrel.
I have had some late night systems issues and have been reading the combat manual during periods of watching paint dry. Sorry for the stream of questions, just asking as I run across them reading...
-
It's a typo, should be 2d6.
Since you're giving out free errata, is there any hope to hear what happens when you roll a 7 on a false flag? :)
-
Since you're giving out free errata, is there any hope to hear what happens when you roll a 7 on a false flag? :)
You quit the game and get a Dr Pepper.*
*You are responsible for any work, time, money or other needs required to acquire the Dr Pepper. If I get the Dr Pepper, I'm drinking it :).
(I don't know if it will be 7+ succeeds or 7 or less fails. Presumably one of those two.)
-
You quit the game and get a Dr Pepper.*
*You are responsible for any work, time, money or other needs required to acquire the Dr Pepper. If I get the Dr Pepper, I'm drinking it :).
(I don't know if it will be 7+ succeeds or 7 or less fails. Presumably one of those two.)
Having played with false flag once (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=49929.0), and admittedly incorrectly at that, my feedback is this: False Flag is pretty powerful, even when "failing" the roll. I'd suggest keeping success at 8+.
-
Having played with false flag once (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=49929.0), and admittedly incorrectly at that, my feedback is this: False Flag is pretty powerful, even when "failing" the roll. I'd suggest keeping success at 8+.
Could the discovery of the False Flag be tied somehow to the opponent's Force Experience Level? Shouldn't higher quality Forces be more likely to spot the ruse than lower quality Forces?
-
From a discussion in another thread, it was suggested that - if space can be found or made - that a box or other section be included in the Force Creation rules detailing what types of Alternate Ammunition are available to mercenary forces in the eras covered, as this is not a subject covered in the main rules or the Companion.
-
I like the idea, but my tweaks would be for it to be in future printings of core rules. Regardless, I suggest just using an Era icon in the entry.
-
Experience Level: The average Skill of each Unit; see Point Value Skill Rating table (p. 167, Alpha Strike)
I think there should be a clear statement as to whether this is a suggestion or a requirement for a force built under the CM rules.
EDIT: NM, I see it is addressed on page 79. Maybe for clarity's sake add a "see page 79" reference to the line as well :)
-
Tactical Experts (Engineers): During setup, this controlling
player of the Force with this ability may place two light buildings
on the table per full company (2” or 1 hex). These may be used
for cover (as a fortification) or as a bridge.
Personal perspective here, but since it's a Beta and all I figure such opinions and perspectives are implicitly being elicited ;)
Tactical Experts (engineers) seems weak in relation to some of the other abilities. As written, it seems like a sort of compensation ability you should get for free if you actually pay to include an Engineering vehicle in your company. (especially since they're not on the merc faction list... you're soaking FPs you might have spent elsewhere anyway just to have one in the first place)
Being able to place some strategically placed strips of manufactured terrain like rough, rubble, or trenches in addition to (or even instead of) buildings would make the ability stronger.
Another idea: perhaps the ability would allow the player to remove some cover-granting terrain to the opponent after table sides have been picked.
Yet another idea: Maybe the SCA grants the ability to place minefields?
-
I just came across a bit of a weird juxtaposition on the pg 39 sidebar.
No one considered it likely that he would try another tack and attack the Draconis Combine.
Among those who were not surprised
I think that I'd prefer something like "Very few considered it likely" rather than the "No one" which is immediately contradicted by the next sentence.
-
I am not sure if it was intentional, but here is a lack of continuity with the headings Combat Commands.
In the Table of Contents its called Combat Commands, in the "How to use this book' side bar the section is called Mercenary Combat Commands, and in the actual section the title is Mercenary Combat Commands while in the text it is referred to as Combat Commands.
The 15th Dracon actually starts on page 34, not 35
The Eridani lighthorde starts on 36, not 37 and is missing reference to Seventy first light horse and 1515 Lighthorse darkhorse in the ToC
On page 52, There is a subheading for Lindon's Regiment that does not appear on the table of contents. The Airwing is mentioned in the table of contents.
There are force composition headings that are not present for every command. I can't determine the reasoning behind why some have this heading and others dont'.
In the force building section, it appears that heading using bold font are also listed in the ToC, yet on page 79 unlisted mercenaries and force composition are bolded and not mentioned.
Factions points heading on page 82 is also not on the ToC.
It took me a lot of reading to find an actual observation so that I could offer more of a commentary.
The colour art is nice, though there is quite a bit of recycled art.
There are piles of missed opportunites to provide more character art with each of the pilots or even of their mechs. I miss the days days when Laubenstien and Dietrick offered us images that really enriched the BT universe with illustrations and paintings of characters. I find many of the modern character art that looks like photoshopped people to be dull and detract from the overall quality of the book. Love him or hate him ( I love him), Jeff Laubenstein's characters were unique looking and contained background elements like alien bugs and plants, or even uniforms and T shirts with Band Names from the 31rst century, that really made the BT universe feel special.
-
I'd like to expand a little on a previous comment (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=49712.msg1149264#msg1149264) I made upthread, specifically with regards to the company-by-company approach to the Faction Point system.
Should "companies" that are not 12 units strong still get 12 FPs? There was the example of a company of infantry and APCs, but company sizes other than 12 can happen easily enough in other ways, even for mercs.
Namely, Aerospace squadrons.
I think the FP system ought to have a dedicated rule saying what to do with non-12 unit sized companies, even if the rule is to just keep using 12 FPs. Although I anticipate the intention is you get 1 FP per unit in a company. If that's the case, that being explicitly said would not only help clarify this, it'd help set up games vs Clans and their binaries/trinaries before their CM comes out.
-
Akin to the False Flag problem, there is a problem with ranges for Lindon's Company (pg 52)
1 medium ’Mech company (pre-3028), 1 medium ’Mech battalion (3029-3042), 1 medium ’Mech regiment (post-3042)
How big was it during 3028? This either needs to be either (pre-3029) ... (3029 - 3042)
or (pre-3028) ... (3028 - 3042)
A quick perusal of Sarna doesn't give any way to tell which is correct.
-
Although I anticipate the intention is you get 1 FP per unit in a company. If that's the case, that being explicitly said would not only help clarify this, it'd help set up games vs Clans and their binaries/trinaries before their CM comes out.
It's explicitly stated. Page 82, second sentence under Faction Points (FPS), "A player receives 1 FP per Unit in the company, up to 12 FPs."
-
Where are Hansen's Roughriders? They are the the only one of the core 5 not present. Why the oversight?
-
On page 25, the Comstar sidebar says
To that end, in 2786 he cajoled the Great Houses to recognize the creation of ComStar, a neutral, independent entity to maintain the HPG communication network and its HPG stations would free from attack by any Great House.
Should probably say
its HPG stations would remain free from attack
===
Page 88
in deciding whether or not a given map counts for the
terrain. For example, a single tree does not constitute not Woods,
delete the not before woods.
-
Where are Hansen's Roughriders? They are the the only one of the core 5 not present. Why the oversight?
I strongly doubt this is an oversight, but you do raise a very good question. I wonder if they're in the same situation as the Big Mac, and considered so close to a House that they'll be in that CM instead. Who were they working for in this era?
-
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the Roughriders are mentioned in the sidebar that gives a rundown of numerous other famous commands, though they are misspelled there as "Rough Riders".
-
Looking at the camouflage special ability on page 89, I think you guys may have the modifier backwards.
It says it replaces the -0 TMM of a standstill unit with a -2 TMM. That would make units standing still easier to hit, which kind of conflicts with the whole camouflage thing.
-
The history for the Crescent Hawks doesn't match up with earlier references. Per the Kell Hound book, Jeremiah Youngblood was part of the Kell Hounds in 3011- per p. 6 he commanded the LRRP Lance on Nestor. He is also listed on the TO&E for the Kell Hounds in 3016 (p. 27 2nd Battalion- 3rd Company)
-
The Wylie's Coyotes entry is a bit more mysterious then it needs to be. In both the Mercenaries Supplement and Mercenaries Supplement II entry for Blanc's Coyotes it makes it seem pretty clear that their contract ended and it was known that they were headed to the Magistracy of Canopus for their next contract.
-
I think I figured out what it is that bugs me about the unit descriptions. Take the Crescent Hawks for example. In the small section that describes Common allies and enemies, it does not mention special command abilities. That rule is found under the section containing rules for expereince level and force composition. In the Fuchida's Fussiliers entry, the special command rules are in the first box, yet both units only have a single subsequent box describing their foce composition. Comparing other single force composition units, the Crescent Hawks seem to be the abnormality.
Aslo, Common enemies of the Fuchida's Fussiliers is not bolded.
-
Using the FP system you could allow players to actually do one of the few non-lore breaking things in the game and create a DIY Mercenary Command. As it stands, the random generation of a non-aligned mercenary command is kind of silly. Why would I start a mercenary company and not actually have control of how they work on the battlefield? Not every mercenary unit, outside of the big commands, is run like the Lone Wolves.
While some of the arguments against will undoubtedly culminate into, "This allows players to powergame" believe me when I say, you don't need rules from a Combat Manual to power game in Alpha Strike. If players abuse these rules like they can abuse other rules work that out among yourselves. The possible deeds of the few should not punish the many.
All in all though, I am really excited to see where the Combat Manuals take us. This is something I have wanted to see in Battletech for a very, very long time. If done right, this could help get more people interested in Alpha Strike and breath new life into our beloved universe.
-
The random rolls was meant for non-player opposing forces, not player character forces. So you don't fight the same thing over and over. We're looking at the feedback to have a player "create your own" option though.
-
The random rolls was meant for non-player opposing forces, not player character forces. So you don't fight the same thing over and over. We're looking at the feedback to have a player "create your own" option though.
Fair enough, it is the only "create a force" section in the book so I assumed that was it. I am glad you are looking into a create your own idea.
Honestly if you just created a template for players to use like the one you have for all the merc commands in the book that would be awesome. Give them something similar to Faction Points called Command Points(CP).
For the creation rules (maybe on a point system? Negative quirks would be good here to balance them out), you just follow a format like the following:
1)Pick your origin: So you should have several options here. They can all cost CP, but all should have some benefits and negatives. Did the unit break away from their former faction? If so they now gain an extra enemy (that faction). Are they the personal guard of some rich, pompous noble? They have fancy equipment, but cannot get the espirit du corps ability.
2)Pick your friends and enemies: limit it to one each. This means you can pick up some equipment from your friends for FP as per the rules.
3)Force composition: This is where things get a bit hairy, but hear me out. Everyone should start with a light rated company/battalion/regiment (the size should not matter for the purpose of building). This can be a vehicle, infantry, aerospace, or Battlemech unit. You can pay CP to add additional subunits, i.e. add a vehicle company. You can pay CP to upgrade those subunits to higher tonnage ratings. So I could pay points to make my Light Battlemech battalion a Heavy Battlemech Battalion, as well as purchasing a light vehicle company to go along with it.
4) Commands and subcommands: Generally player-made units should be limited to one command. However, paying a hefty CP cost can allow players to break their unit up into smaller commands under a general umbrella.
5)Command and subcommand abilities: This is pretty straight forward. Using the CP system, allow players to buy command abilities for their unit as well as paying points to up the skill rating of their various subunits so that they can add more abilities to said units. Also, remember the origins? That and force composition should dictate what command abilities you can and cannot buy for your units. For example, a company made up of Assault weights is not going to be able to gain "Hit and Run".
All in all, it should be realistic. If you want to play a legendary mercenary unit, play one of the canon units. Mercenaries are a dime a dozen, but that doesn't mean your unit cannot be fantastic as well.
-
I'm not sure if this was said upthread already.. but page 80 has an error:
The Standard Mercenary Aerospace Organization chart lists an Aerospace Lance as having 4 fighters. In the event this is not in error and is instead new canon, then the squadron size is in error (3x lances = 6 fighters, as current canon recognizes).
-
Fair enough, it is the only "create a force" section in the book so I assumed that was it. I am glad you are looking into a create your own idea.
Also, I didn't write back cover text, so they may have had a different idea of what those rules were for than I had. The use of rules is always more open to opinion :).
-
The random rolls was meant for non-player opposing forces, not player character forces. So you don't fight the same thing over and over. We're looking at the feedback to have a player "create your own" option though.
I'd like to second a more explicit "create your own Merc command" section.
-
The write up for Smithson's Chinese Bandits does not match earlier source material. Per the House Liao SB P.47 the unit fought for the FWL against the CapCon during the 2790.
-
12th Star Guards-
The force composition for Paget's War Ponies seems questionable- Paget's War Ponies was originally the 42nd Striker regiment (per House Steiner SB p. 73). While it is possible the unit switched to heavier mechs over the course of the SWs it seems more likely they would have light to medium mechs. By the same logic, Ohell's Heavy should be mostly heavy and assault mechs given it's history as the 10th Heavy Assault Regiment.
The 7th Regiment should also have 4 mech battalions- per the same source 2 Battalions of the 6th Regiment defected to the DC during the 3rd SW and the remaining battalion was absorbed by the 7th Regiment.
-
Unaffiliated Mechwarriors-
Charles Bear- he was a member of the GDL for over 20 years, joining the unit after Verthandi. He might of been a member of the Ceti Rangers (per SBs- unknown merc unit, Tau Ceti Rangers or Ceti Hussars??) and the 21st Centauri Lancers but he mainly identified with the GDL. He seems an odd choice for an unaffiliated mechwarrior.
-
The force composition for Paget's War Ponies seems questionable- Paget's War Ponies was originally the 42nd Striker regiment (per House Steiner SB p. 73). While it is possible the unit switched to heavier mechs over the course of the SWs it seems more likely they would have light to medium mechs.
That's exactly the case. As a Striker regiment they maybe have been a light-medium regiment in 2765—but their composition by the time of their employment with the Capellan Confederation (let alone by the two and half centuries later of the Combat Manual listing) is debatable.
By the same logic, Ohell's Heavy should be mostly heavy and assault mechs given it's history as the 10th Heavy Assault Regiment.
Similar logic can be used here, however this entry should be listed as a heavy 'Mech regiment, you're correct.
The 7th Regiment should also have 4 mech battalions
Not necessarily 'Mech battalions—but yes you are correct, the total should be four, three of which should be 'Mech battalions.
-
That's exactly the case. As a Striker regiment they maybe have been a light-medium regiment in 2765—but their composition by the time of their employment with the Capellan Confederation (let alone by the two and half centuries later of the Combat Manual listing) is debatable.
The 12th is said to have an overall weight of medium in the House Steiner book. If Ohell's Heavies is a heavy unit it seems more likely that Paget's War Ponies should be lighter, unless the 1st & 7th regiments are really light to balance everything out.
Not necessarily 'Mech battalions—but yes you are correct, the total should be four, three of which should be 'Mech battalions.
Given the the original source (House Steiner SB) and how they tended to ignore conventional forces at the time, it seems unlikely that the entry refers to anything other then mech forces. The entry specifically mentions the 3 Battalions of the 6th Regiment, 2 of which defected to the DC and 1 which merged with the 7th Regiment.
Also remove the reference to the 7th Regiment being relatively new- it's existence dates back to the 2nd SW- the unit reached 7 regiments during the 2nd SW. Further the 7th gained it's 4th battalion sometime between 2863 and 2967.
-
Make your own Mech Command:
I thought that's what the ASC was for. Unless there's going to be a mini ASC section in each CM.
-
Soooooooo..... why is there no entry for Hansen's Roughriders?
-
Soooooooo..... why is there no entry for Hansen's Roughriders?
Space considerations. They're listed in a sidebar with several other formations.
-
Space considerations. They're listed in a sidebar with several other formations.
I figured they would be worth more than that, though, being an original. It is what it is. :(
-
Since the CM series is introducing the Succession Wars to Alpha Strike, maybe it should allow Dogfighters in place of Fast Dogfighters as a requirement for Aerospace Superiority Squadrons under the force building rules. Afterall, Fast Dogfighters that are legal in the SW eras can probably be counted on a single hand that's missing some fingers.
Then again, given how important raw thrust is in abstract combat dogfights, maybe you simply would want 50% interceptors if fast dogfighters aren't available.
-
Another bit of feedback:
I'm not clear on what role, if any, the MUL is supposed to have under the force building rules in the CM. Is it meant to work with the faction availability lists or is it an entirely separate system?
For example:
A CRD-5S Crusader is on the MUL as available to Mercs in the Clan Invasion era. But it's one of many such units that isn't on the list in the CM book. So am I allowed to use them at all under the CM:Mercs rules? If I can use one, how many FPs should I spend?
-
As mentioned previously (I think in this thread), the MUL is separate.
-
Another bit of feedback:
I'm not clear on what role, if any, the MUL is supposed to have under the force building rules in the CM. Is it meant to work with the faction availability lists or is it an entirely separate system?
For example:
A CRD-5S Crusader is on the MUL as available to Mercs in the Clan Invasion era. But it's one of many such units that isn't on the list in the CM book. So am I allowed to use them at all under the CM:Mercs rules? If I can use one, how many FPs should I spend?
The Combat Manuals are a separate system. The intent of the CMs is to make a more varied faction availability system. The MUL says CRD-5S for Mercs, because many mercs work for Steiner and get 'mechs from them (therefore fulfilling the MUL's minimum multiple units in multiple regiments). But that doesn't mean the 4th Tau Ceti Rangers should have CRD-5S readily available.
In the Combat Manuals, the CRD-5S is a Steiner 'mech, if you have Steiner as a Common Ally (where they would sell it to you), or a Common Enemy (where you could have salvaged it), then you can pay those FP costs to have a CRD-5S. Plenty of 'merc units have Steiner as either an Ally or Enemy, so CRD-5S is still fairly common among mercs. But not among Liao employed mercs.
Also note the MUL covers the Clan Invasion through 3061. The Combat Manuals only cover the Early Clan Invasion (3053/4). The Houses are still being much more picky about who they give upgrades to. Several mercs that had contracts with Steiner/Davion had just broken contract over not getting upgrades before facing the Clans. So we have to cover both, some mercs have very limited availability to upgraded 'mechs, while some get practically whatever they want. The Common Ally/Common Enemy lists are how the CMs manage those differences within different mercs.
-
Thanks for the clarification, nckestrel.
My suggestion with regards to the Faction Point system is to provide some sort of guidance about it should be used when there is no relevant CM format equipment list from which to draw allies/enemies/salvage. Currently there is no Steiner list for the Early Clan Invasion to identify the example CRD-5S. (Yes yes it's "obvious" to longtime BattleTech players, but what about non-longtime players? You can't even point at the "S" as a deliniator. By that logic, a Tai-sho TSH-7S would be a Steiner mech)
When CM: Steiner eventually comes out, then there'll still be no Kurita list. and so on. (or whatever the order is going to be) Assuming the series is successful and you publish a book covering every faction, then there are other timeframes. What about games set in 3056? What about the Dark Age?
I realize that's a task that's impossible to do comprehensively. However if Faction Points are to be tournament appropriate (and I recognize that I may be in error in presuming they ever were meant to be) then there should be something besides personal judgement a tourney judge can point to to justify what unit costs how many FPs when units from not-yet-published CM availability lists are included. The MUL is an existing resource that's too handy and too readily available to ignore for the purpose of identifying availability for Faction Point costs where no CM availability list is already published.
-
If a player’s Force consists of one-half or
more of the listed Force Composition for a Sub-Command, then the Force must match
both the Experience Level (average Skill Rating, see Determine Force Experience Level,
p. 85) and average Size of that Sub-Command, rounding normally, as well as any other
specifications.
That language leaves room for interpretation about what counts as "half" because it is vague about from where one begins measuring.
For example, the first merc sub-command listed is the 1894th Light Horse Regiment of the BSI. Their size is listed as a mech regiment, a fighter wing, a vehicle regiment, an infantry regiment, and an artillery company. That's 372 units total.
If a game has a big enough PV budget to bring 72 mechs, are those two battalions worth of mechs required to average medium weight and veteran skill or not? It's more than half of the mechs, but not more than half of 372 total units.
-
If input is still being accepted:
Nitpicky details
Multiple instances: SCA - Force the Initiative should be Forcing the Initiative to be consistent with the Companion.
Pg.86 Aliased edges on Locust.
Pg.86 Contract Types sidebar - Relief Duty and Riot Duty not bolded.
Pg.87 Contract Types (Continued) sidebar - Objective Raid and Covert Operations not bolded. Under Covert
Operations: "This type of mission places undue weight on the command, and generally officers higher wages than other contract types. " Officers should be offers.
Pg.109 - HBK-4SP and HBK-4P Hunchbacks are listed as Brawlers, but listed as Juggernauts on the MUL
Clarification/Consistency
Pg.55 - Marshigama's Legionnaires company composition: Each company is described as following a specific set of three lance formations. If the formations are intended to be limited to these three, then they should appear in the Force Composition box. If not, perhaps the wording should be adjusted, such as "Each company usually posesses a..." or similar.
Playtesting Feedback/Opinion
Last month we played the Plain Determination scenario (pg.43) and it may need another look or further playtesting. Clarification on victory conditions and/or PV could help. Also making the hovercraft arrive in waves instead of all at once would be an improvement, and perhaps change their deployment edges to the attacker's half of the board (and no closer than 15" to 20" from defender's home edge). My hovercraft showing up in pristine condition near the opponent's table edge on turn 7 shut down the game. PV was 430 Defender versus 600 attacker, using the average skill ratings in the scenario.
Last game my opponent used the 180th Dragoons from Lexington Combat Group (pg.51), and the sprinting rule for the Assault Lances was really cool. Might be worth considering as a Special Command Ability in a future supplement.
-
Unaffiliated Mechwarriors-
Charles Bear- he was a member of the GDL for over 20 years, joining the unit after Verthandi. He might of been a member of the Ceti Rangers (per SBs- unknown merc unit, Tau Ceti Rangers or Ceti Hussars??) and the 21st Centauri Lancers but he mainly identified with the GDL. He seems an odd choice for an unaffiliated mechwarrior.
This sprung out at me too. Being an old, old school player, I'd *love* to see Charles Bear replaced with any one of the fine folk from this list:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/MechWarrior_(1989_Video_Game)#Personnel (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/MechWarrior_(1989_Video_Game)#Personnel)
;)
Of course, it's a sad, sad indictment on how I spent my late teenage years in that not only was I able to remember half a dozen of these names without looking at the Sarna link, I can also still clearly picture the oh-so-cutting edge EGA pictures for these mechwarriors...
-
Soooooooo..... why is there no entry for Hansen's Roughriders?
More importantly, why do "The Blazing Aces" get no love? :D
And if like me, you get this reference 'cos you remember ripping the shrink wrap off your copy of Activision's MechWarrior game, you are o-l-d. ;)
-
Thank you all for taking the time to help us refine this book.
This thread is now closed.