Did BattleMech Manual (or the new AGoAC) change torso twisting?

[skiltao]

Preamble: In every edition of BattleTech to date, you could only torso twist once per turn. In early editions this was it's own phase, in later editions it was part of weapons declaration.

But I've just heard from someone who attended BattleTech Bootcamp at GenCon, and he said that you can now torso twist one direction for weapons fire and then, later in the same turn, twist the other way to make physical attacks.

Question: The standard rule hasn't changed, right? You still declare torso twisting once, during the weapons phase, and you do not get to declare a new torso facing at any later point in the turn?

Followup: Anyone happen to know if the BattleTech Bootcamp uses some non-standard rules?

[Empyrus]

Functions as always, one twist per turn. Someone's just... i don't know what.

[Sartris]

But I've just heard from someone who attended BattleTech Bootcamp at GenCon, and he said that you can now torso twist one direction for weapons fire and then, later in the same turn, twist the other way to make physical attacks.

no.

back before BMR there was a separate phase for torso twisting that occured between the movement and attack declaration. it was removed because no one did it that way.

From the BattleMech Manual:

TORSO TWISTS
As part of each ’Mech’s weapon attack declaration, a biped ’Mech can rotate its torso one hexside to the left or right while keeping its feet pointed straight ahead. This twist lasts for the remainder of the turn, affecting firing arcs for the Weapon attack and Physical Attack Phases, but is not considered when determining hit locations. The torso automatically returns to its forward position in the End Phase.

[skiltao]

Thanks guys. Either of you happen to hit the bootcamp to know how it was run?

[Sartris]

I have not

[mbear]

Functions as always, one twist per turn. Someone's just... i don't know what.

Mistaken. The word you want is mistaken.

[Empyrus]

Mistaken. The word you want is mistaken.

I'd say perhaps "trying to game things to their advantage"...

[Sartris]

there's also "i've been playing a house rule for thirty years and just assume it's the actual rule now"

[Scotty]

I'd say perhaps "trying to game things to their advantage"...

The agent in charge of boot camp (EDIT: for that shift; there were at least six agents that I saw from the next table over because we handle events in shifts), who is not currently playing the game, and who more than likely will not interact with any of these players during a game for the rest of the convention and therefore more likely than not at least a year, if ever, is trying to game things to their advantage?

Mistaken.  The word you want is mistaken.

[nckestrel]

Possibly the person claiming that they were told that at the Boot Camp was trying to game the system.
But I’m far more likely to believe a mistake. Whether the agent’s knowledge, a miscommunication, or a misunderstanding on the player’s side. Something messed up, correct the understanding and move on.

[Paul]

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

Harsh Napoleon quote aside, it would be cool if the base assumption for stuff like this is: “someone goofed.”
Heck, I still make mistakes despite playing since the late 90s. I think everyone does. Its pretty weak as far as cheats go.

[skiltao]

Yeah, the way the guy phrased it sounded to me like there'd been a miscommunication. I understand cons can be pretty chaotic, so the occasional hiccup isn't surprising.

Thanks all!