Author Topic: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired  (Read 53492 times)

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5042
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #240 on: 14 February 2017, 18:06:22 »
Does BV affect how a 'Mech pilots?  It emphatically does not; a 'Mech with a displayed BV is identical to the same 'Mech with no BV printed on its sheet.

That, plus the fact that Xotl was not allowed to change BV for another thing that was already in the book despite wanting to (C3) makes me pretty sure this book is not the place for it, one way or another.

So, basically, BV is not something that will be included in the book's final draft at all. Correct?
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13699
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #241 on: 14 February 2017, 18:12:46 »
I was not involved in writing the book, so my word on the subject is something rather less firm than concrete, but it is my understanding that BV, if it is not already present (and I'm fairly certain it is not), will not be present in the final.

This is conjecture based on Xotl's own statements in this thread and elsewhere, and following the reasoning employed behind those statements and decisions.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5042
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #242 on: 14 February 2017, 18:17:42 »
Understood. Where would an appropriate place be to make such a request re.: piloting BV?
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

cavingjan

  • Spelunca Custos
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4470
    • warrenborn
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #243 on: 14 February 2017, 18:53:46 »
Where is it currently?

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #244 on: 14 February 2017, 19:12:15 »
That would be Errata Discussion (well, best fit, anyways: we generally don't want people making rule revision requests in the Errata forum, because this forum is intended for confirmed error reports, oddities like this thread aside).  However, there's no real need, as I fully agree with your post and if the opportunity ever comes to revise Piloting BV you can be sure I'll push for that option.

To further clarify, there are no BV rules of any kind in the Manual and there won't be in the final.
« Last Edit: 21 April 2017, 14:14:31 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Diogenes

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #245 on: 14 February 2017, 20:20:34 »
Typo spotting: P.46, left column, two lines into the subsection on Torso or Arm Hits: "the first block labeleded"

While I'm not quite an expert on 'mech lore to delve much into the quirks table, could I suggest the Wraith have the Cowl quirk?  There's nothing in the fluff text about it that I'm aware of, but the artwork and miniature definitely have a "hooded mantle" aesthetic, so it might seem fitting.

Questions I've seen and heard elsewhere make me wonder if a couple items should be added to the Common Misconceptions section, regarding ammunition explosions:
  • Ammo explosion damage resolves as soon as the critical hit is determined because the damage is an "effect of a critical hit," rather than resolving after weapon damage, or in any other order determined by the attacker. (I'm actually not 100% certain of this myself, but that seems to be what the rules imply, and I've seen nothing to the contrary yet.)
  • Even if damage destroys a section and causes all its slots to effectively take a critical hit, you still check for critical hits if it contains something explosive like ammunition or a gauss rifle. (P.43 covers this under Location Damage, but it could be easily overlooked.)

And by the by - thanks to CGL for the work in putting this together.  O0  I know a few long-time players who are really glad to see how this is shaping up and clarifying a lot of things we thought we knew.

CrazyGrasshopper

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 483
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #246 on: 15 February 2017, 01:19:21 »
Xotl, I do not want to pry, but have you read my last post on the displacement (the long one)? Apart from the suggested wording change, it contains a concern about the Domino Effect rules, and it's the last one I have to the rules as they are written in your document.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #247 on: 15 February 2017, 10:12:09 »
No worries--appreciate the reminder.

Quick check of my own: have you checked your concerns against the downloadable dropbox displacement document (alliteration!) as downloaded today?  I updated the same document continually as I went through that chapter with you and Neon, and want to make sure that you've seen the resulting rules as they stand right now.

If the concern still exists, I'll go over it.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

CrazyGrasshopper

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 483
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #248 on: 15 February 2017, 12:58:04 »
No worries--appreciate the reminder.

Quick check of my own: have you checked your concerns against the downloadable dropbox displacement document (alliteration!) as downloaded today?  I updated the same document continually as I went through that chapter with you and Neon, and want to make sure that you've seen the resulting rules as they stand right now.

If the concern still exists, I'll go over it.

It still exists (unless I download something wrong; should be the same link you provided previously, right?):

If the first target ’Mech’s PSR was instead successful, but it was still forced out of its hex (because it could not dodge), it must immediately make another PSR when it is placed in the hex with the new target ’Mech, or fall in that hex.

Further in the example:
In the Displacement diagram above, the ’Mech in Hex A has fallen 1 level into Hex B. The ’Mech standing in Hex B will be forced into Hex C and must make a Piloting Skill Roll to avoid falling. The ’Mech in Hex C can try to dodge the domino effect. First, ’Mech C’s controller must make a PSR. If the roll fails, the ’Mech is forced into Hex D and falls. If another ’Mech occupied that hex, the domino effect continues.

From the rule it follows that the 'Mech that started in the hex B should make one more PSR to avoid falling in the hex C to the total of two: one for being forced from the hex B, one for forcing out the 'Mech that started at the hex C. The example does not mention this.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #249 on: 15 February 2017, 15:57:59 »
I've just realized that there's nothing in TW about forcing two PSRs if in a multiple domino effect chain.  So let's axe that because it just adds more rolls, more text, and more complications.  We'll just keep using the standard domino effect rules regardless of how many mechs are in the chain.

I've updated the text again to reflect this (and added a few clarifiers elsewhere, such as noting that the domino effect dodge doesn't allow you to deliberately violate stacking, even though it's part of displacement).  Despite the extra clarifiers, this is overall a bit shorter because we've axed all that extra domino effect text.  New version linked below:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/357573/Displacement%20Hell.docx
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

CrazyGrasshopper

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 483
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #250 on: 15 February 2017, 19:47:14 »
I've just realized that there's nothing in TW about forcing two PSRs if in a multiple domino effect chain.

Actually, that problem was inherited from TW. It had the same inconsistency.

Displacement Hell, Domino Effect Example
The ’Mech in Hex B makes an immediate Piloting Skill Roll. We’ll assume it has no MP left, which means that, whether it passes or fails, it will in turn be forced into Hex C.


If the picture has not changed, you do not have to assume it does not have MP to dodge. The incoming 'Mech enters from the forward hex.

Displacement Hell: Falling, Falling Damage to 'Mech, Water
A ’Mech above the water’s surface that falls into water suffers normal falling damage divided by 2 for hitting the water’s surface, and also normal falling damage divided by 2 for the fall from the water’s surface to the bottom of the water hex. Damage for hitting the water’s surface equals tonnage/10 (round up) x (# of levels fallen + 1)/2). Normal damage for hitting the bottom of the water hex equals tonnage/10 (round up) x (depth of water hex + 1)/2. Damage is resolved separately; round any fractional final damage values down.

In which situations does the separate resolution matter (apart from giving slightly more damage compared to the (# of levels fallen+1)/2) ? ??? The only one I can come up with is an accidental fall from above onto a fully submerged target, in which the falling unit is destroyed during its contact with the water surface, thus missing its target by default.

CrazyGrasshopper

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 483
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #251 on: 15 February 2017, 23:29:17 »
Standing Up, p.19
Minimum Movement: A four-legged ’Mech can stand up without having to make a Piloting Skill Roll; only if one or more legs have been destroyed must it make a PSR to stand.

I suspect something else was intended to be in this paragraph.

CrazyGrasshopper

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 483
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #252 on: 19 February 2017, 21:30:08 »
Heat, Ammunition, p.52
Inferno Missiles: A ’Mech carrying Inferno ammunition must roll an additional set of Heat Scale Avoid Rolls to determine whether or not its inferno ammo explodes (see p. 47).

Rules for inferno munitions are on p. 107.

sadlerbw

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #253 on: 22 February 2017, 13:09:34 »
I am STILL poking my way through this thing. Again, not sure if this stuff was already mentioned or not:

p.37: In the example at the top of the page, it mentions a Griffin and a Warhammer. However, in the graphic, both mechs are Timber Wolves. Should probably be changed to 'Mech A' and 'Mech B' or something like that for clarity.

p.38,p.40,p.135: The Kick, Punch, and Physical Weapon sections all refer to doing damage in a single 'block'. I don't think the term damage block is used anywhere else. I would suggest changing this to 'group' or 'damage value grouping' to be consistent with other discussions of applying single chunks of damage.

p.42,p.43: CASE and CASE II: this kinda breaks the flow chart for me, both visually, and verbally in steps 8 and 9. There are a number of ways this could be fixed. You could make CASE and CASE II sequential steps that are always checked. You could re-write the text version to match the three-answer node on the visual chart. You could make CASE and CASE II steps 9a and 9b, and add an 8 to represent the choice between CASe, CASE II, and Neither. I don't care which, but it isn't quite right the way it is now.

p.49: Destroying a mech: Since it is predicated on using an optional rule, I believe the 'Abandoned 'Mechs' heading should be in purple, and marked as optional.

Pat Payne

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1449
  • 352nd Combat Group -- Ex cinis ad astra
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #254 on: 22 February 2017, 20:47:01 »
I am STILL poking my way through this thing. Again, not sure if this stuff was already mentioned or not:

p.37: In the example at the top of the page, it mentions a Griffin and a Warhammer. However, in the graphic, both mechs are Timber Wolves. Should probably be changed to 'Mech A' and 'Mech B' or something like that for clarity.

Given some of the mockups shown previously, I tend to think the Mad Cats are just placeholders for later art (remember that the cover we were shown earlier for the Manual was of a Rifleman)

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4879
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #255 on: 23 February 2017, 03:15:39 »
I can understand the desire not to give the Celestials Improved Communications in order to work with their c3i, so I'm not going to really argue that, but I will suggest that they as a whole should get the "Distracting" quirk, considering their fluff and the reaction to them during and after the Jihad. Under the Archangel fluff it states "infused their military with bold new unit, and filled the ranks of the elite with machines that can strike fear into the enemy's heart while providing a symbol the fanatics can rally behind."

I'd also suggest either Command Mech or Battle Computer for the Archangel, considering its fluff. "Intended as a command unit or an anchor for assault..." and they're also as fluffed as being part of command units.

Sniper

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #256 on: 24 February 2017, 01:43:03 »
P.  97  R: Rapid-Fire 4th paragraph

"If firing four to five shots, a jam occurs on a to-hit roll of 3 or less. "  is repeated twice.
Demo Agent #869  Burnaby, BC, Canada

sadlerbw

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #257 on: 24 February 2017, 18:10:02 »
Given some of the mockups shown previously, I tend to think the Mad Cats are just placeholders for later art (remember that the cover we were shown earlier for the Manual was of a Rifleman)

I understand, and in most of the examples, it doesn't actually matter. In this example, I think it actually makes the example a bit confusing if they don't happen to end up with unique top-down images. Any of the other examples that also did this (skidding for example) but it didn't make them unclear, I didn't mention.

Also, a couple more that may have already been mentioned:

p.55: Domino Effect, second paragraph. I would change the end of that sentence to read: "...or randomly determined if the falling 'Mech entered the hex from directly above." Without explicitly saying 'the falling 'Mech' I was having a little trouble figuring out which of the two 'mechs was entering which hex.

p.55: Multiple Domino Effects, first sentence: should read, "...the unintentional movement of THE other 'Mech, and if..."

p.55: Multiple Domino Effects, last sentence: the word 'stilled' should be 'still'.

p.60: To me, it would be more clear if the heavy/light woods/jungle ONLY mentioned the modifier for that type of terrain, not the mods for both heavy and light in the LOS sections. So for example, heavy woods would read, "Three or more points of intervening woods/jungle block LOS. Heavy Woods is worth 2 points."

p.65: Underwater LOS Table, Footnote 7: This is slightly confusing. Could be interpreted to mean leg weapons always hit leg and vice versa instead of being a hit for leg locations and a miss for anything else. Maybe say, "Leg weapons are treated as attacker underwater. Torso and arm weapons are treated as attacker on ground." That should end up pointing players to footnotes 3 and 4 appropriately.

p.71: Levels. Last paragraph seems to say the exact same thing for entering a hex one level lower and a hex one-or-two levels lower. Something is either duplicated or missing here.

General Note: I found the background image on only the odd pages to be so dark in the lower central area that it makes reading the text difficult. The even pages are OK, it's the just odd pages. That dark 'smudge' down at the bottom is just too close to the black text color and I can't read it as well as the rest of the page.

EDIT:

p.72 second paragraph of the page should begin, "Missed shots aimed..." shots needs to be plural.

p.72 Physical Attacks. in the last sentence where it says, "...on the same level of the building hex..." I think it should just be 'building', not 'building hex'.
« Last Edit: 25 February 2017, 09:14:29 by sadlerbw »

sadlerbw

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #258 on: 25 February 2017, 09:42:34 »
Couple more:

p.73 Collapse -> Falling: I think the reference at the end of this sentence should be 'Falling Damage to a 'Mech, p.56', instead of 'Displacement, p.55'
p.74 Building Collapse, second paragraph: should say 0.7x3=2.1, not 0.8x3=2.1
p.81 Skin-of-the-teeth ejection: SHouldn't the heading for this section be colored purple, since it is marked as optional?
p.96: Heat Effects, last sentence: I admit this is picky, but the most other 'see this section references are formatted like, "(see [SECTION NAME], p.[###])", but this one is not in parentheses and spells out 'page'. This isn't wrong, just slightly inconsistent.
p.97: PD: Point-Blank: I think this was either supposed to say 'PB: Point-Blank', or 'PD: Point Defense'. The abbreviations later on in the equipment section are 'PD', so I'm leaning towards it should have been point defense.

CampaignAnon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Living the Meme...
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #259 on: 25 February 2017, 19:01:34 »
I can understand the desire not to give the Celestials Improved Communications in order to work with their c3i, so I'm not going to really argue that, but I will suggest that they as a whole should get the "Distracting" quirk, considering their fluff and the reaction to them during and after the Jihad. Under the Archangel fluff it states "infused their military with bold new unit, and filled the ranks of the elite with machines that can strike fear into the enemy's heart while providing a symbol the fanatics can rally behind."

I'd also suggest either Command Mech or Battle Computer for the Archangel, considering its fluff. "Intended as a command unit or an anchor for assault..." and they're also as fluffed as being part of command units.
That's... actually something I hadn't thought of. I'll add Improved Communications to what I can. I'm less enthused about Distracting, but that's because I think the quirk isn't very good.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25799
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #260 on: 26 February 2017, 19:18:31 »
Distracting seems to be in danger of becoming an overused quirk.

Huron Warrior should have the Rumble Seat quirk, per the description of Loren Jaffery riding in one in Highlander Gambit.
« Last Edit: 26 February 2017, 19:21:51 by MoneyLovinOgre4Hire »
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

sadlerbw

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #261 on: 26 February 2017, 22:47:18 »
Ok, finally made it through! here is the last of the stuff I noted, although I'm almost sure some has been mentioned elsewhere:

p.104 Torpedo: The silly quote makes no sense. the phrase 'damn the torpedoes'in context  means 'forget/ignore the torpedoes'. So, 'flood the tubes and damn the torpedoes' doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'd just drop it and leave the quote as, "Flood the tubes. I've got an Atlas to kill!"
p.111 All-C3 Master Network. The example references red, blue, and green lances in the text, but the lances in the picture are red, blue, and yellow.
p.116 AMS: Nowhere is it mentioned that using AMS generates heat. While it is in the tables, might be helpful to add a bullet point for taking heat to the list of results.
p.118 Weapon Types: Just another reference to 'PD: Point-Blank', in case this should be Point-Defense.
p.127 Firing arc/attack direction arc images. In the two images comparing the damage and firing direction arcs, it might be helpful if they were both presented in the same scale. It isn't wrong or anything like that as-is. I just think it would be a better comparison if both images were to the same scale and showed the same number of hexes.
p.135 Physical Weapon Attack Table: ANother mention of 'damage block' that I think should be 'grouping' or 'damage value grouping'.
p.141 Nimble Jumper: don't see any text in the description.
p.142 Oversized: don't see any text in the description.
p.142 Exposed Weapon Linkage: Second sentence reads, "On a 10+, that weapon is unable." Something is missing here.
p.143 Optional Rules Checklist: The 'f' should not be capitalized in 'BattleField Support'.

Look forward to seeing the finished version!

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4963
  • O-R-E-O
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #262 on: 27 February 2017, 03:10:25 »
Pedantic correction here.  The torpedoes in the quote "Damn the torpedoes" refers to Confederate mines that had been laid, not submarine-launched weapons.   :D

sadlerbw

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #263 on: 02 March 2017, 19:57:07 »
Pedantic correction here.  The torpedoes in the quote "Damn the torpedoes" refers to Confederate mines that had been laid, not submarine-launched weapons.   :D

Yes. Your complaint is much better worded than mine was, but that is the point I was trying to make. I still maintain it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even as a joke!

Asmo

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #264 on: 09 March 2017, 08:46:35 »
Suggestions for the common misconceptions section.

STEALTH ARMOUR
Stealth armour does not confuse a C3 network – only the spotter applies the negative range modifier – all other mechs in the network ignore these penalties (p111). When Stealth mode is active – the unit may not be a secondary target (p114).

MASC
If a MASC roll is failed and actuators damaged, then piloting skill rolls are made before moving the mech – all at the cumulative modifier (p115)

SHUTDOWN
If your mech shuts down in the end phase due to heat then you must make a PSR with a +3 modifier (plus any other mods from critical damage: gyro, actuator, etc) to remain standing. (p52)

HEAT FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES
No mech may have more than 15 extra heat applied in a phase from plasma weapons, inferno rounds or planetary conditions (p50).

These seem to be the common ones that people get wrong in our area that were not already covered in that section.

Cheers,

Rob

"If words were wisdom, I'd be talking even more". I Choose - The Offspring

GespenstM

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 815
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #265 on: 12 March 2017, 01:38:27 »
Sorry, I may be too late here but I was wondering if someone could explain the choices behind the Grand Titan's traits?

CampaignAnon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Living the Meme...
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #266 on: 12 March 2017, 13:34:13 »
Sorry, I may be too late here but I was wondering if someone could explain the choices behind the Grand Titan's traits?
What part are you having issues with? It's got a lot of fiddly weapons and an XLFE, and the Multi-Trac gives it the ability to beat on units that get close while hitting stuff at range.

GespenstM

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 815
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #267 on: 12 March 2017, 15:02:26 »
I actually don't have an issue with it, I was just wondering what the rationale in it was and there's nothing wrong in what you've said.

If I had to offer opinions though, I would say Multi-Trac doesn't help its combat mission much. The Grand Titan is primarily an update to the classical Atlas fighting style; use armor to lumber in, chase foes down, and hope you're still in good enough shape to bring a lot of close-combat weapons down on them. The only major differences are the Grand Titan uses more speed (understanding that 3/5/0 movement does not suffice to chase foes down in 3055+ era play) and uses a large number of small to medium weapons rather than relying on a single big gun backed by a few small supporting ones.

In practice, the Grand Titan also fails at this mission once you get beyond 3075; it doesn't have enough weapon range to reliably hit much of anything, and still can't chase down foes well. Lobbing a LRM-15 or a Light Gauss at something else downrange is generally beside the point.

That said, none of what you've said/done is wrong. In fact, a closer reading of TRO3055U shows you're right in issuing Difficult to Maintain to it; the TRO entry notes the unit had constantly shifting engineering goals and challenges and it's fair to infer that flaw from it. Nothing in the entry supports or disproves Multi-Trac, but I'm merely noting that this trait doesn't really help it with what it wants to do in the first place.

(Compare this with the Anvil's traits, which directly enable its main combat style and make it more viable in post 3075 play. ...Not that the ANV-3R sucks in that era. It's still good. This just made it even better)

CampaignAnon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Living the Meme...
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #268 on: 12 March 2017, 15:51:28 »
That said, none of what you've said/done is wrong. In fact, a closer reading of TRO3055U shows you're right in issuing Difficult to Maintain to it; the TRO entry notes the unit had constantly shifting engineering goals and challenges and it's fair to infer that flaw from it. Nothing in the entry supports or disproves Multi-Trac, but I'm merely noting that this trait doesn't really help it with what it wants to do in the first place.
There's not a lot of material in general for the Grand Titan for getting quirks. The only one I really wanted I couldn't have, and that's because "Matrix of Leadership" isn't actually a quirk.

Quote
(Compare this with the Anvil's traits, which directly enable its main combat style and make it more viable in post 3075 play. ...Not that the ANV-3R sucks in that era. It's still good. This just made it even better)
I wanted to salt the FWLM with some good designs to make Guerrero's massive success on that front make a little bit more sense.

GespenstM

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 815
Re: BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired
« Reply #269 on: 12 March 2017, 16:05:53 »
Heh, I hear ya. Well, if I'm offering requests/suggestions on improving the Grand Titan... I would say the Grand Titan's biggest problem is actually hitting anything. Most of the time it will be taking Long Range firing mods on its attacks, since its effective combat ranges are... really small. That is to say, I'd give it the same sort of improved targeting treatment the Anvil got.

This is, however, a huge improvement to the unit and my suggestion should be taken with significant caution; it's basically like adding a quasi-Targeting Comp onto the thing for free.

Mostly I say this out of a strong desire for the Grand Titan to actually be a great unit. It is, art-wise, one of my favorite machines in the game. Play-wise, not so much.

That said, I concede the point that there's not much major material to go on for giving quirks to the Grand Titan and Multi-Trac isn't 'wrong' at all. Thanks for explaining your thoughts!

 

Register