Commander's Edition Wishlist

[Papabees]

Since the book seems to still be a ways out I thought I'd start a "What we'd like to see" list for the powers that be. In my order of desire:

1. The terrain in the hex of the attacker to not be intervening terrain.
- I think the intent of this change was to prevent turret tech but it hasn't given any extra incentive to move. In fact, it promotes lights to park in woods unless there is some objective.

2. The Movement Mod of the occupied terrain to reduce a units TMM by the cost to move. i.e Woods would give a +2 for Woods but -1 to TMM minimum zero.
- Promotes Manuever

3. Optional Variable Damage rule allowing on die roll per point of damage
-Mimics standard a bit better and allows players who would like to get away from the all or nothing damage to do so.

4. Maybe a section of some sample Army lists per faction like in the original rules but updated to reflect changes.

5. Historical Scenarios with Army lists

What do you want to see?

[Valkerie]

What do you want to see?

Along with the Army Lists, maybe some RATs similar to what was in the Combat Manuals?

I would also like to see some of the new lance types that were never fleshed out given some detail (like the Guard Lance).

[Hayden.]

What do you want to see?

Ideally, I  would like it to be the book for Alpha Strike.  Condense AS and ASC into one book.

Really, the best way to do Battletech at this point is to get out of the mindset of being in the "Book/Printing Business" and be in the "BattleTech Business"; in this case abandon the printed rulebooks for AS and expand MUL to encompass the whole AS system.  Give general access, because it's a far, far better thing to have people using your system, than to have it locked being a paywall; allow users to make optional contributions for the maintenance of said system.  That's my very optimistic 2 cents.

[sadlerbw]

I doubt these are going to be the most popular opinions but here goes:

1. Don't include any optional or advanced rules. Either it is part of the game, or it isn't. If you want to post up some optional stuff on the MUL or the BT site that's fine, but don't put it into the 'official' rulebook.

2. No construction rules/PV Calculations. Put that information on the MUL, so it can be easily and centrally updated. Publishing in a book makes it too annoying to change.

3. Leave out pure aerospace combat. Aero on the ground map is OK, but the radar and capital map side of things...I don't think they are really in a good place in terms of being fun and balanced, so I'd keep them out of the printed book for now.

Regarding what the other posters mentioned, I agree with the 'one book to rule them all' concept. Roll everything that is going to continue on into one book instead of two. Part of AS being the faster, simpler option for playing BattleTech could be keeping to one core rulebook.

I'm not a fan of having woods not count if you are at the edge, or having woods reduce your TMM. I have my reasons, which I will avoid laying out so this post doesn't get any longer, but the bottom line is I don't think those changes make the game better, they just make it different.

[Pat Payne]

I doubt these are going to be the most popular opinions but here goes:

1. Don't include any optional or advanced rules. Either it is part of the game, or it isn't. If you want to post up some optional stuff on the MUL or the BT site that's fine, but don't put it into the 'official' rulebook.

I totally agree. And yeah, there are going to be people who would BMW because they want added "realism" in a game with 30-foot-tall walking tanks that IRL would violate the Square Cube law badly, and that are sometimes armed with machine guns that can only go as far as a football field... :toofunny:

But seriously, the devs ought to cull the best of the optional rules (personally, I'd like to see buildings kept) and ditch the rest, KISS ought to be the order of the day in Commanders edition!

2. No construction rules/PV Calculations. Put that information on the MUL, so it can be easily and centrally updated. Publishing in a book makes it too annoying to change.

Especially PV calculations, which have already had at least three major revisions already. The conversions/construction rules, I'd be more lenient to having in the book, just as customizing and hot-rodding 'mechs is part of the fun of the game.

3. Leave out pure aerospace combat.

Dingdingdingding! I'd go even further and take the Support rules from the BMM and use that in lieu of actual aerospace rules. Since any given ASF is going to be over the field for a turn or so anyway at a time (leaving out rare cases like ASFs taking off or landing), just abstract those suckers and get it over with.

[Scotty]

I doubt these are going to be the most popular opinions but here goes:

1. Don't include any optional or advanced rules. Either it is part of the game, or it isn't. If you want to post up some optional stuff on the MUL or the BT site that's fine, but don't put it into the 'official' rulebook.

I for one really like formation abilities, but there's no way in hell that's going under the "mandatory rules" heading.  There are a bunch of rules in that vein, that you or I may use so frequently they may as well be a standard rule but still aren't.  Any kind of salvage or campaign rules, for example.

I think the posters in this thread will be pleasantly surprised about aerospace in the Commander's Edition. :)

I have no special insight into what changes may or may not make it into the final product, but you can at least rest assured that none of them were implemented without significant consideration beforehand.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I haven't posted yet in this thread, but I'm generally vocal enough that I bet you know my views on the current state of Aero.

Am I too going to be pleased? :)

[Scotty]

I haven't posted yet in this thread, but I'm generally vocal enough that I bet you know my views on the current state of Aero.

Am I too going to be pleased? :)

I think so!  If your dissatisfaction stems from the utter non-choice of "Do I take this cheap light fighter that gets four turns of shooting or this big heavy fighter that maybe gets two?" Then definitely.

[firekite]

I guess my wish list is that it is as complete as possible, we get a new wave of alpha strike lance packs at the same time when it is released and that we get it Really Soon (Please).

[Elmoth]

I just hope the new packs are not total rubbish like the old ones that turned my group off BT miniatures-wise

[Scotty]

I just hope the new packs are not total rubbish like the old ones that turned my group off BT miniatures-wise

No new packs have been announced.

[PhoeniX0302]

I would love to have just one core rulebook. Additional stuff like PDF only products on lances, unit composition etc would also be appreciated.

[Descronan]

Here's some of my wish list.

Change the initiative to moving 1/2 of your force, rounded up instead of a single unit. This speeds play significantly and eliminates most issues with unit balance.

Line of sight rules for partial cover need to be streamlined. IMO, if any part of a standard hex is behind cover, then the unit should get partial cover. Cover must be a minimum of 1" tall for vehicles or 2" for mechs. If the center of a unit cannot be seen, then no shot is allowed. This eliminates the ambiguity of the 1/3 and 2/3 rule.

Sprinting should use the sprinting movement TMM.

Add a new special movement for "Overwatch" or "Covering Fire". Let the unit overheat as a separate attack in exchange for not moving.

Aerospace needs to be more survivable. Nothing sucks more than spending 50 PV on a jet and it gets shot down due to a bad control roll.

Also, aerospace should get more than a measly +2 TMM from ground unit attacks. They're coming in at over 160 kph or over 30" of movement. Make it consistent with those movement rates. (I know, btech does it differently. Alpha Strike is not btech. So let's stop making the same mistakes with a new system.)

Artillery should not negate movement modifiers UNLESS target designation of the POI happens before movement. Using cell phones, we can mark the location of the POI in secret. If the POI can be declared after movement, then the TMM should still apply to all units in the blast area.

Treat FLAK the same for airborne or ground units, but reduce the MOF to 1 instead of 2.

[Scotty]

Only Mechs can get partial cover in the first place, so that should eliminate some ambiguity right off the bat with no rules changes at all. ;)  there are templates for standardized line of sight in the Companion for now; I've seen no indication they're leaving  (or staying; I'm just a brown Beemer not a yellow Beemer  :) )

Aerospace survivability has been addressed, just not by removing control rolls.

Overwatch is likely never going to be in AS (if only because the timing would be a nightmare), for the closest alternative see the Combat Intuition SPA.

The rest of it sounds like it may be fun at your table but is ultimately beyond the scope of what the Commander's Edition is trying to do.

[Descronan]

Only Mechs can get partial cover in the first place, so that should eliminate some ambiguity right off the bat with no rules changes at all. ;)  there are templates for standardized line of sight in the Companion for now; I've seen no indication they're leaving  (or staying; I'm just a brown Beemer not a yellow Beemer  :) )

The templates prove that they intended to include vehicles. I see no reason to exclude vehicles. VTOLs, for example, would be just as large as mechs.

Aerospace survivability has been addressed, just not by removing control rolls.

How so? I'm not sure I'm aware of what you mean.

The rest of it sounds like it may be fun at your table but is ultimately beyond the scope of what the Commander's Edition is trying to do.

I get that. But a boy can dream... LOL

[Scotty]

The templates prove that they intended to include vehicles. I see no reason to exclude vehicles. VTOLs, for example, would be just as large as mechs.

The practical line of sight counters are for determining if LOS exists at all to vehicles.  Check the rule for partial cover, it's very explicit.  "Only 'Mechs can receive the benefit for partial cover."

[NeonKnight]

The practical line of sight counters are for determining if LOS exists at all to vehicles.  Check the rule for partial cover, it's very explicit.  "Only 'Mechs can receive the benefit for partial cover."

Yes....and No

Page 15 (Introductory Rules):

Partial Cover: If more than one-third (but less than twothirds)
of a target is hidden behind blocking terrain, LOS is
not considered blocked. Instead, the target is said to possess
partial cover, and the attacker will apply a modifier to his
attack to-hit number as a result (see the To-Hit Modifiers Table,
p. 16).

And Page 34 (Standard Rules):

Partial Cover (’Mechs only): If more than one-third (but less
than two-thirds) of a ’Mech target is hidden behind blocking
terrain, LOS is not considered blocked. Instead, the ’Mech is said
to have partial cover, and will apply a modifier to his attacker’s tohit
number as a result (see the To-Hit Modifiers Table, p. 37). Only
’Mechs can receive partial cover.

[nckestrel]

The introductory rules only have 'mechs, so it doesn't need to specify.

[NeonKnight]

Ah...I have never seen that one line. But I can easily see how folks may miss it if using a PDF search (as I did) to find the rule due to a lack of an index.

[nckestrel]

If you're using the introductory rules to overrule the standard rules, you're doing it backwards ;).

But the introductory rules will not be in the ASCE, so that won't be an issue with that book.

[NeonKnight]

If you're using the introductory rules to overrule the standard rules, you're doing it backwards ;).

True. just saying if one was doing a search, it's the first rule to pop up, and some folks might never look further, especially when a a game is under way

But the introductory rules will not be in the ASCE, so that won't be an issue with that book.

Good to know. Hopefully there will be an index :)

[Spaceman]

But the introductory rules will not be in the ASCE, so that won't be an issue with that book.

I'm hoping the ASCE is the Alpha Strike version of the BattleTech Manual.

[Sartris]

if some of the rules are going to change from the companion, then i hope that everything is ported forward from the companion that isn't changed as well (or at least what isn't is chucked out) so people aren't referred back to a book that is 1) out of print and 2) only partially accurate without having the rely on a booklet of errata 

[Tai Dai Cultist]

So wait, a tank can't use the edge of a building for (vertical) partial cover?

[Scotty]

So wait, a tank can't use the edge of a building for (vertical) partial cover?

Correct.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

So wait, a tank can't use the edge of a building for (vertical) partial cover?

Correct.

I never noticed that before.  It's insanity.  I get why tanks can't claim partial cover from horizontally oriented terrain: the granularity doesn't distinguish between entire levels of height.  But the footprint of a building or terrain feature (the vertical aspect) has always been as discrete as your eye/tape measure can distinguish.

What's the reason for the disparity? It really is nonsensical that a mech can hug a building corner for cover but a tank can't.

[Scotty]

I never noticed that before.  It's insanity.  I get why tanks can't claim partial cover from horizontally oriented terrain: the granularity doesn't distinguish between entire levels of height.  But the footprint of a building or terrain feature (the vertical aspect) has always been as discrete as your eye/tape measure can distinguish.

What's the reason for the disparity? It really is nonsensical that a mech can hug a building corner for cover but a tank can't.

I imagine it has to do with how if you have a situation in Total Warfare where line of sight passes directly along a hexside, on either side of which is a clear hex and a building hex, then the two possible outcomes are:

1) full LOS, no cover, or
2) no LOS at all

And that this was retained for Alpha Strike.  The fact that Mechs benefit from vertical LOS trickery is a side effect of using the amount of the unit obscured as a guide and not the height of intervening terrain.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I guess I'll just have to start playing partial cover from a building works like being IN the building.   No TN penalty, but a damage penalty instead. It doesn't make any difference to the beams and bullets passing through the corner of the building afterall...

[Scotty]

For what it's worth I don't like it a whole lot either, but use it instead as an opportunity to show off all of my tanks' paint jobs at a time. :D

[/Beemer off]
In a perfect world partial cover would be less significant than a full +2 on 2d6, but chest la vie.

[ianpelgrim]

A conventional infantry design chapter. So i can easily create infantry stands. Or something like this in the MUL.