Commanders Edition - What's in it?

[Vandervecken]

Despite the issues I already mentioned, it looks like this new version is going to play a bit quicker.

Why do you say that? The changes aren't that major.

[mitchberthelson]

Why do you say that? The changes aren't that major.

You don't need to do as many top of head calculations and everything is easier to find. That's all, really.

[Scotty]

Additionally, modifiers that typically prolong the game (that is to say, drive to-hit numbers up the bell curve) have been reduced to avoid situations where effective return fire is realistically not possible.  Intervening woods poses less of an extreme effect on a 2d6 bellcurve at +1 instead of +2, and the fight itself will take correspondingly less time in a woods-heavy environment (as many tables tend to be).

[mitchberthelson]

Additionally, modifiers that typically prolong the game (that is to say, drive to-hit numbers up the bell curve) have been reduced to avoid situations where effective return fire is realistically not possible.  Intervening woods poses less of an extreme effect on a 2d6 bellcurve at +1 instead of +2, and the fight itself will take correspondingly less time in a woods-heavy environment (as many tables tend to be).

Yeah and one more thing I forgot, Battlefield Support and the streamlined artillery rules willl both make my games go quicker because I made heavy use of the old ones....in many scenarios the amount of artillery was just about right to use Battlefield Support instead.

[Fear Factory]

I think it would be very difficult to adjudicate this in a non-hex terrain context if it wasn't symmetrical. How many inches of intervening woods create a penalty when shooting into woods, how many inches of woods create a penalty when shooting out of woods.

2" of woods = 1 hex

So, +1 per 2" of woods is my guess.

[ianpelgrim]

so if I'm correct anything that gives or makes you lose movement doesn't change TMM anymore
So XMEC doesn't reduce TMM in some cases and
TSM doesn't add anymore in some cases?

[kronovan]

I looked over the Table of Contents in a sample preview on a online store and I don't see any Abstract Space rules. Omitting those is significant for me and my gaming group, as I use Alpha Strike rules for the mech, aerospace and space combat for A Time of War and a number of other Pen'n'Paper RPGs. The omission of Abstract Space rules means this edition won't do it for my gamers and me.

[Son of Kerenski]

Sounds like the new changes are good. Looking forward to getting my hands on a copy soon.

I did see someone asked about the +1 per 2" of woods. Does that mean the penalty is +3 in 6" of Woods?

[Fear Factory]

Sounds like the new changes are good. Looking forward to getting my hands on a copy soon.

I did see someone asked about the +1 per 2" of woods. Does that mean the penalty is +3 in 6" of Woods?

Isn't line of sight blocked at that point? In hex play, that would be firing into a wooded hex already 2 hexes deep... 2 hexes of light woods, target in light woods, no line of sight?

[Son of Kerenski]

I'm pretty sure there has to be 3 hexes of intervening light woods before LOS is blocked under TW rules. So same would apply for AS.

[Crackerb0x]

While I'm very excited for these changes, will there be errata to the older books to support these (or am I simply missing then)?

I was under the impression (which, ultimately might be wrong) that ASCE was a consolidation of rules from the core rulebook and the Companion and didn't include any changes to the core rules, and that because of that the older rulebooks with errata were up to date and still relevant.

[nckestrel]

Yes, still working on making sure we got everything. But all the errata will be posted as errata.
Whether or not the old books are still “playable” with all that errata is up to you.

[Thorvidar]

I looked over the Table of Contents in a sample preview on a online store and I don't see any Abstract Space rules. Omitting those is significant for me and my gaming group, as I use Alpha Strike rules for the mech, aerospace and space combat for A Time of War and a number of other Pen'n'Paper RPGs. The omission of Abstract Space rules means this edition won't do it for my gamers and me.

So the ASCE mainly deals with the ground map only. If you want the space rules, then the alpha strike core book and companion rules for abstract space and aero dog fights still work.

[Crackerb0x]

Yes, still working on making sure we got everything. But all the errata will be posted as errata.
Whether or not the old books are still “playable” with all that errata is up to you.

Excellent! Thank you!

[Vandervecken]

2" of woods = 1 hex

So, +1 per 2" of woods is my guess.

I think I didn't state my argument correctly.
Scenario 1: I am in the open, you are in the open. There are woods between us. Count inches of woods, apply modifier symmetrically, everyone's happy.
Scenario 2: I am in woods, but you are in the clear. In CBT hexes it's easy to distinguish intervening wood hexes vs the hex I am in, but in inches, I'm not sure how you would decide how many inches of woods represent "intervening woods" (symmetrical effect) and how many inches of woods represent "woods hex I am in" and thus only affects people shooting at me, not me shooting at them.

[nckestrel]

Between the two bases. For intervening, it starts at the edge of the base and goes until you reach the target’s base.

[Vandervecken]

I get that. What I'm saying is that if you wanted to go back to CBT's idea that standing *in* a forest is an asymmetrical bonus, then it would probably be difficult to adjudicate in terrain.

[nckestrel]

The +1 Woods modifier is just if the target/attacker occupies Woods or if there is intervening Woods.  There is no "per inch" to it (unless using the advanced terrain optional rule).  You either have the terrain Woods modifier or not. If you have any occupied or intervening Woods, whether 1" or 5", +1 to the attack target number. If there are 6"+ of Woods intervening (attacker/target occupied isn't a factor), then you have no LOS and can't make the attack.

[Vandervecken]

Ooooh, I think I missed that. No more counting inches.
So then arguably it is asymmetrical. If Mech A is in woods, in such a way that the edge of the base is exactly flush with the edge of the woods, then A has no penalty when shooting, but has a penalty when being shot at (for being in woods).

[nckestrel]

"and any terrain occupied by the attacker is considered intervening even if it does not pass through Line of Sight to the target (see Line of Sight, p. 40)."

If you have Woods in the back half (only) of your base, and you are firing at a target in front of you, the Woods are intervening because of the above rule.

[ironnerd88]

I think I didn't state my argument correctly.
Scenario 1: I am in the open, you are in the open. There are woods between us. Count inches of woods, apply modifier symmetrically, everyone's happy.
Scenario 2: I am in woods, but you are in the clear. In CBT hexes it's easy to distinguish intervening wood hexes vs the hex I am in, but in inches, I'm not sure how you would decide how many inches of woods represent "intervening woods" (symmetrical effect) and how many inches of woods represent "woods hex I am in" and thus only affects people shooting at me, not me shooting at them.

Modifiers for gunnery are applied "Per 2 inches" of intervening woods and 6" of woods blocks LoS (see pg 70 of Alpha Strike rules).

So, if you are in a 1" clump of woods, your attacker would not need to apply a to-hit modifier. IF, however, you were in the center of a 3" diameter circular clump of woods, your attacker would apply a to-hit mod, but you would not apply a to-hit mod when attacking him.

[Scotty]

Modifiers for gunnery are applied "Per 2 inches" of intervening woods and 6" of woods blocks LoS (see pg 70 of Alpha Strike rules).

So, if you are in a 1" clump of woods, your attacker would not need to apply a to-hit modifier. IF, however, you were in the center of a 3" diameter circular clump of woods, your attacker would apply a to-hit mod, but you would not apply a to-hit mod when attacking him.

You're looking at 1) what were formerly known as "Advanced" rules in the Alpha Strike book, standard is "Are woods involved?  +2." on a page in the late 30s early 40s and 2) the wrong book for this conversation about the new Commander's Edition. ;)

EDIT: even in that case, "per 2 inches" is almost certainly described as "or fraction thereof".  Any woods involvement at all imposes modifiers.

[ironnerd88]

You're looking at 1) what were formerly known as "Advanced" rules in the Alpha Strike book, standard is "Are woods involved?  +2." on a page in the late 30s early 40s and 2) the wrong book for this conversation about the new Commander's Edition. ;)

EDIT: even in that case, "per 2 inches" is almost certainly described as "or fraction thereof".  Any woods involvement at all imposes modifiers.

Ok, this really belongs in the Game Rules Questions board but, which is it?
"Per 2 inches (or fraction thereof)" or "Are trees involved"?
How is the rule stated in the Commander's Edition?

Most importantly, how does your reply help to answer Vandervecken's question?

[nckestrel]

Yes/no is the standard rules for woods.   Advanced terrain is an optional rule that changes that.  If the optional rule was the same, there wouldn’t be much point to the option.
That’s not new to ASCE, it’s been that way since the first printing of AS and even back to Quick-Strike. 

[ironnerd88]

Let's see, off the top of my head (I'll consult the copy I got at Origins when I get home from work):

- Terrain modifiers (woods and partial cover both went from +2 to +1)

Ugh... I can see woods (and smoke) being a +1, but P.C. should still be +2 since it also reduces damage in Battletech. Or P.C. should be +1 to hit and 1/2 or -1 damage.

[nckestrel]

Alpha Strike has grown up. It can do what’s good for Alpha Strike, it doesn’t have to blindly follow BattleTech mechanics. :)
(If you think it’s better for AS, go for it. I’m just saying it doesn’t have use BT mechanics if something is better for AS. That’s what it should be judged on).

[ironnerd88]

Alpha Strike has grown up. It can do what’s good for Alpha Strike, it doesn’t have to blindly follow BattleTech mechanics. :)
(If you think it’s better for AS, go for it. I’m just saying it doesn’t have use BT mechanics if something is better for AS. That’s what it should be judged on).

Not "Blindly Following" Battletech rules.
Partial cover, by definition, covers part of the target, meaning that some of the damage hits the terrain, rather than the target. That would mean less damage or a higher to-hit modifier. Since Battletech and Alpha Strike basically use the odds of hitting as the primary means of altering damage to suit the situation, it makes sense that PC and Woods would have a different modifier.

I'm not incensed over the change, just don't agree with it... thus the copious number of sticky-notes in every Battletech/Alpha Strike/Mechwarrior rule book I own.

[nckestrel]

Thad’s what trees do to. The main reason partial cover and woods is suggested differently is because BT mechanically does it that way. I could literally call woods partial cover and it would still make sense.  The major difference is how you “inhabit” them. But their effect is the same.

[Fear Factory]

What really gets me is since both units suffer the woods modifier on their TN's it seems like there isn't really much of an advantage to use woods in the game. Water always is the best bet if it is a river or a small lake since you get your full TMM, the partial cover mod, and you can overheat 1 with no penalty. Is there something I'm missing here?

If that's the case, maybe water should cause a chance for a breach in the form of a critical hit... rolling for a check much like you roll for motive hits on vehicles?

[Weirdo]

Woods are a huge advantage when your main concern is not getting hit. If you're a light and fast unit that lost initiative, or a short-range brawler trying to close with a sniper(or myriad other situations), you don't care about the penalty on your end because you weren't really planning on doing much shooting this turn anyway.