Author Topic: TacOps rules I wish were standard  (Read 18406 times)

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28960
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #60 on: 30 October 2019, 01:13:08 »
Protomechs have been around for a while and are some faction's flavor . . . C3 is tournament level equipment, ECCM mode of ECM needs to be TW level IMO.

Forget BMM artillery- regular is fine.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28960
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #61 on: 30 October 2019, 09:38:05 »
LAMs were also verbotten for a lot of that time and they are not a core part of specific faction's forces.

The ONLY reason I can see C3 being turned 'off' is if you are facing someone who has ARAD ammo and you do not want to take hits before you are in useful range but since ARAD is advanced rules, like turning equipment off, I am not sure it matters.

Remember, what is in TW does not come down to personal likes really- its what is easily used in tournaments, official live scenarios/events and most scenarios provided in published material.  Which also means that what is in the era appropriate line TROs (which leaves out things like Prototypes, and other 1 off PDFs) is going to be the baseline . . . just like when a official Dark Ages era event occurs the 'allowed' tech increases to what is in TRO3145/50.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

dgorsman

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1977
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #62 on: 30 October 2019, 10:05:59 »
I think the earlier "... whether it's active..." refers to being affected by enemy ECM.
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society

Thunder LRMs: the gift that keeps on giving.  They're the glitter of the BattleTech universe.

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5042
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #63 on: 30 October 2019, 11:31:36 »
One rule that bugs me (and always has) is the inability to fire indirectly if the unit has LOS. This is especially weird for Artillery, which can Direct Fire from hex 7 up to 17. You cannot fire indirectly at a hex within that range because you have LOS. But on hex 18... you can have LOS? This is truly strange with 'Mech Mortars, whose to-hit accuracy is BETTER without LOS than it would be if the unit was looking at the target (or hex) they're firing at. O.o

I feel like anything that can fire indirectly should be allowed to fire in that mode, even with LOS.
  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

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2187
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #64 on: 30 October 2019, 12:09:26 »
I feel like anything that can fire indirectly should be allowed to fire in that mode, even with LOS.
  Anybody whose been in the Army, especially working with mortars or artillery, would know that IF is the primary use of these weapons and against dug-in positions, is the most efficient means of engagement. This is what I meant by nonsensical rules, which defy logic or even physics, and I have to wonder why they exist at all.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10427
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #65 on: 30 October 2019, 13:56:01 »
  Anybody whose been in the Army, especially working with mortars or artillery, would know that IF is the primary use of these weapons and against dug-in positions, is the most efficient means of engagement. This is what I meant by nonsensical rules, which defy logic or even physics, and I have to wonder why they exist at all.

i think it's mostly treated as a game-balance isssue.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #66 on: 31 October 2019, 05:20:02 »
LAMs were also verbotten for a lot of that time and they are not a core part of specific faction's forces.

The ONLY reason I can see C3 being turned 'off' is if you are facing someone who has ARAD ammo and you do not want to take hits before you are in useful range but since ARAD is advanced rules, like turning equipment off, I am not sure it matters.

Remember, what is in TW does not come down to personal likes really- its what is easily used in tournaments, official live scenarios/events and most scenarios provided in published material.  Which also means that what is in the era appropriate line TROs (which leaves out things like Prototypes, and other 1 off PDFs) is going to be the baseline . . . just like when a official Dark Ages era event occurs the 'allowed' tech increases to what is in TRO3145/50.

I can see turning off C3 when up against ARRAD Missiles but like you said, they're advanced rules so I'm back to wondering why turn them off during Tournament Rules?

Era appropriate gives a wide variety of unit types and tech can be used. That includes units that are used but not "core" units, like LAMs.  Using scenarios then pretty much anything is open for use, including prototypes and one offs. Some scenarios specifically involve said units. Neither are necessarily Tournament Legal.  Tournament Legal does change by era but even so it still excludes a lot of units and tech even though it's era appropriate.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19827
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #67 on: 31 October 2019, 06:42:00 »
Rules consistency. If you can turn off anything you don’t need a list of exceptions.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10427
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #68 on: 31 October 2019, 08:31:34 »
I can see turning off C3 when up against ARRAD Missiles but like you said, they're advanced rules so I'm back to wondering why turn them off during Tournament Rules?

Era appropriate gives a wide variety of unit types and tech can be used. That includes units that are used but not "core" units, like LAMs.  Using scenarios then pretty much anything is open for use, including prototypes and one offs. Some scenarios specifically involve said units. Neither are necessarily Tournament Legal.  Tournament Legal does change by era but even so it still excludes a lot of units and tech even though it's era appropriate.

I think that's why we used to have the "Level" system-back in the day, esp. between the death of FASA and CGL becoming profitable, Tourneys weren't typically organized by the company-they had to do SOMETHING for that demographic, and having a set of common 'tourney rules' between pockets of players (like having a common language) was needed.

esp. when you have players who don't see anyone outside their local group most of the year.  Having a sort of 'shorthand' that is common across state lines ("Tournament, Level 2 tech, at BigassCon this month!")  is a lot quicker than a detailed list of allowed/not-allowed detailing each tech item that is applicable or banned, because that sentence has a definition in the books, that players can look up as they're getting ready for their semi-annual or annual journey to play BT with strangers from halfway across the country.

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19827
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #69 on: 31 October 2019, 18:20:04 »
As I mentioned in another thread, I feel the TL list should be an era agnostic binary. Either it’s suitable or it isn’t. We’re deep enough into the TO paradigm to not lose our minds if VSPLs show up in a jihad game.

If it’s TL compliant and the intro year falls at or before the scenario date, it’s legal. Having multiple breaks in the TL shift isn’t helpful

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #70 on: 01 November 2019, 10:05:46 »
I think that's why we used to have the "Level" system-back in the day, esp. between the death of FASA and CGL becoming profitable, Tourneys weren't typically organized by the company-they had to do SOMETHING for that demographic, and having a set of common 'tourney rules' between pockets of players (like having a common language) was needed.

esp. when you have players who don't see anyone outside their local group most of the year.  Having a sort of 'shorthand' that is common across state lines ("Tournament, Level 2 tech, at BigassCon this month!")  is a lot quicker than a detailed list of allowed/not-allowed detailing each tech item that is applicable or banned, because that sentence has a definition in the books, that players can look up as they're getting ready for their semi-annual or annual journey to play BT with strangers from halfway across the country.

Which is great until things get changed. For example, Clan Tech used to be Level 3 and now its Tournament Legal.



As I mentioned in another thread, I feel the TL list should be an era agnostic binary. Either it’s suitable or it isn’t. We’re deep enough into the TO paradigm to not lose our minds if VSPLs show up in a jihad game.

If it’s TL compliant and the intro year falls at or before the scenario date, it’s legal. Having multiple breaks in the TL shift isn’t helpful


The problem is that what is Tournament Legal changes. Tournament Legal can also be played independent of of era dates.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19827
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #71 on: 01 November 2019, 10:38:18 »
yes, that's what i'm saying. it shouldn't change. either it's too complicated or it isn't regardless of whether it's 2590 or 3151 - mines and artillery already follow that rubric. rules complexity and in-universe production status should not be a conflated variable.

weapons have a born-on date that would disqualify them in scenario play anyway. if the game is era-agnostic, BV exists or the organizer can decide what's usable. this is much easier than having hundreds of dual-shift data points

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Insaniac99

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 557
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #72 on: 01 November 2019, 12:08:31 »
yes, that's what i'm saying. it shouldn't change. either it's too complicated or it isn't regardless of whether it's 2590 or 3151 - mines and artillery already follow that rubric. rules complexity and in-universe production status should not be a conflated variable.

weapons have a born-on date that would disqualify them in scenario play anyway. if the game is era-agnostic, BV exists or the organizer can decide what's usable. this is much easier than having hundreds of dual-shift data points

I agree with this.  Having something change rules level at some point in the middle of the dark ages creates a headache.  tournament organizers have to decide exactly what year tech is in there.

Personally I think it should be a simple break down of complexity + Tech Bases allowed + era, and that's it.  Everything is an A/B question.

Event organizers can simple say "Advanced technology, Inner Sphere Or Clan only (i.e. no mixtech), Clan Invasion era."

Anything that fits the rules and doesn't have an X in that era's availability code would be fine to use.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #73 on: 01 November 2019, 16:43:28 »
I agree. It is frustrating when tech changes level. What should change is availability, not tech level.


Edit
If tech does change level, it'd be really nice if the Rule Book was errata'ed to make not of that change.
« Last Edit: 01 November 2019, 18:39:42 by RifleMech »

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #74 on: 01 November 2019, 16:47:17 »
*snip*
Event organizers can simple say "Advanced technology, Inner Sphere Or Clan only (i.e. no mixtech), Clan Invasion era."
*snip*
I'm good with that... Blazer Cannons for all my friends!  :D

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19827
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #75 on: 01 November 2019, 19:09:21 »
If I had my way

1) the ip would certainly be doomed
2) but until its inevitable demise, Blazers would be TL

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #76 on: 02 November 2019, 15:20:30 »
If I had my way

1) the ip would certainly be doomed
2) but until its inevitable demise, Blazers would be TL

2) Wish granted. TRO:Prototypes has the Blazer's game level being moved to Tournament Legal.


Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #77 on: 02 November 2019, 15:22:52 »
I love the idea, but wasn't IO published after TRO: Prototypes?  ???

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #78 on: 02 November 2019, 15:49:25 »
I love the idea, but wasn't IO published after TRO: Prototypes?  ???

Yes, so?  If you're just playing Tournament Legal, it's legal. If you're playing an Era Specific Tournament Game, then it isn't.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #79 on: 02 November 2019, 16:22:59 »
More recently published rules superseded earlier ones... if IO said it's not TL, then it's not TL...

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #80 on: 02 November 2019, 17:02:21 »
More recently published rules superseded earlier ones... if IO said it's not TL, then it's not TL...
Does IO specifically state it's not TL, or is the Blazer simply not mentioned?

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #81 on: 02 November 2019, 17:18:12 »
IO lists them on page 43 (under "Binary Laser (Blazer) Cannon"), and gives them a Prototype date of "2812 (FW)" and a Common date of "3077 (WB)".  To my understanding, that means they're not TL in 3025...

dgorsman

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1977
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #82 on: 02 November 2019, 17:27:02 »
Better confirm that in errata, as usual.
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society

Thunder LRMs: the gift that keeps on giving.  They're the glitter of the BattleTech universe.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #83 on: 02 November 2019, 17:39:43 »
The only thing that comes close in the errata is the general change on page 33 that deletes the link between "Common" availability and "Tournament Legal".

Greatclub

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3036
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #84 on: 02 November 2019, 18:12:25 »
LAMs were also verbotten for a lot of that time and they are not a core part of specific faction's forces.
And protos are core for hells horses, snow ravens, a couple homeworld clans, and that is about it. Jade falcons don't use them, ghost bear don't have ASF genotypes and I don't think use them, leaving the wolves the first tier clan that might use them significantly.

You can't play late-jihad WOBbies properly without cybernetics. Can't play proper society without iATM and nova, can't play republic first line units without a bunch of IO level stuff. Can't play Klondike, Age of War or 3040s without prototype level gear. Are you going to suggest that stuff should be core rules? Because if so, you better have a heck of an argument. I view it as another book purchase being a tax on choosing some factions. Not nice, not fair, but little in life is.

Quote
The ONLY reason I can see C3 being turned 'off' is if you are facing someone who has ARAD ammo and you do not want to take hits before you are in useful range but since ARAD is advanced rules, like turning equipment off, I am not sure it matters.

Maybe not 'turned off', but brought down by ECM.



As for the fiction, I want it kept in. The wealth of the backstory is one of battletech's strengths, however little some people care for it. The three pages per chapter in the current TW version is a little excessive, however, and a couple of them, notably the protomech one, are a little tangential to the topic at hand. A page per chapter sounds right to me.

Of course, it might not matter, as neither BMM or CampOps have any fiction in them. This suggests to me that the chapter entries have been eliminated, which I think a shame.




Full colour glossy is maybe not necessary. B&W plain paper with a gloss section was fine for FASA, don't see why it wouldn't work now. Although I don't know what the price point difference would be in the modern market. If it's less than $5 or so, there wouldn't be enough benefit.



Backing mechs up hills - another optional rule I think should be optional TW II
« Last Edit: 20 February 2021, 22:56:42 by Greatclub »

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #85 on: 02 November 2019, 18:16:14 »
I think one piece of fiction per book would be more than enough.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #86 on: 02 November 2019, 20:10:38 »
More recently published rules superseded earlier ones... if IO said it's not TL, then it's not TL...

The only thing that comes close in the errata is the general change on page 33 that deletes the link between "Common" availability and "Tournament Legal".

In this case I think you're going to have to ask. The IO rules look to be written for games in specific eras. If you're just playing a pick up Tournament Level game though ...  :-\ I'd say its legal but it's your game.





And protos are core for hells horses, snow ravens, a couple homeworld clans, and that is about it. Jade falcons don't use them, ghost bear don't have ASF genotypes and I don't think use them, leaving the wolves the first tier clan that might use them significantly.

You can't play late-jihad WOBbies properly without cybernetics. Can't play proper society without iATM and nova, can't play republic first line units without a bunch of IO level stuff. Can't play Klondike, Age of War or 3040s without prototype level gear. Are you going to suggest that stuff should be core rules? Because if so, you better have a heck of an argument. I view it as another book purchase being a tax on choosing some factions. Not nice, not fair, but little in life is.

Well, you can play them but you're going to be limited. If you're going to play them without limits then you're going to want the book.



Quote
As for the fiction, I want it kept in. The wealth of the backstory is one of battletech's strengths, however little some people care for it. The three pages per chapter in the current TW version is a little excessive, however, and a couple of them, notably the protomech one, are a little tangential to the topic at hand. A page per chapter sounds right to me.

Of course, it might not matter, as neither BMM or CampOps have any fiction in them. This suggests to me that the chapter entries have been eliminated, which I think a shame.

I agree that backstory helps Battletech. I also agree that there's a bit much in the Core Rule Books. There's all kinds of backstory written in already when talking about units and weapons/equipment, short stories aren't really necessary. Especially, when it drives up page count and causes the book to be split. :(



Quote


Full colour glossy is maybe not necessary. B&W plain paper with a gloss section was fine for FASA, don't see why it wouldn't work now. Although I don't know what the price point difference would be in the modern market. If it's less than $5 or so, there wouldn't be enough benefit.




I agree.  :)

Quote
Backing mechs up hills - another optional rule I think should be optional TW II


Isn't it optional now? ???

Greatclub

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3036
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #87 on: 02 November 2019, 21:01:59 »
I agree that backstory helps Battletech. I also agree that there's a bit much in the Core Rule Books. There's all kinds of backstory written in already when talking about units and weapons/equipment, short stories aren't really necessary. Especially, when it drives up page count and causes the book to be split. :(
borderline strawman; I'm fairly sure that tacops without the fiction would still have had to be split, the book is bigger than TW. If fluff should be eliminated anywhere, tech write-ups would be my first candidate for a slimming; technobabble is low value.

I think that you're underestimating how much fiction has helped drive battletech's success and longevity; as they're no longer accessible in brick-n-mortar bookstores and rarely accessible in most game stores, people have to be exposed to them somehow.

Quote
Isn't it optional now? ???

It's tacops optional. I'm talking bout TW II, the new edition hinted at elsewhere. BMM has several optional rules in sidebars; I'm proposing to do the same with one more another rule.
« Last Edit: 02 November 2019, 21:16:06 by Greatclub »

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19827
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #88 on: 02 November 2019, 21:33:03 »
Ditching the TacOps fiction places it a hair under 400, which isn’t some magic number to get under. It’s still too big under their criteria

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4444
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #89 on: 03 November 2019, 01:24:31 »
borderline strawman; I'm fairly sure that tacops without the fiction would still have had to be split, the book is bigger than TW. If fluff should be eliminated anywhere, tech write-ups would be my first candidate for a slimming. I think that you're underestimating how much fiction has helped drive battletech's success and longevity; as they're no longer accessible in brick-n-mortar bookstores and rarely accessible in most game stores, people have to be exposed to them somehow.

It's tacops optional. I'm talking bout TW II, the new edition hinted at elsewhere. BMM has several optional rules in sidebars; I'm proposing to do the same with one more another rule.

Not really. Most of the other Core Rule books are larger than TW.

I'm not under estimating the fiction. It's a big part of success and longevity. I just don't think the Core Books need several individual stories.

I can see some commonly use optional rules being included. There's got to be a limit though or TWII would be pretty big.  I do wonder now though if the stories and the miniature set up sections were removed and the rules section from TO, also minus the stories, were added to TW how but the resulting book would be.




Ditching the TacOps fiction places it a hair under 400, which isn’t some magic number to get under. It’s still too big under their criteria

How big is their criteria?

 

Register