Commanders Edition - What's in it?

[Vandervecken]

So Commanders Edition is just about to hit the streets. Does anyone have information as to what changes (apart from incorporating errata)? Mine should be in the mail soon, but it would be great to know what to look for.

[Punishermark]

I would wait for 2nd printing. This first has errors already. See the Errata section of the forum.

[nckestrel]

I would wait for 2nd printing. This first has errors already. See the Errata section of the forum.

There won’t be a printing without errors. Unfortunate truth.

[Vandervecken]

I dunno man, those are some pretty bad errors.

[nckestrel]

Print runs happen when the previous print run runs out. Opinion on errors has no bearing on it.
I’m not defending the errors or anything else, just giving information.

[Scotty]

I dunno man, those are some pretty bad errors.

Can you elaborate on which of the errors are bad*?  I see a couple where the example text wasn't updated correctly, a minor omission under terrain, and a small collection of mostly line-editing errors from the brand new aerospace section.

Nothing there that brings a game to a screeching halt.  Hell, unless you're using fighters (which would be awesome; I'm still really proud of the framework of changes there) nothing that I'd even have noticed while looking up the rules.




I know it sounds kind of like I'm fishing on that, but I can promise you I care far more about identifying major errors that significantly impact gameplay than anything else

[Vandervecken]

Actually you're right, almost all of this is in the Aerospace section.

[Vandervecken]

But in any case, what are the major rule changes (if any) for regular Mech/Vehicle play?

[Scotty]

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)
- TMM loss from heat and damage (no longer have to memorize or look up the table in the book; it's not there anymore.  Half MP is also half TMM, and the second point of heat drops the TMM by 1).
- JMPW# and JMPS# replace looking up the 'real' TMM for jumping movement; you add +1 to your normal TMM for jumping like usual, then modify that number based on the #.  A Jenner D's (14"/10"j) TMM is +3, jumping is +1, JMPW1 is -1, the Jenner's jumping TMM is +3.  Slightly more steps if you already had everything memorized, significantly easier if you didn't.
- Lance/Star formation building got tweaked a bit, too many small things to list here.
- Building a full Company (or bigger) force with Special Command Abilities and that cool stuff is reworked slightly to be more intuitive.

I think those are the big ones that affect primarily 'Mech/vehicles.

EDIT: it's also improved significantly in layout and appearance.  If you have the BattleMech Manual, it resembles that aesthetically.  Which is a major improvement in my estimation.

[Fear Factory]

The woods and partial cover mods needed to happen. Water provided some overpowered advantages.

[Weirdo]

Do units still suffer a penalty for firing out of woods, or is it more TW style where the shooter doesn't care?

[Scotty]

Do units still suffer a penalty for firing out of woods, or is it more TW style where the shooter doesn't care?

I don't think anything for terrain has changed besides the value of the modifier.

[Weirdo]

So shooting out of a woods hex still has the same penalties as shooting into one?

[nckestrel]

So shooting out of a woods hex still has the same penalties as shooting into one?

Yes, nothing was changed there.

[Weirdo]

Fair enough. I don't necessarily mind it, aside from having to flip a mental switch every time I go from Total War to Alpha Strike.

[Thorvidar]

Went a Head and bought the book. Really like the Battlefield support rules, really love it. Secondly I am liking some other changes they did to Alpha strike, dont want to get into details, want people to buy the book as its totally worth it. I have a Physical copy on order, but bought it on Drivethru to support Battletech and Alpha strike.

[mitchberthelson]

The Unit Conversion rules don't seem to be up on the download page yet. Is there an ETA?

Also, Design Quirks as a concept are mentioned multiple times in the rules, but their rules are not included. Will those be in Conversion Rules?

[nckestrel]

A unit conversion PDF is still just an idea, not an active project/product.  Ie. Don’t expect it soon.

I have not heard any plans for quirks.

[Pat Payne]

A unit conversion PDF is still just an idea, not an active project/product.  Ie. Don’t expect it soon.

Please forgive me if this might sound harsh (I don't want it to :-[ ), but I'm not sure it was a good idea to imply otherwise in the book itself (where it's mentioned in the present tense with a link to the download page  - p.23, second column, paragraph 3). Better to not mention it at all and then surprise us with it coming up on the downloads page rather than making an implicit promise of the doc being available at that moment.

[mitchberthelson]

A unit conversion PDF is still just an idea, not an active project/product.  Ie. Don’t expect it soon.

I have not heard any plans for quirks.

Odd....that PDF is promised to be at bg.battletech.com/downloads at the beginning of the book. If it's just an idea, why make the promise in print?

[mitchberthelson]

A unit conversion PDF is still just an idea, not an active project/product.  Ie. Don’t expect it soon.

I have not heard any plans for quirks.

Regarding Quirks, they're mentioned, even capitalized multiple times in the text but there are no rules. Either the references need to be removed or those rules need to be added.

[nckestrel]

Odd....that PDF is promised to be at bg.battletech.com/downloads at the beginning of the book. If it's just an idea, why make the promise in print?

I didn't make that promise or know it was there.  That means somebody higher up made the promise and they would know when.  I can only speak for myself, I haven't done any work on it.

Please forgive me if this might sound harsh (I don't want it to :-[ ), but I'm not sure it was a good idea to imply otherwise in the book itself (where it's mentioned in the present tense with a link to the download page  - p.23, second column, paragraph 3). Better to not mention it at all and then surprise us with it coming up on the downloads page rather than making an implicit promise of the doc being available at that moment.

Understood.

[nckestrel]

Regarding Quirks, they're mentioned, even capitalized multiple times in the text but there are no rules. Either the references need to be removed or those rules need to be added.

the entirety of the references to Design Quirks in ASCE is "[this/drones/buildings] is not affected by design quirks".  If we removed them, they'd just have to be added back if quirks were in another product.

[mitchberthelson]

the entirety of the references to Design Quirks in ASCE is "[this/drones/buildings] is not affected by design quirks".  If we removed them, they'd just have to be added back if quirks were in another product.

Strike previous. Just saw you mentioned buildings.

[mitchberthelson]

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

[Fear Factory]

There are a lot of small changes... holy cow though, I really like this book. The best thing, IMO, is the reduction for woods and partial cover modifiers. I also like seeing two variable damage options. The natural 12 critical hit thing is also nice. I still wish vehicles had a chance to suffer critical hits during motive crit checks... even if it was just the 2 result on the motive check table. This would be more in line with how they suffer critical hits in BattleTech.

Also, didn't see it in there, but for charging/dfa damage in hex based play it should be:

Size x hexes moved / 4

Other than that... yeah. I can't wait to get it in the mail. Next time I get a group together this book is going to be awesome.

[mitchberthelson]

There are a lot of small changes... holy cow though, I really like this book. The best thing, IMO, is the reduction for woods and partial cover modifiers. I also like seeing two variable damage options. The natural 12 critical hit thing is also nice. I still wish vehicles had a chance to suffer critical hits during motive crit checks... even if it was just the 2 result on the motive check table. This would be more in line with how they suffer critical hits in BattleTech.

Also, didn't see it in there, but for charging/dfa damage in hex based play it should be:

Size x hexes moved / 4

Other than that... yeah. I can't wait to get it in the mail. Next time I get a group together this book is going to be awesome.

Yeah, looking good overall. A few of the subsystems that were annoying got rolled into modifiers or new special abilities (Strong and Weak Jump Jets and the smoother TMM for example), and some of the old quirks, like the targeting systems, reappear as simple optional rules. I also like that auto crit on 12.

I second the praise for Battlefield Support.

[Elmoth]

What about ASF rules? Major changes there?

[Fear Factory]

What about ASF rules? Major changes there?

I'm sure. I only used them once... so someone else may have a better answer.

[Vandervecken]

Yes, nothing was changed there.

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.

[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.

[Fear Factory]

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.

I understand that, but what's up with water? I don't know about you, but there always seems to be a rush to occupy a water hex because there is no real consequence to use it outside of slower movement. I know you guys are trying to move away from BattleTech, I get it, but there are some drawbacks for getting into a water hex... the slowdown alone really tanks your ability to generate a modifier... which seems lost in conversion to AS.

[nckestrel]

Please don’t assume everybody at CGL is one mind. If I say something outside the offficial rules question thread, it’s just my opinion.  It’s not Weirdo’s or anybody else’s.

Even if it’s said in an official rules thread, it’s not necessarily all of our opinion.
Thanks.

[Fear Factory]

I know. Just trying to pick some brains here to see if I'm missing something.

[nckestrel]

Cool. Just didn’t want Weirdo to have to answer for my idiocy :).

Water can have breaches, but you need internal damage first. So yeah, not that much of a drawback.

[Fear Factory]

Cool. Just didn’t want Weirdo to have to answer for my idiocy :).

Water can have breaches, but you need internal damage first. So yeah, not that much of a drawback.

Ahhhhhh ok. What page is that on? I never caught that.

[ironnerd88]

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.

The short answer... 1" for both.

More answer here (this part of the discussion belongs in the Rules Questions board) [https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=66008.0]

[Vandervecken]

Ok, now I've read what appear to be several different contradictory answer for how advanced Woods work in Alpha Strike. I think I'll just wait for my copy of the book, see if I can figure it out, and if not post in the Rules section.

Side note: Is the reason everyone loves water that you get your full TMM in water (unlike CBT) and partial cover and a free point of overheat, and the only downside is slow movement? Whereas in CBT water also means you use the punch table for being hit, and you get a lower TMM?

[Scotty]

The punch table thing hasn't been true since 2007, now it's full body table but leg results hit the surface and do no damage.

Advanced Woods have all the same rules as standard woods; the only thing that changes are that the modifier accrues based on total distance.  If any amount of the target's base/footprint is in woods, the woods modifier applies.  If any amount of the attacker's base/footprint is in woods, the woods attack modifier applies.  If the cumulative (across all intervening terrain features) amount of woods between the target and attacker (measure from closest point to closest point) is 2" or less, the modifier is +1.  If the amount is greater than 2" but not greater than 4", the modifier is +2.  If the amount is greater than 4" but less than 6", the modifier is +3.  If the amount is 6" or greater, LOS is blocked.

It is possible to have woods modifiers apply even if the amount of woods physically in between two targets is zero if either unit is in any way occupying any amount of woods.  This sentence applies to both standard and advanced woods.

Unless there is a very specific edge case I'm missing, anyone telling you something other than the above is wrong.

[nckestrel]

Ahhhhhh ok. What page is that on? I never caught that.

p41 Submerged Units.  water over your height = completely submerged.  water at least 1" deep but less than unit's height (ie. a mech) = partially submerged.  but both are submerged.
p48 Underwater Damage. Every successful attack against a submerged unit generated a Critical Hit, even if there is no structure damage.

[Vandervecken]

Advanced Woods have all the same rules as standard woods; the only thing that changes are that the modifier accrues based on total distance.  If any amount of the target's base/footprint is in woods, the woods modifier applies.  If any amount of the attacker's base/footprint is in woods, the woods attack modifier applies.  If the cumulative (across all intervening terrain features) amount of woods between the target and attacker (measure from closest point to closest point) is 2" or less, the modifier is +1.  If the amount is greater than 2" but not greater than 4", the modifier is +2.  If the amount is greater than 4" but less than 6", the modifier is +3.  If the amount is 6" or greater, LOS is blocked.

It is possible to have woods modifiers apply even if the amount of woods physically in between two targets is zero if either unit is in any way occupying any amount of woods.  This sentence applies to both standard and advanced woods.

Unless there is a very specific edge case I'm missing, anyone telling you something other than the above is wrong.

Got it. So it is symmetrical. There is never a situation where the attacker is subject to a penalty for the target being in woods where the target is not also subject to a penalty for being in woods when it's the target's turn to shoot.

[Scotty]

Correct.

[Fear Factory]

p41 Submerged Units.  water over your height = completely submerged.  water at least 1" deep but less than unit's height (ie. a mech) = partially submerged.  but both are submerged.
p48 Underwater Damage. Every successful attack against a submerged unit generated a Critical Hit, even if there is no structure damage.

Wow. We TOTALLY missed that! Now I'm a little nervous about that reduced partial cover mod... but man, those slow guys are going to have to watch their backs now.

[Vandervecken]

Wow. We TOTALLY missed that! Now I'm a little nervous about that reduced partial cover mod... but man, those slow guys are going to have to watch their backs now.

To clarify:
Before: I have a unit in waist-deep water, I get a partial cover mod, you shoot me, I get mostly upside (full TMM, partial cover mod, free overheat) but no downside (except slow movement).
After: The above, but also every time I get hit it's automatically a Critical. Regardless of whether I have taken internal damage or not?

[Scotty]

Correct.

[nckestrel]

water breaches existed pre-ASCE.  The clarification of partially submerged and completely submerged was posted as errata in July 2016.
The rules for breaches in submerged units predates the 1st printing of the AS rulebook.

[Fear Factory]

Was there any reason this was removed from the Command Lance ideal role?

Ideal Role: None; as long as the lance’s composite units are
of at least 3 different unit roles, the formation may be classified
as a Command Lance

If that was intentional, man... the force I was working on (my litany campaign book) just got invalidated hard.  :(

EDIT: I don't think this change was necessary. Not because I'm lazy, but I don't think this made the formation unbalanced since you always had to have at least 3 different types of units in it.

[nckestrel]

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=55832.msg1283375#msg1283375

[Fear Factory]

So what does that mean for force building? "None" meaning if you already had the 3 different unit thing going on the lance is fine, or "None" as in there is no ideal role loophole?

I might just keep the former rule in as a house rule... it really doesn't break anything.

[nckestrel]

There’s no ideal role at all for the Command Lance.

[LegoMech]

Got it. So it is symmetrical. There is never a situation where the attacker is subject to a penalty for the target being in woods where the target is not also subject to a penalty for being in woods when it's the target's turn to shoot.

I taught Alpha Strike to my friend and his son, and I explained it like this: At man-sized scale, a soldier can hide behind a tree at the edge of a forest and lean his weapon around to take a shot at an enemy while keeping his body protected. But these are giant robots - hiding behind a tree at the edge of the forest is like trying to hide a garbage truck behind a lamppost. Also, they tend to fire multiple weapons from multiple weapon ports, not just one gun poking through the trees. So if you move back far enough from the edge of the treeline that there are enough trees to cover you, then you also wind up with trees blocking at least some of your weapon angles.

That seemed to help it click for them.

[LegoMech]

Follow-up question: Will the quick-start rules PDF be updated to incorporate the rule changes?

[kronovan]

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.

Yep, I get that I could continue to use the Abstract Space rules in the Companion along with ASCE.  However, I did see some listings for aerospace combat rules in the ASCE ToC. For me it's more of an issue that without all of the rules being included in this new book I don't feel compelled to purchase it. Although I strongly disliked the previous AS rules being split across 2 books, I've learned to live with that and along with eratas those rules have worked fine as supplementary rules to the SciFi RPGs I run. Had everything in fact been included in ASCE I might have bought it as an upgrade, but since that isn't the case I'm going to take a pass on it.

[Fear Factory]

Alpha Strike just keeps getting better and better.

[Thorvidar]

Yep, I get that I could continue to use the Abstract Space rules in the Companion along with ASCE.  However, I did see some listings for aerospace combat rules in the ASCE ToC. For me it's more of an issue that without all of the rules being included in this new book I don't feel compelled to purchase it. Although I strongly disliked the previous AS rules being split across 2 books, I've learned to live with that and along with eratas those rules have worked fine as supplementary rules to the SciFi RPGs I run. Had everything in fact been included in ASCE I might have bought it as an upgrade, but since that isn't the case I'm going to take a pass on it.

I am sure that they didnt add it due to two things. One, page count, and 2 that once again alpha strike deals with the ground map, not atmospheric/space maps. It is worth it because it's the most up to date rules governing alpha strike core, which is the ground map. Space stuff you can find in strategic ops and interstellar ops. Also as mentioned before your aerospace stuff that does not effect the ground map has not changed from the books you have on alpha strike though rules governing the ground map has changed quite a bit.

[nckestrel]

Honestly, ASCE came closer to dropping aerospace entirely than it did to including Space. (As in one of those was mentioned as a possibility and the other was not). 

Fortunately, there has been little errata to the space combat. If you already have the Companion, it's still perfectly good for that.

[kinwolf]

Question about movement cost with hex maps.  Moving into woods cost 1" more normally, does that means it cost half a MP more when moving into woods on hex maps?  Are there tables that shows terrain movement cost for hexes?  I didn't find any around page 68 in the book.

[nckestrel]

Question about movement cost with hex maps.  Moving into woods cost 1" more normally, does that means it cost half a MP more when moving into woods on hex maps?  Are there tables that shows terrain movement cost for hexes?  I didn't find any around page 68 in the book.

2" (1 hex) of clear costs 2" (1 MP).  2" (1 hex) of Woods adds +2" (+1 MP).
So a hex would cost 1 for the clear and +1 for the woods.

[kinwolf]

2" (1 hex) of clear costs 2" (1 MP).  2" (1 hex) of Woods adds +2" (+1 MP).
So a hex would cost 1 for the clear and +1 for the woods.

Oooh, indeed, looking back at the chart I see that it's 1" more per inch. I didn't notice that distinction before.  Thanks for clarifying. 

I take it we also drop the distinction btw light and heavy woods, both for movement purpose and LOS?

[nckestrel]

Oooh, indeed, looking back at the chart I see that it's 1" more per inch. I didn't notice that distinction before.  Thanks for clarifying. 

I take it we also drop the distinction btw light and heavy woods, both for movement purpose and LOS?

Yes. Unless you want them, then they are in the Advanced Terrain optional rule. (light, heavy and ultra).

[kinwolf]

Thanks  :thumbsup:

And found the optional rule you mentioned using the nice index  :D (long live indexes!)
We'll use that since we are used to heavy wood being +2 for mp/los and cover.

[SC_Dave]

p41 Submerged Units.  water over your height = completely submerged.  water at least 1" deep but less than unit's height (ie. a mech) = partially submerged.  but both are submerged.
p48 Underwater Damage. Every successful attack against a submerged unit generated a Critical Hit, even if there is no structure damage.

This is at odds with what you previously posted in the official rules questions thread: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=55748.0

Has the ruling changed? (It was a couple of years ago.)

[SC_Dave]

Just bumping to see if I can get an answer to my last without heading over to rules questions.

[Cache]

This is at odds with what you previously posted in the official rules questions thread: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=55748.0

Has the ruling changed? (It was a couple of years ago.)

Newer statement is about Alpha Strike: Commander's Edition. Previous statement was Alpha Strike. There are a lot of differences between the two.

[SLDF_Gunslinger]

A unit conversion PDF is still just an idea, not an active project/product.  Ie. Don’t expect it soon.

I have not heard any plans for quirks.

Are the CBT to AS PV calculations in the AS Companion still valid? Are those the calculations used for the MUL? Aka: are these rules still current for the supporting products?

[nckestrel]

With the errata to the Companion. Yes.

[ThePW]

When i searching the MUL today, I noticed that SRCH has been removed from (apparently) a large portion of the units (mainly Battlemechs) that used to have searchlights as either as legacy fluff (such as the Warhammer) or because of visual cues based on artist intent, both that tends to support The Search Light Quirk. Anyone know what is going on?

[nckestrel]

ASCE p62 "These modifiers [darkness] are negated if the attacking unit is a BattleMech or has the Searchlight (SRCH) special ability"
Listing SRCH for BattleMechs would be redundant.

Quick Strike cards had SRCH, SOA, SEAL, ES for all BattleMechs. I can't remember if we switched to dropping the redundancy with the change to Alpha Strike, or if it was a while later, but it was long before Commander's Edition.

[Sartris]

pretty sure it was in the changeover

[ThePW]

So.... all 'mechs have a search light installed (for purposes of handling the various night time/low light modifiers in various publications) thus usually do not have to worry about applying a penalty to To-Hit rolls? For which rule set: BT, AS or both? Just wondered if this is just something I've played the rules wrong... :D