MechWarrior: Destiny

[Daryk]

To which the GM responds "Not if you're within range of the enemy's LRM-5, you're not.  They get a shot."

[Mendou]

I mean, lets say you've got a split party going. 3 members of your group is inside a bunker on an Davion military base, recovering proof that Galen Cox was the one that gave Atomic Annie the codes to the nukes she stole during the FedCom Civil War. The other member of the lance is outside in his Stealth. The plan is for him to cover the retreat of the other three members when they make their escape in a Pegasus hovercraft.

Oh no! The badguys have powered up a Sagittaire. The guy in the Stealth doesn't really want to deal with it for the next 3 minutes while the rest of the group goes through files showing that Cox was the one that paid to blow up the Archon. Is there a way for him to get out of range of the Sagittaire, but not far enough away that he can't get back to distract the enemy Mech when its time to get the Pegasus out with the important info?

I suppose it could just be handle narratively, "I get my Mech far far away!" but it seems clunky. Then again, it could be the system.

The Stealth pilot could say something like "I'm going to duck behind the bunker and try not to be noticed by the Sagittaire until I get the signal that my friends are on their way".

[Daryk]

What, Phantom 'Mech ability?  ???

[Mendou]

To which the GM responds "Not if you're within range of the enemy's LRM-5, you're not.  They get a shot."

I never said anything about their not getting a shot. The idea is to make myself more difficult to hit in a narrative way.

[Daryk]

Then you're not "out of range"...

[Mendou]

What, Phantom 'Mech ability?  ???

Not so dramatic as that, but Phantom 'Mech is a narrative sort of ability.

[Mendou]

Then you're not "out of range"...

The goal is to not get hit. In a tactical game, you move out of range. In a narrative one, you dodge. Same idea, different mechanic.

[Daryk]

Except that one always works, and the other only works right up until the enemy makes their to-hit roll.

[Daryk]

And more importantly, the tactic of "being out of range" works against units without Long Range weapons, but not against those with them.  It's an "always/never" problem that doesn't have to exist.

[Nips]

As to the 'use a point to bypass an obstacle' that's still resource management.  Still using a resource to complete a mission.  And it also only worked for one PC mind you. 

Can you point me to where this is RAW?  I'm trying to get a handle on the rules myself, but the way I read the Plot Points and spending Edge sections leads me to believe you can't just burn a Plot Point to skip a test.  I'll admit to not having finished my read through yet, though, and maybe I haven't seen this specific rule.

[Mendou]

Except that one always works, and the other only works right up until the enemy makes their to-hit roll.

In a tactical game, yes. In a narrative setting, one ends the combat encounter while the other eventually gives you a chance to shoot back.

[Maelwys]

And what is the deal with the faction "Logos" ? It looks like they're made out of cheap thin clear plastic. You get these standard pieces of artwork that are in some cases iconic (The cover to En Garde is in there), and then you get this..cheap looking 3D thing for the House logos.

[Daryk]

In a tactical game, yes. In a narrative setting, one ends the combat encounter while the other eventually gives you a chance to shoot back.

But if they don't have Long range weapons, it totally works in the rules as written.  They CAN'T shoot you if you're at Long and their weapons don't reach that far...

[Mendou]

But if they don't have Long range weapons, it totally works in the rules as written.  They CAN'T shoot you if you're at Long and their weapons don't reach that far...

Which is why you then move in to engage them. Ask any Hollywood fight choreographer. (Only being slightly facetious here. . . .)

[Daryk]

As anything with at least an LRM-5, I'm totally staying out of range of any AC/20 until it's dead.  It's not like this game tracks ammo...

[Fear Factory]

I don't think it would hurt to track ammo, but no one complains about that in Alpha Strike, so who knows.

But I mean... if abstract 'Mech combat is a problem just use TW or find a way to use Alpha Strike. You could track ammo, add in Alpha Strike movement/mechanics, and be done with it.

If anyone working on Destiny is looking at anything I say in this thread, please keep on the path and keep things as vague as possible. It's refreshing to see a lack of detail for the sake of smooth gameplay.

[Maelwys]

Tracking ammo would probably be beyond the scope of the Equipment section.

[SteelShrike]

If anyone working on Destiny is looking at anything I say in this thread, please keep on the path and keep things as vague as possible. It's refreshing to see a lack of detail for the sake of smooth gameplay.

I 100% agree with that. It's kinda fun being given a foundation and then letting the individual players and GMs sorta build off of it the way they want to like what's being discussed here. 90% of a GM's job is to treat the rules as guidelines rather than law and sorta come up with answers to unique situations on the fly. No amount of rulemaking is going to cover every single situation that comes up. Build the basics and leave the rest of the power in the hands of the GM.

[SteelShrike]

OH. I also second/third/fourth the need for the different factions to have bonuses and flavor attached to them as well. Anything from languages, to deeper stuff like the fact that a Taurien might not get along with a Davion and there are rivalries that might spark tension and narrative opportunity between players as well.

[Fear Factory]

OH. I also second/third/fourth the need for the different factions to have bonuses and flavor attached to them as well. Anything from languages, to deeper stuff like the fact that a Taurien might not get along with a Davion and there are rivalries that might spark tension and narrative opportunity between players as well.

Maybe as bonus' on Attributes

Steiner: +1 CHA, -1 WIL
Kurita: +1 STR, -1 CHA
Davion: +1 INT, -1 STR
Liao: +1 REF, -1 INT
Marik: +1 WIL, -1 RFL

We can discuss this all day, but it would make some interesting results.

[wolfspider]

After reading over MWD serval times I would like to see a YouTube video of someone that understands the cue system giving it a go with a group of players. My experience with RPGs has been limited to a few Mechwarrior games up to version 2 and D&D which I have just got back into. Now one of our regular flat out refuses to play ( more because he thinks I betrayed him in our last MW2 by being a wolf net operative and didn’t tell him and he was our CO. Although the GM thought it was a great concept) But back to the point I have 4 PCs that what to give it a go and I think a few YouTube videos would help sell the idea to both new and old players.

[Lorcan Nagle]

And I "un-withdraw" how exactly?  There are plenty of occasions to be out of "Long" range then close again.

Alternately, you say to the GM (or as part of the joint narrative) "I'm going to move to out of the enemy range and try and stay there, but close enough to be seen as a threat" and presumably roll off to see who's better at combat manoeuvring.

[hf22]

And what is the deal with the faction "Logos" ? It looks like they're made out of cheap thin clear plastic. You get these standard pieces of artwork that are in some cases iconic (The cover to En Garde is in there), and then you get this..cheap looking 3D thing for the House logos.

I *think* those logos might be the art from the Kickstarter faction dice.

[Daryk]

*snip*
90% of a GM's job is to treat the rules as guidelines rather than law and sorta come up with answers to unique situations on the fly.
*snip*

Alternately, you say to the GM (or as part of the joint narrative) "I'm going to move to out of the enemy range and try and stay there, but close enough to be seen as a threat" and presumably roll off to see who's better at combat maneuvering.

As I've been saying, there's an actual rule on moving between Medium and Long range on page 42, and NO rule for maneuvering beyond Long without withdrawing.  For the sake of consistency, this should be corrected.  Or are we really all accepting that units with Long range weapons are that much superior to ones without?  All it would take is a single line added to the table on page 42, and maybe a tweak to the "Withdrawing" rules to permit disengagement without taking damage.

[ActionButler]

I agree with Daryk. If there are rules for moving between ranges, there should be a rule for moving out of range. In theory, you could handwave a rule that any unit already at long range can expend X movement to leave long range, but this really highlights the problem with vague rules for combat.

A rules-lite roleplaying system works fine (IMO). You don’t need a skill for every action or a rule for every interaction.  Destiny may not have a specific skill for acting in an off-broadway play, but you can pretty reasonably use Charisma plus something else. The sample characters in the book are short, but they provide all of the detail I need to get a feel for how these people are supposed to act.

Combat is another story, though.  Even as a theater of the mind game, not explicitly defining ranges or movement in quantitative measurements opens up the door to a metric ton of confusion and arguments. The Beta lays the groundwork for a really good, mini-Battletech.  The armor and damage are already reduced and simplified.  If they re-worked the movement and combat ranges (both character and mech) into those same simplified statistics instead of simplified suggestions of statistics, I think the combat would be much more solid.

[Mendou]

Alternately, you say to the GM (or as part of the joint narrative) "I'm going to move to out of the enemy range and try and stay there, but close enough to be seen as a threat" and presumably roll off to see who's better at combat manoeuvring.

Or you could do that. What a perfectly sensible and reasonable response. (Wish I'd thought of it.)

[Mendou]

I agree with Daryk. If there are rules for moving between ranges, there should be a rule for moving out of range. In theory, you could handwave a rule that any unit already at long range can expend X movement to leave long range, but this really highlights the problem with vague rules for combat.

A rules-lite roleplaying system works fine (IMO). You don’t need a skill for every action or a rule for every interaction.  Destiny may not have a specific skill for acting in an off-broadway play, but you can pretty reasonably use Charisma plus something else. The sample characters in the book are short, but they provide all of the detail I need to get a feel for how these people are supposed to act.

Combat is another story, though.  Even as a theater of the mind game, not explicitly defining ranges or movement in quantitative measurements opens up the door to a metric ton of confusion and arguments. The Beta lays the groundwork for a really good, mini-Battletech.  The armor and damage are already reduced and simplified.  If they re-worked the movement and combat ranges (both character and mech) into those same simplified statistics instead of simplified suggestions of statistics, I think the combat would be much more solid.

To give an example, a Locust pilot can say "I use my 'Mech's Lightning Fast Tag to stay just outside the Archer's range"; if his Piloting roll succeeds, he does it. Simple. that's what the Cue System is for. One doesn't need explicit ranges if one is thinking cinematically, just the right descriptions.

By the way, the rule you're looking for to stay just out of range is covered on page 33, under the heading "Moving the Story Forward". Those two paragraphs give you the freedom to say "I'll keep just out of range", and the GM the freedom to determine the consequences.

[Fear Factory]

I find it ironic that BattleTech fans want rules for being creative.

It's like, we've been playing a rules heavy game that covers just about every detail of combat that when we're given creative freedom, we panic.

[Lorcan Nagle]

As I've been saying, there's an actual rule on moving between Medium and Long range on page 42, and NO rule for maneuvering beyond Long without withdrawing.  For the sake of consistency, this should be corrected.  Or are we really all accepting that units with Long range weapons are that much superior to ones without?  All it would take is a single line added to the table on page 42, and maybe a tweak to the "Withdrawing" rules to permit disengagement without taking damage.

I agree with Daryk. If there are rules for moving between ranges, there should be a rule for moving out of range. In theory, you could handwave a rule that any unit already at long range can expend X movement to leave long range, but this really highlights the problem with vague rules for combat.

Now, I've only glanced through the rulebook so far, but I'm of the opinion that while a rule like that is nice to have in order to prevent arguments, if it's not there then rolling some dice to resolve the conflict should be the done thing.

[ActionButler]

To give an example, a Locust pilot can say "I use my 'Mech's Lightning Fast Tag to stay just outside the Archer's range"; if his Piloting roll succeeds, he does it. Simple. that's what the Cue System is for. One doesn't need explicit ranges if one is thinking cinematically, just the right descriptions.

By the way, the rule you're looking for to stay just out of range is covered on page 33, under the heading "Moving the Story Forward". Those two paragraphs give you the freedom to say "I'll keep just out of range", and the GM the freedom to determine the consequences.

And I think that's a really good solution.  I'm just worried that there is a lot of straddling between intentionally vague rules that allow for maximum flexibility and a handful of specific quantitative statistics.  Either option is a good option, and I'm totally fine with theater of the mind battletech, but trying to blend the two may not be as seamless. 

Again, though, this may come back around to the organization of the rulebook.  There are a lot of important bits that seem to get lost in big blocks of text or scattered sections.