BattleMech Manual Beta: Feedback desired

[Xotl]

In terms of the level of the attacking mech / Jump MP needed for it to DFA, TW is a bit confusing.

P. 149 says:
For purposes of determining LOS, the attacking unit is considered to be in the air above the hex, standing one level higher than the target hex or the level of the hex the attacker occupies, whichever is higher.

Seems straightforward: the attacker is 1 level above the defender.  1 MP would be enough to reach that.

But p. 150 says:
On an unsuccessful attack, the attacker automatically falls, taking damage as though the ’Mech had fallen 2 levels onto its back

If you're only one level up, you shouldn't take 2 levels worth of falling damage.

And then there's the older rulebooks, which are different in this specific regard and so don't provide a clear guideline forward.

I can only guess that the assumption was that at the LOS stage, during the Weapon Attack Phase, you're only 1 level up, but at the end you reach two levels up (which is why all successful DFA damage uses the punch table and why you fall two levels).  But it's not clear and I could use any further insight anyone might have here.  I may have to run it by Randall and Ray.

[nckestrel]

If you attack the DFA'er, you're attacking right before he lands on his target. But that's not how high he jumped.  The DFAer is not jumping straight sideways (and only one level up) to the target, but over and coming down.  Thus the DFA'er is falling two levels, but is targeted at only one level above the ground? 

It's only two levels up regardless of how far the DFA'er jumped, because the jump is controlled until the point where it's over the target and only "falls" the two levels down.

(My random trying to connect dots attempt).

[skiltao]

I could quibble the physics and fiction of the jump-kick, but rules-wise, yeah, I agree: the attacker has already completed all movement up to the moment of impact, including falling one or more levels. However they word it, every book seems to agree that if the DFA is

• unsuccessful, the attacker takes 3xtonnage/10 damage (equivalent to 2 levels plus automatically getting knocked prone).
• successful, the attacker takes 2xtonnage/10 damage (equivalent to 2 levels without getting knocked prone yet).
• successful, the target takes 3xtonnage/10 damage (equivalent to 3 levels without getting knocked prone yet).

So why the difference between attacker and target damage? If the attack misses, doesn't the attacker have 6 more meters in which to brake with its jump jets? Maybe if the attack is

• unsuccessful, the attacker falls 3 levels, minus 1 for braking.
• successful, the attacker falls 3 levels, but the last 2 count for half (as though falling on another unit were like falling into water).
• successful, the target takes 3 levels of damage.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

I could quibble the physics and fiction of the jump-kick, but rules-wise, yeah, I agree: the attacker has already completed all movement up to the moment of impact, including falling one or more levels. However they word it, every book seems to agree that if the DFA is

• unsuccessful, the attacker takes 3xtonnage/10 damage (equivalent to 2 levels plus automatically getting knocked prone).
• successful, the attacker takes 2xtonnage/10 damage (equivalent to 2 levels without getting knocked prone yet).
• successful, the target takes 3xtonnage/10 damage (equivalent to 3 levels without getting knocked prone yet).

So why the difference between attacker and target damage? If the attack misses, doesn't the attacker have 6 more meters in which to brake with its jump jets? Maybe if the attack is

• unsuccessful, the attacker falls 3 levels, minus 1 for braking.
• successful, the attacker falls 3 levels, but the last 2 count for half (as though falling on another unit were like falling into water).
• successful, the target takes 3 levels of damage.

IMHO, it's quite obvious, that the choice of the damage values was dictated by the game balance. Also, the turn sequence is an abstraction, as are damage values. If a unit deliberately makes an action that damages both it and the enemy unit, the damage does not have to be equal for them. The same thing happens for charges.

[skiltao]

[Edit: I know it's been said that rules for hexless play won't appear in this book, but those "strategic" optional rule boxes look ready-made to slip the hexless rules in. /Edit]

Xotl, is this thread open to back-and-forth the way the MUL thread is, or would the rest of my post here be better off in the Global Errata Discussion Thread?

CrazyGrasshopper, I agree on all points. However, it's also quite obvious that the designers tried to be consistent on at least some points, and there are other places throughout the rules (e.g., engine masses, weapon stats, prone Target Modifiers) where a unifying logic isn't strictly necessary but appears to have been used anyways. The question at hand is how many Jump MP are required to attempt a Death From Above attack--it's certainly true that the text may not hold clues to the answer; but saying so isn't itself an answer, and doesn't really move us any closer to a solution.

[NeonKnight]

My thoughts on DFA (and why I left it to others argue and concerned more with the Pushing aspect) is in order to DFA, I need to get above my target.

Now I stand 2 levels tall, my target stands 2 levels tall.

If I am jumping from 0 level and target at 0 level, I need to get to level 2 (same as standing on a Level 2 terrain puts me exactly higher than him), so I only need at most 2 functioning Jump Jets. Just as if I wanted to jump 2 levels up, I would need, 2 Jump Jets.

I call this my All things being equal argument.

Note, this also my minimum.

Sure, I hear people exclaim, but what if you are on a Level 1 hill and the target is adjacent and on 0 level ground, then you would need only 1 JJ to raise 1 level above.

And I would say, Sure, but for rules balance to ensure the All Things being Equal argument is adhered, you need 2 JJ.

What if my Target is on the Level 1 hill, and I am on Level 0? Well, does the Minimum 2 MP alotted by 2 Jump Jets get you higher than your target? No, then sorry Buck, you're outta Luck, you need 3 JJs to get there.

[Xotl]

Xotl, is this thread open to back-and-forth the way the MUL thread is, or would the rest of my post here be better off in the Global Errata Discussion Thread?

If you just want to post an errata report or drop a concern, that's okay.  But I'm definitely open to back and forth, and the thread has seen a good amount of it already.

In general I'd like to hash out issues here in order to make sure the final is solid, rather than just attempting an answer with no outside input and risking winding up with errata for the final anyways.  The whole point of an open beta is that I want to hear what you all have to say.  No one person will catch everything.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Displacement
As the rules state now, a displacement into a hex 1 (EDIT: or 2) levels lower has the same treatment as a displacement into a hex from 0 to 2 levels higher. Thus, you do not really need the first two bullets. If you do want to have bullets at all (they do make reading easier), then you might change the text as following (I'll just change the whole section):

’Mechs forced into another hex as a result of their opponent’s actions are displaced. Displacement normally occurs due to charge, push, and death from above attacks, and typically just results in one or both ’Mechs moving and then making any required Piloting Skill Rolls. However, more complicated situations can arise.

In a case when the displacement is not prohibited (see below):
•   If the hex the ’Mech is displaced is of the same level, or one or two levels lower or higher, check if the newly-entered hex contains another ’Mech. If so, see Domino Effect, page XX. Otherwise, follow the normal rules called for by the action that caused the displacement.
•   If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into is three or more levels lower, check if the newly-entered hex contains another ’Mech. If so an accidental fall from above occurs (see Accidental Fall From Above, p. XX). Otherwise, an automatic fall occurs (see Falling, p. XX).

Actions that cause a displacement usually call for a Piloting Skill Roll by the ’Mech being displaced. Any fall that occurs as a result is a 0-level fall that happens in the hex the ’Mech is displaced into. However, if a ’Mech is displaced down three or more levels, any such PSR is ignored, as the ’Mech automatically falls; the fall distance is calculated from the ’Mech’s original level before the fall as normal.
Buildings: When resolving displacement, remember that building levels are treated as any other terrain level. If a ’Mech is displaced into a building hex, the building takes damage as if the displaced ’Mech had charged it (see Charge Attacks, p. XX).
DFA Attacks: If a ’Mech launches a death from above attack (see p. XX), and all the hexes surrounding the target ’Mech are prohibited hexes, one of the ’Mechs will automatically be destroyed. If the target ’Mech is hit by the DFA, it is destroyed. If the DFA fails, the attacker is destroyed instead.
Prohibited Displacement: A ’Mech cannot be displaced into a hex three or more levels higher than the displaced ’Mech’s original hex (or into any hex the scenario designates as prohibited). In such a case, the displacement cannot occur, and neither the target nor attacking ’Mech move, unless the action specifically states otherwise. All other effects of the displacing action occur.

On the issue of the Domino Effect example, p.56 (I already know the page numbers by heart).

Ah, I see: the example offers two PSRs.  The first is just whether or not you dodge, and the second is whether or not you actually fall.

I've changed the example so that there's only one test.  That still leaves three possible results:

Pass and dodge
Pass and don't dodge: moved into new hex, but stays upright there
Fail: moved into new hex, falls there

The Multiple Domino Effect says:
If the first target ’Mech failed its PSR, it falls in the hex it was displaced into as normal. If the first target ’Mech’s PSR was instead successful, but it was still forced out of its hex (because it could not dodge), it must immediately make another PSR when it is placed in the hex with the new target ’Mech, or fall in that hex.

The example states:
The ’Mech standing in Hex B will be forced into Hex C and must make a Piloting Skill Roll to avoid falling.

So, the 'Mech that was in the hex B makes only one PSR (enforced by the 'Mech fallen from A), but the rules state it should make another one.

In Falling and Collisions,
If a ’Mech falls into a hex occupied by another ’Mech, that ’Mech might also take damage.
might be changed into:
In a case a ’Mech falls into a hex occupied by another ’Mech, if... (the next sentence from here).
It's shorter and does not mention taking damage, since it does not happen in all the cases. It's probably not worth a change, though.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

CrazyGrasshopper, I agree on all points. However, it's also quite obvious that the designers tried to be consistent on at least some points, and there are other places throughout the rules (e.g., engine masses, weapon stats, prone Target Modifiers) where a unifying logic isn't strictly necessary but appears to have been used anyways. The question at hand is how many Jump MP are required to attempt a Death From Above attack--it's certainly true that the text may not hold clues to the answer; but saying so isn't itself an answer, and doesn't really move us any closer to a solution.

I, actually, made a point only about the damage values. I, myself, would prefer any conclusive, self-consistent and well-written judgement on the number of jump MP needed.

Also, as a feedback on the errata gathering process, for such case as displacement rules, an updated document really speeds up things.

[skiltao]

I was showing how the damage values could be used to measure how many Jump MP are required for a DFA, and you appeared to be contesting the validity of that method. Forgive me if that was not your intent.

I realize that the damage-based argument isn't very compelling on its own, but it is at least viable, and it harmonizes with the much stronger one I mentioned earlier.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

I was showing how the damage values could be used to measure how many Jump MP are required for a DFA, and you appeared to be contesting the validity of that method.

Oh, I (@p?) did not get, what you meant, too. Sorry.

[skiltao]

No worries.  :D

[NeonKnight]

Under EJECTION (SIMPLIFIED ), it states that a Pilot can choose to eject during the movement phase instead of any other action, and the table has a Modifier for being unconscious.

Perhaps the Sentence:

During the Movement Phase, a player may choose to have their MechWarrior eject rather than take any other action that phase.

could be changed to:

During the Movement Phase, a player may choose to have their MechWarrior, providing they are not unconscious, eject rather than take any other action that phase.

or something similar?

[GespenstM]

(Deleted, post outdated)

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Displacement Hell
I'm going to voice a concern about switching from a displacement into a hex 2 levels lower being an automatic fall to it being handled regularly. It changes tactical implications of charges, DFA's, pushes etc. A cliff with 3+ level fall is a rarer occurrence on the map. EDIT: Disregard this, see below.

Found this in TW, p.63 Skidding:
Accidental Falls From Above: If a unit skids into a hex whose level is lower and greater than the maximum allowable level change for that unit (see Level Change, p. 48), the unit experiences an accidental fall from above (see p. 152). Regardless of the results of the accidental fall, the unit’s skid ends in that hex.


Implicitly confirms that in the current version the ruling is correct.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Edited my previous post.

[NeonKnight]

Just noticed something...The 'highlighted' chapter info on the right side of the pages (i.e Combat, Damage, etc) flows from Bottom to Top, where in every other current rule book flows top to bottom.

Just gonna bump this, as the Reverse Order of Chapters on the right hand are very off-putting when looking at the book as a PDF.

Oh, Where I am currently, looks to right side of page...Ah, Combat, and quick scan; "There's what I'm Looking for The Battlefield, it's 'above' combat." Scroll UP...DURN IT! I needed to scroll down...Grumble-grumble-grumble, scroll down.


Again, it's not a....'book totally useless if this stays' but it is opposite to every other Rulebook's (both CGL and any other published book, like a dictionary) layout.

[Xotl]

That was a deliberate choice on Ray's part.  I can't remember the exact reason he gave for it, but I'm not going to argue with the guy who does layout for a living. :)

[NeonKnight]

That was a deliberate choice on Ray's part.  I can't remember the exact reason he gave for it, but I'm not going to argue with the guy who does layout for a living. :)

OK, very, very odd though, and backwards of everything else out there... ???

[sadlerbw]

Couple item. Not sure if they have been mentioned because it's a little tricky to search this thread:

p19: Standing Up, Minimum Movement. It looks like the Minimum Movement section is a copy of the Four-Legged 'Mechs section.

p27: Damage Modifiers. First sentence reads, "The attacker's Target Number may suffer additional modifiers for combat damage to arms, sensors, as discussed in..." Seems like either there is a missing item in the list of 'arms, sensors' or it should just say 'arms and sensors'.

p95: The Tarantula has Extended Torso Twist...but it's a quad.

I'm still working my way through the rules, so there may be more.

EDIT: Had the wrong page number for the second item!

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Quirk suggestion:

Caesar should have Bad Reputation (Clan Invasion Only), as the fluff from TRO 3050 Upgrade says that the mech was unpopular with FedCom troops when it was first introduced.

[TigerShark]

OVERVIEW
With the streamlining of the rules into the new BattleTech manuals, I think it's time to re-visit the decision to increase Piloting skill charts in BV2. The Piloting increase value (+15% per level) is a massive jump from BV1 (+5%), and has seen the impact of encouraging players to either (a) not use leveled units or (b) only level their Gunnery when possible, unless the design is specifically intended for melee combat.

1. Pilot Skill BV chart should change to reflect a 1.10 modifier for Piloting increases, replacing the current increase of 1.15.
2. Piloting and Gunnery modifiers should be added together, replacing the current method requiring multiplication.

SUGGESTION 1
After two+ years of having our pilot BV at +10% on a private campaign server (i.e.: around 2,500+ games player in this time), I've seen a noticeable increase in the VOLUNTARY addition of Piloting levels to high-BV units. Prior to this, there were two methods of leveling units prescribed: (1) Automatic leveling checks, performed whenever XP is gained and (2) player-controlled leveling.

During play with method (1), players would either not use or scrap their units which had a single Piloting level, unless the unit was specifically designed for melee combat (i.e.: Berzerker, Charger, No-Dachi, etc.). With method (2), players would only level their Gunnery when possible. This is because the BV increase was not seen as representing the true "value" of the unit on the field, resulting in opponents which outperformed them in firepower and armor. Piloting increases were not a bonus, but a detriment and created a significant challenge in exchange for minimal usefulness. Method (2) saw the same behavior. Given a 1,000 BV unit, the question is posed "do you want to increase 200 BV to deal more damage, or 150 BV to fall slightly less?" The obvious answer here is the 200 BV, as it leads to faster gameplay and the perception of a better overall unit.

It occurs to me that there is a threshold for diminishing returns for a single level of Piloting. Would you choose to use a leveled unit if it only cost +1%? Surely, you'd choose a 4/0 unit every time for a mere +5%. How about if a level cost 5%? Probably still within the range of seeing it as a "bargain." As we climb up the ladder, it requires more weighing of pros/cons, until you get to a certain point where the increase does not represent the advantages you gain. That level, at current, is +15%.

+ Play-testing over the years has shown Piloting to be over-valued for 'Mechs.
+ Tracked/wheeled vehicles, Battle Armor, and infantry platoons, seldom (or never) use their piloting/AntiMech values, and are clearly being over-charged. A tracked vee, for example, could get a 30% gain in BV by having a 4/3 pilot, yet never once make a piloting role, unless specifically fielded on pavement.
+ A move to +10% would see multiple benefits, including a better balance between veteran- and regular-skilled armies, including Clan-IS games.
+ Historical "legends" and "aces" do not currently make sense in-game or match their descriptions in the text. For example, a 1/2 Star League gunslinger would be beaten every time in a BV-balanced match against 4/5 pilots. This shouldn't be the case. A change in piloting would make elite pilots fit their literary descriptions.


SUGGESTION 2
This one has always puzzled me, as there is no inherent benefit gained by Piloting/Gunnery from an opposite ability's level. A 3 Gunnery pilot only benefits from Piloting levels inasmuch as he's simply able to stand longer. But how is this true for a Tracked vehicle? A suit of BattleArmor? An Infantry platoon? The answer is "they don't" for other unit types and there is no reason to multiply the two abilities together, since there is only one chart for all unit types.

+ As the BT Manual's goal is simplification, this suggestion is self-explanatory: Addition is simpler than multiplication
+ It makes figuring your unit's final Piloting Skill multiplier easy to do, even without a calculator.
+ It further enhances the abilities of leveled pilots, versus hugging the 4/5 sweet spot and only leveling Piloting or Gunnery. A 2/5 (1.40) is worth much more than a 3/4 (1.38), in almost every respect (again, melee units are the exception).
+ Given the above pilot, and with both suggestions implemented, a 2/5 (1.40) would cost much more than a 3/4 (1.30), showing the disparity in value between Gunnery and Piloting levels.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Attack Modifiers Table, pp. 132-133

For ease of reading, is it possible to move the footnotes from the p.133 to the p.132. You can probably cram them in, if you write them in one line.

Tables, in general

Is it possible to create a table that lists damage from falling, skidding, failing PSR while moving through a building, building collapse, etc?

[CampaignAnon]

Quirk suggestion:

Caesar should have Bad Reputation (Clan Invasion Only), as the fluff from TRO 3050 Upgrade says that the mech was unpopular with FedCom troops when it was first introduced.

Aside from the Banshee, which has a Bad Reputation for centuries that eventually goes away, the aim was to have quirks that wouldn't apply to only one variant or for a short period of time like that. Unless it's a Blakist mech, in which case, REMOVE WORD REMOVE WORD.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

PPC Capacitor, pp.105-106

It could be clarified on which turns the capacitor is considered charged for the case of taking a critical hit. I assumed that it is considered charged on the turn the initial charging happens, following the same logic as for discharging, but it could be made more clear from the description.

[Scotty]

Snip

The BMM doesn't deal with BV at all.  This is the wrong book to suggest that change.

[TigerShark]

The BMM doesn't deal with BV at all.  This is the wrong book to suggest that change.

Ah. Unfortunate. Odd that it doesn't have a Pilot Skill BV chart included, but oh well. :)

[nckestrel]

Ok, so maybe the suggestion should be that it does (at least what BV is and how to adjust for skill).
And then adjust the skill BV costs :).

[NeonKnight]

Ok, so maybe the suggestion should be that it does (at least what BV is and how to adjust for skill).
And then adjust the skill BV costs :).

I can get behind this. I did find it odd that the BMM had no section on pilot skill ratings (beyond saying a pilot has a Gunnery and Piloting Skill and this is what it used for).

[Scotty]

Ok, so maybe the suggestion should be that it does (at least what BV is and how to adjust for skill).
And then adjust the skill BV costs :).

Does BV affect how a 'Mech pilots?  It emphatically does not; a 'Mech with a displayed BV is identical to the same 'Mech with no BV printed on its sheet.

That, plus the fact that Xotl was not allowed to change BV for another thing that was already in the book despite wanting to (C3) makes me pretty sure this book is not the place for it, one way or another.