Should a weapon like a hatchet have better range?

[monbvol]

X-pulse is one of the changes I felt was a bad idea along with the other crap from Unbound that made it into MWDA-for exactly that reason; the cost it carries is miniscule and it breaks the basic patterns even worse than Clantech did. (there were actually quite a FEW things suddenly mainstreamed thanks to Wizkids that fit that category-they weren't balanced well before the klikky, and still aren't after it.)

but let's stick to the topic instead of me grognarding, which isn't fun for anyone but me and my arguing partners.

Melee weapons are FINE as they are.  In this case, we've got decades of test data we can look at in the form of experience, including a look at what the rules-changes have been with them-they're actually (aside from the Solaris stuff) pretty well developed and balanced as they are.  same for physical attacks that are, well...not melee weapons but physical attacks. 

Kicks risk tossing you on your ass and damaging yourself, much as DFA does.  Punches as they are right now, have a pretty good chance of not landing, and risk (again) self-damage, and you can't punch with arm mounted weapons-and most 'mechs with arms, mount their primary ranged attacks on the arms (It's a very popular place to put those weapons) while the ones who don't, have to cope with narrow arcs of fire.

it's a pretty narrow selection of situations where you're going to have the opportunity to throw, much less land, a physical attack in the first place, and there's a weight/equipment requirement if you want the 'decapitate in a single blow with your fist' ability (TSM, active, on a unit with 55 or more tons mass).  as for Melee weapons-they're mostly tonnage sinks and damage sinks to keep arm criticals from nailing something genuinely useful most of the time, or they're 'solaris specials', weapons that are really only useful in an arena to please crowds.

The rules are fine as they are, unless you're min/maxing, in which case, why are you playing Inner Sphere to begin with, there's a whole selection of factions made for minmaxing-the Clans (Which are also really an 'easy mode' for play, having with the whole scientist caste thing, proven they do everything better than the Inner Sphere does, even things they are fluffed as being opposed to doing, CEWS is a much, much, better C3i, even.)

I suppose when the devs decide to give the Clans Melee weapons, they'll have something like a -5 on their numbers and deliver twice the damage of a kick for half the mass and a quarter the crits or something.

Part of my point is that there are trade offs that exist for doing increased damage and have since I started playing the game 25-26 years ago and almost certainly pre-date that.  Which is fine.  The game would be boring if it didn't have multiple options for trade offs.

Also punches have no chance of self damage.  It isn't punching when trying to remove narc pods or when trying to deal with swarming infantry.

Kicks are absolutely free.  Sure they risk a PSR, which may in turn result in a fall, but that is such a negligble trade off versus what you have to invest to get a hatchet that does the same damage, isn't as likely to hit, and will not concentrate damage in the same way repeated kicks can without serious luck.  Talons have some hope here just because they do enhance kicks and Death From Above damage but that again just highlights how good kicking is as an option versus anything that isn't kicking or punching.

Punches to get full effect from yeah you have to invest two criticals as it is technically optional to mount two arm actuators.  No mass, no heat, and no to hit modifier either direction.  Hatchets as currently exist can't be used without Fist Fire if a weapon in the same arm is used and there are a few mechs that do mount ranged weapons in the same arm as a hatchet so that restriction is a wash.  So again hatchets come out really poor in comparison.  Claws and Retractable Blade optional rules help some but unfortunately those both just help highlight how good punching and kicking are on their own.

As far as things being unchanged as evidence of things being fine/accepted, well we both know that isn't always because something works fine as is under current rules.

So yeah for me the trade offs are too much for most physical combat weapons versus what you can get for free, or at least close enough to free.

[garhkal]

The only thing you've REALLY convinced me of, is that none of the physical attacks should get a bonus to hit, but that melee weapons should have a slight penalty to use-because they don't have any other drawback.

So you don't think paying 1 ton, and 1 crit for it, is a 'penalty'??

[Daryk]

I've seen way too many missed kicks result in falls to count that risk as "negligible".  And I haven't even played a game against Hellbie yet!

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

As I said above, we all know that there are inferior and superior weapons in the battletech universe, but no one cause serious penalty for having some weaponry except for physical weapons.

For example, if you have a LRM-20 but swap it to four LRM-5 and spend the spare 2 ton and 1 critical, it is only the matter of min-maxing.

Swap the large pulse laser to clans large pulse laser is, again, only the matter of min-maxing.

But the physical weapons are different. Think about you have an Atlas and:

With a hatchet
-You need to spend 7 tons and 7 slots.
-Hatchet attack uses normal location table, thus only able to hit the head by 2.7% which is same as the other weapons.
-Hatchet's damage is a twofold compared by punch.

Without a hatchet
-You have 7 tons and 7 slots to spend any other device.
-You are still use the punch, which comes with
--Two attacks
--upper location table, which strikes the head by only 1/6(around 16.66%) per an attack.
--A half of damage compared by hatchet.

Sure, 'the other weapons' by spend 7 tons/slots would be some kind of min-maxing. But, even if hatchet comes for 0 tons and 0 slot, I doubt that it is better than punch - or even compared by it. A weapon can be better than an another weapon, but why no weapons at all is need to be the better choice than picking a weapon? Even have a light rifle would be an advantage over no ranged weapon at all, but only have limbs is better than also have a hatchet.

The weapons are meant to neutralize the enemy. Some of them are not but many of them, especially for weapons that can't do anything but damage stuffs does.

You know, one 20 point of damage is actually better than two 10 point of damages, for one 20 can have the better chance to punch through one location. But, what if two damages have much better insta-kill chance?

Even without the very high insta-kill chance I do think that punches are still powerful, though, but without that then it would be a fair game with hatchet - one can simply ignore the leg and one can have better chance to pierce the armor. However too high insta-kill chance(or at least damage the enemy pilot even without TSM) makes punch too valueable over the melee weapons. Its total damage output is not less than hatchet either(although high one-shot do have the advantage over same sum but two or more of blows, as I said).

[Cannonshop]

So you don't think paying 1 ton, and 1 crit for it, is a 'penalty'??

nope, it's a choice.  Go with the atlas example for a second, 100 ton 'mech, with a headcapper/torso destroyer/limb remover weapon that costs zero heat, does not include explosive ammunition bomb in the torso, (Next to the engine) and does not inflict a risky PSR to remain standing.  for the weight of an AC/2 minus ammunition.

and that's at the TOP end of the mass/crit price.  since hatchets scale by 'mech size/weight, and do Tonnage/5 damage (Minus TSM which eats up a lot of critical spaces, to be sure, but doesn't weigh anything) and using standard Battletech rounding, let's see...a fairly significant amount of damage-dealing for anything bigger than a light 'mech, that doesn't cost heat to use, doesn't explode, and doesn't force the user to PSR.

is it a great weapon or even a resonable main weapon? hardly.  Unless you're doing a solaris duel, trotting in a Charger, or some other bizarre circumstance, physical attacks aren't a primary concern, they're an opportunity item, and specialist 'mechs probably shouldn't be looked at as something to emulate unless you're playing a theme.

again, arena fights or similar, or playing a faction that has more than the usual lack of common sense and strategic vision, in which case, you take the thing as structured because the rules WORK.

In a previous iteration of the rules, Hatchets hit on the punch table. this needs to be kept in mind, because that WAS a massive advantage, and it was also unbalanced as hell.  Very few of the suggestions in this thread don't further unbalance what's already a gimmick.  I think possibly the only ones thus far, would be moving melee weapons to the weapons fire phase of a given round, but that needs testing to make sure there aren't cheezeball ways to exploit the hell out of it that aren't immediately apparent.

[monbvol]

nope, it's a choice.  Go with the atlas example for a second, 100 ton 'mech, with a headcapper/torso destroyer/limb remover weapon that costs zero heat, does not include explosive ammunition bomb in the torso, (Next to the engine) and does not inflict a risky PSR to remain standing.  for the weight of an AC/2 minus ammunition.

and that's at the TOP end of the mass/crit price.  since hatchets scale by 'mech size/weight, and do Tonnage/5 damage (Minus TSM which eats up a lot of critical spaces, to be sure, but doesn't weigh anything) and using standard Battletech rounding, let's see...a fairly significant amount of damage-dealing for anything bigger than a light 'mech, that doesn't cost heat to use, doesn't explode, and doesn't force the user to PSR.

is it a great weapon or even a resonable main weapon? hardly.  Unless you're doing a solaris duel, trotting in a Charger, or some other bizarre circumstance, physical attacks aren't a primary concern, they're an opportunity item, and specialist 'mechs probably shouldn't be looked at as something to emulate unless you're playing a theme.

again, arena fights or similar, or playing a faction that has more than the usual lack of common sense and strategic vision, in which case, you take the thing as structured because the rules WORK.

In a previous iteration of the rules, Hatchets hit on the punch table. this needs to be kept in mind, because that WAS a massive advantage, and it was also unbalanced as hell.  Very few of the suggestions in this thread don't further unbalance what's already a gimmick.  I think possibly the only ones thus far, would be moving melee weapons to the weapons fire phase of a given round, but that needs testing to make sure there aren't cheezeball ways to exploit the hell out of it that aren't immediately apparent.

Correction a Hatchet for a 100 ton mech is 7 tons and 7 critical slots.  So the weight of an AC-2 and ammo but with more critical slots that any one of which gets damaged makes the Hatchet useless.

Compared to the zero heat, no mass, critical slots you are required to take anyway of a kick that is -2 to hit and that is not a good trade off.

Ultimately everything is a choice though.  It is just a question of if the trade offs are worth it.  For most physical combat weapons it just is not worth it versus what you can get for free.

[garhkal]

Which is why we're discussing shifting the melee weapons to being in the combat phase, to make that trade off, better.

[monbvol]

Which is a good start that I can get behind and I'm certainly willing to be flexible on the to hit modifiers in how they need to be shifted around but a sticking point for me is punches and kicks need their damage reduced on top of that.

[Cannonshop]

Which is a good start that I can get behind and I'm certainly willing to be flexible on the to hit modifiers in how they need to be shifted around but a sticking point for me is punches and kicks need their damage reduced on top of that.

Then you're dropping your melee weapons (the two are linked).

[monbvol]

I don't see why I'd have to lower melee weapon damage, except for Claws and Talons which wouldn't bother me, if punching and kicking damage were reduced.

The kind of extra force you can get from the combination of rotational force, concentrating force in the case of thrusting weapons such as lances, or the combination of the two factors is not insignificant and would seem very much in line for other choices you can make instead for the same tonnage.

Paying weight and critical slots is a well established and intrinsic part of the game for the trade off of doing more damage after all.

[Cannonshop]

I don't see why I'd have to lower melee weapon damage, except for Claws and Talons which wouldn't bother me, if punching and kicking damage were reduced.

The kind of extra force you can get from the combination of rotational force, concentrating force in the case of thrusting weapons such as lances, or the combination of the two factors is not insignificant and would seem very much in line for other choices you can make instead for the same tonnage.

Paying weight and critical slots is a well established and intrinsic part of the game for the trade off of doing more damage after all.

the equations governing your melee weapon damages are the same as the equations governing punches and kicks.  (Hatchets apply the same damage as a kick, but to a larger target zone, which set the pattern for the rest.)

in short, you have to change how the whole thing works for the purpose of nerfing a set of attacks you don't care for.  Melee weapons and physical attacks are the only systems in the game where your damage is contingent on your unit's mass, and they're based on multipliers.  IOW you're asking to add additional calculations for an asthetic reason.

[monbvol]

the equations governing your melee weapon damages are the same as the equations governing punches and kicks.  (Hatchets apply the same damage as a kick, but to a larger target zone, which set the pattern for the rest.)

in short, you have to change how the whole thing works for the purpose of nerfing a set of attacks you don't care for.  Melee weapons and physical attacks are the only systems in the game where your damage is contingent on your unit's mass, and they're based on multipliers.  IOW you're asking to add additional calculations for an asthetic reason.

Considering how few numbers would have to be changed I fail to see the problem.

To illustrate the problem more clearly I'll set out a question that will require you to set aside your well known bias and just based off the numbers if replacements were not an issue are you really saying that you'd take an Inner Sphere Gauss Rifle instead of a Clan Gauss Rifle?

I can come up with other examples if I really need to but I'll admit they'd be a lot more theoretical than that example.

That's my issue.  I'm being asked to pay a weight and critical slot penalty for something that I can get for less weight and fewer criticals that also better concentrates damage when it does hit.

[Retry]

If you want a quick fix (nerf) to punches and kicks might I suggest doing them by weight class?

Ultralight: 2 damage kicks, 1 damage punches
Light: 4 damage kicks, 2 damage punches
Medium: 6 damage kicks, 3 damage punches
Heavy: 8 damage kicks, 4 damage punches
Assault: 10 damage kicks, 5 damage punches
Superheavy: 12 damage kicks, 6 damage punches

Maybe a slight bonus for being a Quad for being stable mule-kicking platforms, and also because they don't have access to those fancy weapons and they usually get the short end of the stick?

All I could come up with in the span of 5 seconds.  Honestly, super CQC never really comes up in my games so I don't have much to say on the subject.

[Cannonshop]

Considering how few numbers would have to be changed I fail to see the problem.

To illustrate the problem more clearly I'll set out a question that will require you to set aside your well known bias and just based off the numbers if replacements were not an issue are you really saying that you'd take an Inner Sphere Gauss Rifle instead of a Clan Gauss Rifle?

I can come up with other examples if I really need to but I'll admit they'd be a lot more theoretical than that example.

That's my issue.  I'm being asked to pay a weight and critical slot penalty for something that I can get for less weight and fewer criticals that also better concentrates damage when it does hit.

and your issue is a preference issue, Monbvol.  it's the same argument of "Why would I be carrying this explosive ammunition and filling up all these crits and all this mass, when I can get infinite shots with better numbers on a lighter system that occupies less space using an ERPPC or Clan LPL or X-pulse laser and double heat sinks?"

[monbvol]

and your issue is a preference issue, Monbvol.  it's the same argument of "Why would I be carrying this explosive ammunition and filling up all these crits and all this mass, when I can get infinite shots with better numbers on a lighter system that occupies less space using an ERPPC or Clan LPL or X-pulse laser and double heat sinks?"

If only it were that simple.  I mean after all the Hatchet doesn't have explosive ammo so it's not even like I have that to complain about.

Also for the record yeah I wouldn't complain if the ACs went on a diet in terms of both mass and critical slots but I can at least appreciate the 2's unmatched reach for it's tech level, the 10's being almost close enough that it does at least make a reasonable choice as an ICE tank's main weapon, and the 20's unmatched for a long period of lore concentrated damage.  The 5 though, you may have me there as that is the posterchild of the ACs of something that you can replace with almost anything else and be better off.

Not always an energy weapon though just to be clear.

Liam's Ghost enlightened me pretty early on about the small not immediately obvious benefits of SRMs and LRMs too.

So yeah I can deal with subpar or live with trade offs if they are reasonable, especially in the form of things that can explode, as long as I am getting enough for them.

Since I can get everything a hatchet offer for close enough to free I do take extra exception to the current state of affairs.

Indeed what makes it so much worse is in all those other cases I'm still having to take on some weight, incur more heat more often than not, spend more C-Bills(at least in the near term), and will almost certainly wind up with a higher BV.

In this case if I were to design two mechs identical in every way, empty of all gear, same armor distribution, and possibly underweight but then gave one a hatchet and ran them through a bunch of fights where the one with the hatchet may only hatchet for attacks I would not be surprised if despite the one with the hatchet with it's higher BV failed to win more than 50% of the time.

[garhkal]

If you want a quick fix (nerf) to punches and kicks might I suggest doing them by weight class?

Ultralight: 2 damage kicks, 1 damage punches
Light: 4 damage kicks, 2 damage punches
Medium: 6 damage kicks, 3 damage punches
Heavy: 8 damage kicks, 4 damage punches
Assault: 10 damage kicks, 5 damage punches
Superheavy: 12 damage kicks, 6 damage punches

Maybe a slight bonus for being a Quad for being stable mule-kicking platforms, and also because they don't have access to those fancy weapons and they usually get the short end of the stick?

All I could come up with in the span of 5 seconds.  Honestly, super CQC never really comes up in my games so I don't have much to say on the subject.

What would count for each of those classes though?

[Retry]

What would count for each of those classes though?

You'd use the canonical weight brackets.

Ultralight: <20t
Light: 20-35t
Medium: 40-55t
Heavy: 60-75t
Assault: 80-100t
Superheavy: >100t

[Cannonshop]

If only it were that simple.  I mean after all the Hatchet doesn't have explosive ammo so it's not even like I have that to complain about.

Also for the record yeah I wouldn't complain if the ACs went on a diet in terms of both mass and critical slots but I can at least appreciate the 2's unmatched reach for it's tech level, the 10's being almost close enough that it does at least make a reasonable choice as an ICE tank's main weapon, and the 20's unmatched for a long period of lore concentrated damage.  The 5 though, you may have me there as that is the posterchild of the ACs of something that you can replace with almost anything else and be better off.

Not always an energy weapon though just to be clear.

Liam's Ghost enlightened me pretty early on about the small not immediately obvious benefits of SRMs and LRMs too.

So yeah I can deal with subpar or live with trade offs if they are reasonable, especially in the form of things that can explode, as long as I am getting enough for them.

Since I can get everything a hatchet offer for close enough to free I do take extra exception to the current state of affairs.

Indeed what makes it so much worse is in all those other cases I'm still having to take on some weight, incur more heat more often than not, spend more C-Bills(at least in the near term), and will almost certainly wind up with a higher BV.

In this case if I were to design two mechs identical in every way, empty of all gear, same armor distribution, and possibly underweight but then gave one a hatchet and ran them through a bunch of fights where the one with the hatchet may only hatchet for attacks I would not be surprised if despite the one with the hatchet with it's higher BV failed to win more than 50% of the time.

design two 'mechs with identical chassis, armor, engine, one gets energy weapons with enough cooling to maintain, the other gets autocannons and...you will never have enough ammo, or critical spaces.

some weapons are simply going to be sub-par, depending on where you set your limit this can be a broad range (autocannons vs. energy) or a narrow one (Melee attacks).

thing is, a Hatchet or sword doesn't require a psr if you miss, doesn't risk falling down, and so on, but DOES inflict a significant level of damage without going banana heels on a bad roll.

[Daryk]

*snip*
In this case if I were to design two mechs identical in every way, empty of all gear, same armor distribution, and possibly underweight but then gave one a hatchet and ran them through a bunch of fights where the one with the hatchet may only hatchet for attacks I would not be surprised if despite the one with the hatchet with it's higher BV failed to win more than 50% of the time.

If the non-hatchet 'mech is allowed to kick and the hatchet one isn't, the hatchet one would probably lose more often than 50% of the time.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

If the non-hatchet 'mech is allowed to kick and the hatchet one isn't, the hatchet one would probably lose more often than 50% of the time.

I seconded to it. I don't think that the mech with hatchet can beat its twin, without very good luck.

Even for the worst situation, and even without TSM, a mech with no hatchet can dismantle the enemy leg with up to seven hits. It is perfectly guaranteed, and it is actually the worst case and usually around 5~6 kicks can end the opponent. And remember that it only assumes that there is really no other weapon at all so you have to remove entire of armor by only the physical attack.

Hatchet? For a 100 ton mech, only head has lower armor than its damage(20). Hit the head means it is killed instantly, but that's only a 2.7%. I don't think that you can hit the head during up to seven kicks its leg without a pure luck.

Only for insta-kill? The opponent also opt to punch. Two punch attacks have around 30% chance to hit the head at least once. Even without TSM you can kill the enemy with two hits, and damaged head internal also means you have the chance to destroy the cockpit system before completely destroy head internal.

With TSM? Well, then hatchet can make some damage against its twin, for only Center Torso and Legs are able to withstand 40 damage once. But meanwhile its twin neutralize the hatchet sibling with only three leg attacks - Only two hits of TSM'd kick is need to destroy a leg so it is 50% chance to only destroy it by two attacks and even if it is failed the third hit inevitably destroys the leg and neutralize the twin.

The above are only think about the face-to-face situation. Then what about the backstab? On rear side, punch attacks are ignores leg, and it have 50% chance to hit either torso(rear). With head, which is a weak spot, it means a punch attack can attack good location by 2/3, while hatchet have 1/2.

In either way, I don't think that hatchet can win. Or win with enough instance to be viable. It's no more than a handicapped match.

So, what about to have a fight with a 100 ton mech with hatchet and a 75 ton mech with two functional hands instead? It would be better, if we consider fair play.

[monbvol]

design two 'mechs with identical chassis, armor, engine, one gets energy weapons with enough cooling to maintain, the other gets autocannons and...you will never have enough ammo, or critical spaces.

some weapons are simply going to be sub-par, depending on where you set your limit this can be a broad range (autocannons vs. energy) or a narrow one (Melee attacks).

thing is, a Hatchet or sword doesn't require a psr if you miss, doesn't risk falling down, and so on, but DOES inflict a significant level of damage without going banana heels on a bad roll.

I still consider energy versus ACs something of an Apples versus Oranges situation though because as I mentioned you are still making certain trades to do that and the AC armed mechs, well as much as the energy mechs would be at an advantage I wouldn't expect their chances of winning to be altered as much as the scenario I outlined.  It also introduces a lot of variables which my scenario explicitly eliminates.

Or to put it another way you cannot choose to make a mech unable to ever kick under any circumstance, sure you can make it unlikely by putting useful weapons in the legs but that option is there.

That PSR for failing you keep going on about is simply not a serious drawback to me because any thought put into when to kick does a lot to mitigate it.

For punching at best you can make a mech bad at it from the get go but if you do you remove any choice to mount a melee weapon as well.

If the non-hatchet 'mech is allowed to kick and the hatchet one isn't, the hatchet one would probably lose more often than 50% of the time.

To me if hatchets were fine and the PSR for failing kicks were a sufficient drawback that simply should not happen under my proposed scenario.

Victory should go to the hatchet armed mech more often than not and even if you changed the melee weapons to weapon attack phase and nothing else I don't think it would improve the win rate enough.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

And I can't think the way how hatchet would win. How it's ever possible if both of them are have the same tonnage?

Again, I suggest that make a match with a mech with hatchet and a mech with hand but have around 75 to 80% of the mass of the mech with hatchet. With the same tonnage it is too unfair for the hatchet mech.

[monbvol]

Which is at least part of my point, you shouldn't have to introduce such a handicap to get a win rate of 50-55% for the hatchet armed mech even when all it can use is the hatchet.

If I tossed in double blind and a redundant hatchet to improve durability and have a back up in case an arm is forced off I'd still not consider it likely for the hatchet armed mech to get to the 50-55% win rate I believe it should have in my proposed scenario.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Well, but I don't think that hatchet have much chance to win if it is not the handicapped match. Having a hatchet and can't use the other physical is already the serious handicap. Only the good luck will give its day, or it is surely an one-sided game.

By the way, will the mechs also have the other weapons? Such as lasers and ACs? Else they are only fight with the bare hands/legs or hatchet? What about the tonnage? And they are fully armored for their tonnage, isn't?

[monbvol]

I expressly set the conditions of the scenario and designs to avoid introducing the variables of ranged weapons and ranged combat and prove that punching and kicking are too good versus melee weapons.

If punch and kick damage were halved but melee weapons being left where they currently are, as I proposed, along with the move for everything but claws and talons to the weapons attack phase I think the odds would shift enough that we could start looking at adjusting to hit modifiers to fine tune to get the 50-55% win rate under my scenario that I believe such weapons should be able to deliver under the specified conditions.

[Hellraiser]

I don't think we should reduce Punch/Kick damage.

But I DO think that improving Hatchet (Melee Weapon) Damage might be an interesting idea.

Combine that with the altered To-Hit Numbers that were mentioned above & then you get some solid options.

For instance,  Change Axe to be Triple Punch so it actually hits Harder than a Kick & make it more accurate than a kick & NOW you get an some interesting choices.


Using Atlas 100 ton mech as example.

Punch = -0TH, 10Pts,  Upper Table
Kick = -2TH, 20 Pts,  Lower Table
Axe = -1 TH, 20 Pts,  Full Body.


New Options

Punch =  -1TH,  10 Pts,  Upper Table
Kick = -0TH,  20 Pts,  Lower Table
Axe = -1TH,  30 Pts,  Full Body
Sword = -2TH,  20 Ponts,  Full Body

Now investing the tonnage into a weapon makes some sense.
Its more accurate &/OR, it hits harder, and its full body still.

[Wrangler]

I always thought when people wanted to do more with the hatchet was to have a Myomer cord attach to a hatchet and have the ability of the pilot just throw the thing at an opponent and then either reel it back in or yanked out of whatever they struck its well in there good.

[Cannonshop]

I always thought when people wanted to do more with the hatchet was to have a Myomer cord attach to a hatchet and have the ability of the pilot just throw the thing at an opponent and then either reel it back in or yanked out of whatever they struck its well in there good.

That would end up needing to be an entirely new weapon.

[monbvol]

I don't think we should reduce Punch/Kick damage.

But I DO think that improving Hatchet (Melee Weapon) Damage might be an interesting idea.

Combine that with the altered To-Hit Numbers that were mentioned above & then you get some solid options.

For instance,  Change Axe to be Triple Punch so it actually hits Harder than a Kick & make it more accurate than a kick & NOW you get an some interesting choices.


Using Atlas 100 ton mech as example.

Punch = -0TH, 10Pts,  Upper Table
Kick = -2TH, 20 Pts,  Lower Table
Axe = -1 TH, 20 Pts,  Full Body.


New Options

Punch =  -1TH,  10 Pts,  Upper Table
Kick = -0TH,  20 Pts,  Lower Table
Axe = -1TH,  30 Pts,  Full Body
Sword = -2TH,  20 Ponts,  Full Body

Now investing the tonnage into a weapon makes some sense.
Its more accurate &/OR, it hits harder, and its full body still.

Trouble with increasing melee weapon damage is it threatens to go too far the other way very easily, and I'd say it would unless TSM rules were modified.

Because a Hatchet that hits for 60 damage is a very serious threat to even the most heavily armored mech.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

If you want to increase the damage of the physical weapon, I'd rather suggest to allow to use it with punch/kicks in the same turn. It would increase the overall damage output but it does not making it an one-hatchet mech.

Else, Melee Master is your friend, sir! You don't need to bend the rule, and what you need is just add a SPA on the pilot. Although you can also kick two times in a turn with the same SPA.