Alpha Strike Matched Play BETA

[Normie]

As far as fractions and eras are concerned, I would expect them in a tournament/matched play. I would not expect them in a set of missions for onboarding players. It's actually the most frustrating part of the playtest for me. It makes it hard provide feedback because a mission that is great for new players, might seem a bit boring to more experienced players.

I'm hoping they concentrate on new players, and then make a tournament book which would become the "standard" way to play.

For pickup games I would probably drop:

breakthrough/extraction - both really push goes wide and feel weird when both players have it as an objective. I just don't see either being a good play experience for someone new (it feels like pay to win).
 
headhunter - It's a bit redundant with destroy the enemy and there isn't anything stopping you from hiding a small mech in corner. I actually think it would work better as an asymmetric mission with the other player's objective being extraction. I would make a rule that the commander's mech must be one of the units that can score in extraction.

escort - they really need to release a kit for these trucks before they use something like this... and it can't have just one truck. I love the ideal of this mission, but I wouldn't go to tournament that used it unless it was affordable.  A tournament box that had objective markers, and trucks with the tournament rule book would be appealing.

find the target/Reconnaissance - I think both scan missions require really fast forces, and that takes a while to build up. I just don't think its new player friendly.

[Frantic Pryde]

Somebody who solely plays Succ Era IS mechs will most likely get roflstomped by what's available to Clanners at same PV range.

I disagree. I think PV does a good job of maintaining balance. Better than BV does in standard IMHO.

[jairb]

I disagree. I think PV does a good job of maintaining balance. Better than BV does in standard IMHO.

I emphatically second this.

[Frantic Pryde]

As far as fractions and eras are concerned, I would expect them in a tournament/matched play. I would not expect them in a set of missions for onboarding players. It's actually the most frustrating part of the playtest for me. It makes it hard provide feedback because a mission that is great for new players, might seem a bit boring to more experienced players.

I'm hoping they concentrate on new players, and then make a tournament book which would become the "standard" way to play.

For pickup games I would probably drop:

breakthrough/extraction - both really push goes wide and feel weird when both players have it as an objective. I just don't see either being a good play experience for someone new (it feels like pay to win).
 
headhunter - It's a bit redundant with destroy the enemy and there isn't anything stopping you from hiding a small mech in corner. I actually think it would work better as an asymmetric mission with the other player's objective being extraction. I would make a rule that the commander's mech must be one of the units that can score in extraction.

escort - they really need to release a kit for these trucks before they use something like this... and it can't have just one truck. I love the ideal of this mission, but I wouldn't go to tournament that used it unless it was affordable.  A tournament box that had objective markers, and trucks with the tournament rule book would be appealing.

find the target/Reconnaissance - I think both scan missions require really fast forces, and that takes a while to build up. I just don't think its new player friendly.

I think some of these scenarios maybe need work. I played Reconnaissance vs. Breakthrough this weekend, and I was lucky my opponent didn't have a terribly fast Force. I think Breakthrough, with the ability to Sprint, can be way too easy. Reconnaissance I think actually works pretty well at first glance.

All that said, I don't think you really need to tailor this completely to new players, but I do think you need to consider them. I opposed optional rules in the earlier version of the doc as it takes away from the standard, but I do think a series of optional rules/suggestions in this doc (probably in a text box format or maybe a subsection) would be of great value to new players. That could include some basic advice on force building, certain scenarios to avoid, etc,.

[Geg]

For pickup games, I'd suggest pairing down the scenarios that are basically kill the other team (Standup Fight, Assassination, Domination, Breakthrough).  Very simple without additional mechanics.  The reasoning being players who don't know each other very well are most likely going to opt for the simplest game mode possible to avoid issues.

More complicated scenarios can be separated into a growing your games section.  Or have two tables or rolling instructions.  All of course depending on the framing when published.

[jairb]

For pickup games, I'd suggest pairing down the scenarios that are basically kill the other team (Standup Fight, Assassination, Domination, Breakthrough).  Very simple without additional mechanics.  The reasoning being players who don't know each other very well are most likely going to opt for the simplest game mode possible to avoid issues.

More complicated scenarios can be separated into a growing your games section.  Or have two tables or rolling instructions.  All of course depending on the framing when published.

The option is already present to simplify via "Players may agree on an objective to play, or randomly select one."

[Normie]

I think some of these scenarios maybe need work. I played Reconnaissance vs. Breakthrough this weekend, and I was lucky my opponent didn't have a terribly fast Force. I think Breakthrough, with the ability to Sprint, can be way too easy. Reconnaissance I think actually works pretty well at first glance.

All that said, I don't think you really need to tailor this completely to new players, but I do think you need to consider them. I opposed optional rules in the earlier version of the doc as it takes away from the standard, but I do think a series of optional rules/suggestions in this doc (probably in a text box format or maybe a subsection) would be of great value to new players. That could include some basic advice on force building, certain scenarios to avoid, etc,.

I haven't played Reconnaissance yet, but I worry about it being a sprint fest. The way I interpret the objective is that if I get a unit into base to base contact with one of the buildings I just need to spend the combat phase "scanning". If I scan, I can't make a weapon attack, but it doesn't say I have to be able to attack to scan (so I'm sprinting) edit: Doesn't work see nckestrel's post below. For what it's worth even with that not working, I still think speedy units are great at this mission, units like spiders, and locusts cover a lot of ground quickly. You take damage during the end phase so there isn't a way to stop it and it doesn't require a roll like the probe does.

I get your point that this ruleset doesn't need to be tailored to new players, I just feel that at the moment it is actually pretty hostile towards them. I'm also not sure how healthy of a meta it would have IMO 10 8 of the 12 missions favor swarm lists, and the other two four aren't putting them at a disadvantage. I think adding in some missions where size matters would help, and maybe changing destroy the enemy to 1 vp per enemy unit. 

[nckestrel]

"Can I sprint and..."
No.  That's the point of sprinting, there is no 'and' with sprinting.  You can sprint to a place.  That's it. Anything that requires an 'and' after sprinting is illegal.  You are not allowed to say anything after you say the unit is sprinting other than where it is sprinting to and it's the next unit's turn to move.

[Normie]

"Can I sprint and..."
No.  That's the point of sprinting, there is no 'and' with sprinting.  You can sprint to a place.  That's it. Anything that requires an 'and' after sprinting is illegal.  You are not allowed to say anything after you say the unit is sprinting other than where it is sprinting to and it's the next unit's turn to move.

That makes sense and is what I deserve for making a post after midnight w/o my book lol. Granted I'll probably let my opponent make small talk after they sprint with a unit .

I do have a quick question about feedback, would you prefer it all at once, in chunks as we play, or do you not care how we do it?

P.S. - I really love alpha strike, thank you for designing it.   

[nckestrel]

That makes sense and is what I deserve for making a post after midnight w/o my book lol. Granted I'll probably let my opponent make small talk after they sprint with a unit .

I do have a quick question about feedback, would you prefer it all at once, in chunks as we play, or do you not care how we do it?

P.S. - I really love alpha strike, thank you for designing it.

Once is preferable, but don't not send feedback just because you already sent one/some in. 

[Frantic Pryde]

"Can I sprint and..."
No.  That's the point of sprinting, there is no 'and' with sprinting.  You can sprint to a place.  That's it. Anything that requires an 'and' after sprinting is illegal.  You are not allowed to say anything after you say the unit is sprinting other than where it is sprinting to and it's the next unit's turn to move.

That’s how we played it with Reconnaissance, but not breakthrough. To make sure I was clear, breakthrough was the issue there. Sprinting made it pretty easy to get his two hover tanks to my edge quickly. I was able to destroy one, but the other got off for 4 points. The right pair of 45+ point fast units, of which there are many, could make for a quick end there.

 I think maybe scoring by size+1 instead of PV could maybe work better. I wouldn’t disallow sprinting I think, as you don’t want to punish heavier/slower forces either.

[nckestrel]

Document was updated.  Same link will download the new version.

[Normie]

I have a question about king of the hill. Do you score the center objective in the same way you score the secondary objectives? That was how my brother and I played it because we didn't see a separate requirement to score the center just a different victory point total for it.

We were curious because we could see a scenario where both players could get within 6" of their center objective, without being within 8" of their opponent's center objective. That made us wonder if there was an intent to have a larger area where the opponent couldn't have a unit around the center?

For what it's worth, it played well with all three objectives having the same requirements to score and I think that the mission would be easier to explain. 

P.S. I really like the change to extraction, i think it will lead to lot more interaction in that mission.

[Richard S.]

I really appreciate the work on a standardized Alpha Strike formula; it'll definitely make it easier for me to sell new people, if they have some sort of standard army they can build.  I do have one kind of selfish request though: could we have an option for including more vehicles/infantry than mechs? For those of us who like dark age or militia forces, or just a heavier focus on combined arms in general. Especially for Alpha Strike, I don't see a good gameplay reason for restricting non-mechs.

[Geg]

The option is already present to simplify via "Players may agree on an objective to play, or randomly select one."

In my experience, presentation and the number of decisions players have to make matters a lot.

If this is an out of the box, copy and paste, run without an organizer/gm ruleset; any simplification that can be made will improve the overall player experience.  If this get's baked into the AS Box, or as part of store run media kit, then 2-3 scenarios is verging on overkill.  If this is part of a ASCE2.0 book, 12 is more appropriate, as there will be someone in charge to explain the rules.

[jairb]

In my experience, presentation and the number of decisions players have to make matters a lot.

If this is an out of the box, copy and paste, run without an organizer/gm ruleset; any simplification that can be made will improve the overall player experience.  If this get's baked into the AS Box, or as part of store run media kit, then 2-3 scenarios is verging on overkill.  If this is part of a ASCE2.0 book, 12 is more appropriate, as there will be someone in charge to explain the rules.

No disagreement about simplification for new players.  One option that has been successfully used by Flames of War / Team Yankee is to have a short list of basic mission and an extended list for advanced use.  The current FoW Missions PDF has 27 total missions only 6 of which are represented in the Random Missions list.

To be clear, I am NOT lobbying for 27 missions.  In this case, there could be 3 for beginners (e.g., roll a die 1-2 = mission 1, 3-4 = mission 2, 5-6 = mission 3) and those 3 are the simplest in the book but at least give a little variety of victory conditions other than simple annihilation.  Then for Extended / Advanced the full list of options are available including the 3 simplest and any others that can be added.

That gives players a simple choice about how much variety they want.  Mission 1 should be simple annihilation so that the newest players can just easily take the field and learn how to move, attack, and manage heat.

[Frantic Pryde]

I’ve been continuing to test these with my group and enjoying these rules. Will be sending more feedback soon. We have come up with a few questions though as we prepare to play tonight:

1) Some scenarios (koth, ctf) describe the scenario as if both players can score the objective. Is that intentional? We’ve been playing with each player rolling their own objectives and assumed that was a typo. Is that correct?

2) When using move on deployment, what is the proper way to deal with transported units on turn 1? We have been playing that they have to be declared before the start of the turn, but that can spoil the surprise sometimes! What’s the proper way to do that?

3) The changelog states that “never use 3’ edge as home edge” but the illustrations don’t seem to be different. We usually play on a 3x4, should we be deploying from the long edges?


Thanks in advance!

[Frantic Pryde]

I’ve been continuing to test these with my group and enjoying these rules. Will be sending more feedback soon. We have come up with a few questions though as we prepare to play tonight:

1) Some scenarios (koth, ctf) describe the scenario as if both players can score the objective. Is that intentional? We’ve been playing with each player rolling their own objectives and assumed that was a typo. Is that correct?

2) When using move on deployment, what is the proper way to deal with transported units on turn 1? We have been playing that they have to be declared before the start of the turn, but that can spoil the surprise sometimes! What’s the proper way to do that?

3) The changelog states that “never use 3’ edge as home edge” but the illustrations don’t seem to be different. We usually play on a 3x4, should we be deploying from the long edges?


Thanks in advance!

Going to bump this and raise it from the dead. We’ve been playing these still and enjoying them, so answers would great if possible. I also have an additional question:

Unless I missed something, the amount of terrain used seems to not scale for the different table sizes. We’ve been doubling it when playing 500 pv games. Is there a different intention?

Thanks in advance!

[CarcosanDawn]

Man, I missed this earlier even though I've played Alpha Strike as my main arm of Battletech since like Oct 23, drat. I have some feedback but it's likely closed!

[nckestrel]

Man, I missed this earlier even though I've played Alpha Strike as my main arm of Battletech since like Oct 23, drat. I have some feedback but it's likely closed!

It is not closed.

[CarcosanDawn]

It is not closed.

Oh yay! I will get in some test games with a buddy. I will say the emphasis on 'Mechs is understandable, but almost all of the forces I've built wouldn't fit - I'm playing the 346th Heavy Tank Regiment of the 5th Brigade of the Fusiliers of Oriente. I have 'Mechs that come from 'Mech Regiment proper, but my "primary" force is the Tank regiment, so my campaign forces are built sort of backwards from this - tanks first, then mechs, then infantry.

Not sure if that's accomodate-able (probably not), but it would be interesting to allow players to choose a unit type to focus on (i.e. a Combat Command or Sub-Command that is non-'Mech). Some non-'Mech units have histories as auspicious as the full 'Mech units! (Just like the 'Mech Regiment in the Fifth Brigade, the 346th is a former Star League unit!).

Other than that, I love the rules in general. There are some optional rules absent that sold the game to me (e.g. artillery, special munitions) but I recognize they don't sell the game to everyone and are still strongly represented in the BSP rules that I normally don't play with. Eager to give this a shot my next game!

[MechMike]

SPAs and SCAs:  Only as per formations?

SCAs can be highly broken, but the formation SPAs aren't too bad (with the possible exception of Command Lances).

[Charistoph]

SCAs can be highly broken, but the formation SPAs aren't too bad (with the possible exception of Command Lances).

The Battle Lance bonus is generally considered one of the most powerful, either in Alpha Strike or Classic.  6 Lucky Rerolls across a unit is pretty powerful.