Register Register

Author Topic: Training rules inconsistencies  (Read 1375 times)

babayaga

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Training rules inconsistencies
« on: 27 December 2017, 07:16:57 »
AToW (at least my printing, the 1st - but I checked the errata and found nothing) is a bit of mess as far as learning skills in gameplay is concerned - including those definining a mechwarrior, Piloting and Gunnery.

First of all, AToW is adamant (p.159 and 334) about the fact that you can't possibly improve advanced skills without a trainer who's strictly better than you. So, in the Battletech universe, there are no Mechwarriors with Veteran, or even Regular, Piloting or Gunnery skill levels - otherwise, who could have trained the first Mechwarrior who reached those skill levels (since nobody before him had them, so nobody could have trained him)? It doesn't matter how many mechs you've downed in battle, if you can't get lessons you'll stay evergreen.

One thing about which it AToW is not adamant, however, is how much training you need, and how much it benefits you. p.159 suggests that you need a week to train in any skill. On the other hand, p.334 says that, as a guideline, you might need 1 week for a basic skill, 1 month for an advanced one, double or halved for Slow/Fast learner, doubled or halved for Poor/Excellent training facilities. Also, p.159 says a week of training in a skill nets you 2xp (for a basic skill) or 1xp (for an advanced skill), times the MoS of the trainer in his Training skill check, modified by the INT linked-skill bonus of the student (+1 for 7-9, -1 for 2-3 etc.), in addition to the "right" to improve the skill if advanced. On the other hand, p.334 says that for a week of dedicated study (for a basic skill) or a month of dedicated study (for an advanced skill) you just get the MoS (unmodified by the INT of the student) and the "right" to improve the skill if advanced, or the full INT of the student plus the MoS, without the "right" to advance the skill unless it's basic.

So, how are you playing it? And how do you solve the "trainers required for advanced skills" problem?

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2114
Re: Training rules inconsistencies
« Reply #1 on: 27 December 2017, 09:30:03 »
Training in the game is straight forward . The rolls are made the skill costs 1XP less over a training period . As for who develops an advanced skill first is also strait forward the guy picking up the skill brings one or more related skill first to level 4 then they can buy the level 0 for that skill on the Slow learner chart . Look up how Bruce Lee developed his own martial arts he trained under IP Man with existing martial arts styles then developed his own with clear influences . The first Mech pilot no doubt did Drone Operation and other skills in making a training simulator , the first weeks to months would just be confirming the simulator move would happen for real in a standard situations

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13321
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Training rules inconsistencies
« Reply #2 on: 27 December 2017, 12:14:05 »
I think it's even simpler than that.  AToW page 334 says:
Quote
Attempting to improve an Advanced Skill without formal training, however, is much more costly; when attempting to improve an Advanced Skill by XPs alone, without training, double the Skill’s XP costs.

While this contradicts the "Training is necessary..." bit two paragraphs later, this appears to be the clearest statement of a rule.

guardiandashi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4142
Re: Training rules inconsistencies
« Reply #3 on: 27 December 2017, 15:00:06 »
I think it's even simpler than that.  AToW page 334 says:
While this contradicts the "Training is necessary..." bit two paragraphs later, this appears to be the clearest statement of a rule.
honestly I would use that, and fall back on the rule from MechWarrior 2nd edition
which was: if you have a trainer (who is more skilled) you can advance a skill at the normal cost/time.
if you are trying to advance it on your own, without a trainer it costs double xp, and or time, because you are doing a lot of trial and error.

if you think of it like learning normal "modern skills" you can teach yourself stuff especially if you have access to information such as books, manuals etc. but it can be a lot harder as you won't have a trainer/mentor who already understands the subject and can make sure you really "get it" vs having aspects confused.

babayaga

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Training rules inconsistencies
« Reply #4 on: 30 December 2017, 03:11:45 »
I think it's even simpler than that.  AToW page 334 says:
"Attempting to improve an Advanced Skill without formal training, however, is much more costly; when attempting to improve an Advanced Skill by XPs alone, without training, double the Skill’s XP costs."

My copy does not say that :) If it did, I probably would not have opened this thread (there are other things that are somewhat confusing about the xp gains from training, about whether the trainer needs a "high" score solely in the skill taught or also in the training skill etc. - but these are secondary).

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13321
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Training rules inconsistencies
« Reply #5 on: 30 December 2017, 07:57:58 »
It doesn't?  My hard copy first printing has the passage... it's the last sentence of the second paragraph above the heading "TRAINING" on page 334.

kronovan

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Training rules inconsistencies
« Reply #6 on: 02 January 2018, 14:27:54 »
It doesn't?  My hard copy first printing has the passage... it's the last sentence of the second paragraph above the heading "TRAINING" on page 334.

The Hardcover I'm borrowing from one of my BT gaming buddies doesn't have that text. It has a copyright date of 2010 and I know he preordered it before release. I've put in a order for my own copy with a FLGS, so here's hoping that copy has some of these updates.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13321
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Training rules inconsistencies
« Reply #7 on: 02 January 2018, 20:10:23 »
Now I'm curious too, as my book has a 2010 copyright date too... please let me know when you get yours!

kronovan

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Training rules inconsistencies
« Reply #8 on: 25 January 2018, 19:37:04 »
Now I'm curious too, as my book has a 2010 copyright date too... please let me know when you get yours!
My new book arrived yesterday. Its copyright page lists it as the "the corrected second printing" with a copyright date of 2010-2015. It has the text you listed above on page 334 in the Training section, so all is good.  :)

Strange, as just about everything else about the book looks the same. However, I did notice that the rules around consciousness rolls are very different. Since I'm fairly new to the system, I'm feeling like I need to reread the the character and combat sections just in case.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13321
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Training rules inconsistencies
« Reply #9 on: 25 January 2018, 19:38:19 »
Glad to hear it, and yes, I do recommend reading those sections, and checking the most recent errata too.

 

Register