Register Register

Author Topic: TacOps rules I wish were standard  (Read 4212 times)

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
TacOps rules I wish were standard
« on: 08 February 2019, 11:31:59 »
these are the ones i generally play with as a matter of course. do you have any you wish you could force get other people to use?

*hull down for quads
i think quads need more love

*walk backward up/down hills
filed under: logical extension of the rules
 
*careful stand
i'm not as firm on this one after realizing I read the rule wrong and see you can't take the bonus if you only have 1 or 2 mp (we used to use it to make losing a leg less catastrophic but that doesn't work as written)

*floating crits
maybe the most popular one among players?

*called shots
it gives you an option to concentrate fire a little without a TC.

*firing when down with one arm destroyed
filed under: logical extension of the rules

*single arm flipping
filed under: logical extension of the rules

*shutting off equipment
especially gauss weapons

*BAP expanded hidden units
I understand why for simplicity's sake that you generally only see hidden units when you finish movement, but it really diminishes the value of that ability.

*BAP -1 woods penalty
i'm not a fan of dead weight gear and if you're not using hidden units, BAPs are dead weight. this provides a modicum of utility

*hotloading LRMs
if you're playing with small forces on small maps, it's not always possible to have "correctly" deployed forces and escort units. it's also fun.

*retractable blade pop
makes the weapon make sense

*infantry digging in
i like being annoying

*ejecting
i was happy to see this show up in BMM


kaliban

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #1 on: 08 February 2019, 22:03:14 »
field gun infantry

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8032
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #2 on: 08 February 2019, 22:11:08 »
*walk backward up/down hills
filed under: logical extension of the rules
 
*careful stand
i'm not as firm on this one after realizing I read the rule wrong and see you can't take the bonus if you only have 1 or 2 mp (we used to use it to make losing a leg less catastrophic but that doesn't work as written)

*floating crits
maybe the most popular one among players?

*shutting off equipment
especially gauss weapons

*BAP -1 woods penalty
i'm not a fan of dead weight gear and if you're not using hidden units, BAPs are dead weight. this provides a modicum of utility

Those are all part of my GM's regularly used rules.

Along with ......
Sprinting
Evading
Cannon RS use for "Advanced" Infantry from TRO:3085+
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #3 on: 08 February 2019, 22:30:25 »
field gun infantry

knew i forgot one.

Those are all part of my GM's regularly used rules.

Along with ......
Sprinting
Evading
Cannon RS use for "Advanced" Infantry from TRO:3085+


i've used sprinting and shielding before. my favorite is hurried movement.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11574
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #4 on: 08 February 2019, 22:40:24 »
Squad deployment tops my list... :)

StoneRhino

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2196
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #5 on: 09 February 2019, 01:52:47 »
floating crits isn't really a big deal to me, but it helps keep other people alive longer. Someone I know likes to field Stalkers, and I like to use LBX cannons on them. The result is always several critical hits that would destroy the gyro and damage the engine. Basically its a TKO in round 2 as the damn thing has issues before it gets into the fight with a good +10 heat being the norm.

the vehicle rules that reduces the crit and turning into a brick chances. Vehicle BV is overvalued due to the ease of critting one to death or turning it into a brick with a few pellets. The concentrated fire against locations due to fewer locations, backed by fewer internal points , and death once a location's internals are destroyed leaves vehicles as less then optimal choices for that BV. People tend to bring more vehicles when the rule is in effect versus standard TW and for good reason. Again, its about keeping people in game, but also to help diversify forces without some goofy RP nonsense.

Artillery, I shouldn't have to say that it is even an optional rule. It helps dislodge units and keeps people moving. People complain about how long a game takes, but when you have to keep moving or get hammered by my arty you might make decisions a bit faster then without. Also, you can die a lot faster, which reduces the unit count you need to worry about.

Mines, lrm delivered and so on, again it helps keep people moving since they don't want to get blocked off. It also helps the artillery. It helps those that have issues making decisions limit their possible options since they can't walk their assault mech through three 20 point mine fields without a decent risk, so its risk or go another way but that way.

Infantry rules, field guns and digging in above others.

VTOL strafing and bombing, chin turrets
Vehicles with sponson turrets.

Bracing
Sprinting great for light mechs
holding fire , bad for light mechs but requires some thought in most cases.

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6478
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #6 on: 09 February 2019, 04:53:42 »
Enviromental sealing on vehicles.  It just makes sense, unless in their construction/art where they are blatantly open topped and then sure have it off. If the French could put an overpressure anti-gas system on their pre WW2 tanks, they should have that built into them in Battletech!
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 885
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #7 on: 10 February 2019, 00:19:04 »
Sprinting and overdrive are automatically figured out on our table. Field gun, beast mounted, and engineering/specialized infantry are also used. Mech throwing, lifting, and physical weapon rules. Pretty much every construction option. All types of Artillery.

RunandFindOut

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1299
  • Master of the LolCat Horde
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #8 on: 10 February 2019, 01:32:45 »
I second the environmental sealing as standard on vehicles.  If pretty much every single major combat AFV of the post-WW2 era could be built with CBRN protections and sealing then it not being standard in the 31st century is more than a little SoD breaking.
One does not just walk into Detroit

She ignored the dragon, and Freddy Mercury who arrived to battle it with the Power of Rock.

Corky

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #9 on: 10 April 2019, 10:47:16 »
I second the environmental sealing as standard on vehicles.  If pretty much every single major combat AFV of the post-WW2 era could be built with CBRN protections and sealing then it not being standard in the 31st century is more than a little SoD breaking.

Thats not how it works. There is a difference between creating a positive pressure in a vehicle via filtration and making  " every single major combat AFV of the post-WW2" able to withstand the vacuum of space.

grimlock1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1519
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #10 on: 10 April 2019, 11:18:44 »
Most of my favs have been mentioned, but the block/parry rules for expanded melee intrigues me. Granted the rules for it are a bit clunky, but I like the idea of being able to protect yourself.
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17396
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #11 on: 10 April 2019, 13:18:46 »
Huge fan of the power-down the Gauss rule- if I can dump ammo to get rid of that bomb, they why not the capacitors.

Artillery of course.

ECCM- b/c it fubars C3 and C3i which you pay BV for w/o a counter

Ghost Targets ECM

vehicle survival


I also have a difference with what I play on table top vs MM, I go with a LOT more options MM than the above.
double blind
hidden units
shut down units
Walk backwards uphill
fire/smoke
woods can burn down
ammo explosions
hull down
VTOL rocket loads
field guns
and more, I would have to look up my settings

I am still playing with sensor/LOS settings to find the best wargame simulation.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #12 on: 10 April 2019, 13:30:57 »
i would play double blind exclusively on TT if it weren't a nightmare to bookkeep

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10341
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #13 on: 10 April 2019, 13:37:55 »
I'm a big fan of Direct Blow and Glancing Blow plus blind record sheets for smaller games with a GM/referee.  Basically the players declare what's being fired and at what, but they don't know exactly how much damage is being done and exactly where.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #14 on: 10 April 2019, 13:39:48 »
we played with direct blow for a bit but didn't love tracking MoS. i do like the idea of the rules

BiggRigg42

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 251
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #15 on: 10 April 2019, 13:57:54 »
My group often prefers the advanced line of sight & dead zone rules, the PSR to change levels while moving backwards rules, and optional firing arches for vehicles.

RoundTop

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1306
  • In Takashi We Trust
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #16 on: 10 April 2019, 14:33:28 »
Ghost Targets ECM is a pain for calculating, as every turn you need to make a roll against piloting and deal with the MoS, then that may selectively apply. 

I would rather bring in things like Sprinting, Standing Still, Hurried Movement, Active Probe Woods, one hand firing from prone, floating crits.

Those all can be added in with little extra book-keeping.
No-Dachi has a counter-argument. Nothing further? Ok.
Demo team agent #772

NeonKnight

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4418
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #17 on: 10 April 2019, 15:22:47 »
Ghost Targets ECM is a pain for calculating, as every turn you need to make a roll against piloting and deal with the MoS, then that may selectively apply. 

I would rather bring in things like Sprinting, Standing Still, Hurried Movement, Active Probe Woods, one hand firing from prone, floating crits.

Those all can be added in with little extra book-keeping.

in m home game, we've reduced Ghost targets to one only, no stacking.
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10341
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #18 on: 10 April 2019, 15:47:19 »
in m home game, we've reduced Ghost targets to one only, no stacking.

Fan rules should go in a different thread.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

grimlock1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1519
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #19 on: 10 April 2019, 17:06:28 »
Ghost Targets ECM is a pain for calculating, as every turn you need to make a roll against piloting and deal with the MoS, then that may selectively apply. 

I would rather bring in things like Sprinting, Standing Still, Hurried Movement, Active Probe Woods, one hand firing from prone, floating crits.

Those all can be added in with little extra book-keeping.
Ghost Targets were vastly simplified in an errata a while back.
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33439
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #20 on: 10 April 2019, 17:35:51 »
Yup. Almost no complexity at all, as long as you remember to make the psr. Best thing that could have happened to ECM, if you ask me.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer

BirdofPrey

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3635
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #21 on: 11 April 2019, 01:36:05 »
Those are all part of my GM's regularly used rules.

Along with ......
Sprinting
Evading
Cannon RS use for "Advanced" Infantry from TRO:3085+

and ECCM
===
Honestly, floating crits might as well be the actual rule for handling those roles due to its seeming ubiquity, and the extra movement modes are realy useful without bogging the game down.

The electonics stuff is also nice to have.  The BAP avoids it being dead weight and ECCM adds counter play outside of higher tech equipment impervious to Guardians, which may not even be allowed in game assuming they exist yet for your chosen time period (though before some errata it was a bit of a pain to track)

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2063
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #22 on: 11 April 2019, 05:07:03 »
General on and off board artillery with TAG is better defined in Tac Ops.

grimlock1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1519
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #23 on: 11 April 2019, 10:26:02 »
Yup. Almost no complexity at all, as long as you remember to make the psr. Best thing that could have happened to ECM, if you ask me.
It's a lot closer to what I thought ECM would be when I first saw it listed.  The Compendium/RoW rules for ECM and Active Probe were disappointing.
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2032
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #24 on: 12 April 2019, 12:40:02 »
A few of these are MM rules only, but I'm particularly fond of:

Floating critical hits
Setting fires (intentionally or otherwise)
Extended weapon ranges (+6 for extreme range)
One arm firing while prone
Powering down weapons
Voluntary shutdown (what else are you supposed to do when you've got 2 engine hits and 9 surviving heat sinks?  Stand there until your 'Mech explodes?)
Infantry dug in bonus
Abandoning vehicles (when you're immobilized, and running out of armor, it's safer OUTSIDE the vehicle)

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4812
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #25 on: 12 April 2019, 13:04:44 »
I don't know about being "standard," but they should certainly be presented in the core rule book as optional rules. The BattleMech Manual has it right, with little subsections describing enhanced rules.
A lot of the TacOps rules could easily fit into a core rule book in this way.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17396
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #26 on: 12 April 2019, 13:08:21 »
A lot of the TacOps rules could easily fit into a core rule book in this way.

The BattleMech Manual has it right, with little subsections describing enhanced rules.

Huh?
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4812
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #27 on: 12 April 2019, 13:22:24 »
Huh?
You'd have to read the BattleMech Manual to understand.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #28 on: 12 April 2019, 13:27:09 »
BMM has a number of optional rules (often simplified... or arguably streamlined) from tacops like flamers doing heat damage and rapid fire machine guns

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4812
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #29 on: 12 April 2019, 13:27:51 »
BMM has a number of optional rules (often simplified... or arguably streamlined) from tacops like flamers doing heat damage and rapid fire machine guns
Yeah. Reminds me of the old BMR in some ways :) And that's a good thing!
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

NeonKnight

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4418
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #30 on: 12 April 2019, 13:29:39 »
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #31 on: 12 April 2019, 13:30:27 »
In the suggestions thread I asked for some BMRish formatting and my handle is in the credits so I’ll go ahead and take credit for that  ;D

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17396
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #32 on: 12 April 2019, 13:35:15 »
No, my point was he said BMM included optional rules in its format . . . and then in the next sentence said he wanted a core rulebook that included TacOps rules.  BMM is the new core rulebook (technically TacOps is as well), its like Table Top 1.0, TW is Table Top 1.5 and then you go from there.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4812
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #33 on: 12 April 2019, 13:50:48 »
No, my point was he said BMM included optional rules in its format . . . and then in the next sentence said he wanted a core rulebook that included TacOps rules.  BMM is the new core rulebook (technically TacOps is as well), its like Table Top 1.0, TW is Table Top 1.5 and then you go from there.
I'll fix my post for you and restate, then. It would be nice if Total Warfare included TacOps rules as "optional", in whatever version it eventually becomes. The BMM has a very nice flow and format, and one which would save players a lot of flipping between pages and books.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2063
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #34 on: 24 April 2019, 15:16:40 »
Careful stand is good as it does not make a gyro hit anywhere as crippling . Floating Crits alters the value of skirmishing units like Hovertanks moving to left or right side of an enemy mech hoping to get snake eyes shooting for an ammo explosion . A machine gun array /4 hitting a head floating crit should disincline people from using the optional rule .

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33439
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #35 on: 24 April 2019, 15:33:41 »
A machine gun array /4 hitting a head floating crit should disincline people from using the optional rule .

Why would it disincline folks from using the rule? Are there players who don't want their games to be awesome?
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 859
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #36 on: 24 April 2019, 16:08:53 »
Careful stand is good as it does not make a gyro hit anywhere as crippling . Floating Crits alters the value of skirmishing units like Hovertanks moving to left or right side of an enemy mech hoping to get snake eyes shooting for an ammo explosion . A machine gun array /4 hitting a head floating crit should disincline people from using the optional rule.

A head TAC is a 1/1296 chance, and only a fraction of those will actually kill a mech. It's exactly as likely as a three-crit TAC to the CT in vanilla rules, and three crits to the CT will cripple most mechs about as effectively as one to the head. At that point, you just have to admit that the dice gods hate you today, and move on.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33439
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #37 on: 25 April 2019, 01:14:29 »
The wrath of the dice gods is still a victory, as you often end up with a hilarious story to share later.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2063
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #38 on: 26 April 2019, 11:35:42 »
Where as the odds stated is correct you are missing the point . People use really fast hover tanks to deliberately position themselves at a right or left aspected attack .  This is so both 7 and 2 locations hit that aspected torso you lose some the hits to that torso with the oprional floating crit and devalues the efficacy of scirmishing units period .

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33439
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #39 on: 26 April 2019, 11:42:33 »
From the side, a 2 is still more likely to hit a location on that side. So yeah, basic tactics are still a thing.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer

Cannonshop

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1925
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #40 on: 26 April 2019, 11:47:35 »
Artillery

Minefields

Setting Fires.

basically take the rules that USED to be standard in BMR play, and put them back into TW.
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2032
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #41 on: 26 April 2019, 14:59:50 »
Where as the odds stated is correct you are missing the point . People use really fast hover tanks to deliberately position themselves at a right or left aspected attack .  This is so both 7 and 2 locations hit that aspected torso you lose some the hits to that torso with the oprional floating crit and devalues the efficacy of scirmishing units period .
I'm assuming that floating crits are resolved on the same chart as you would have used for any other shots from that direction, rather than being resolved on the front chart regardless of direction.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33439
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #42 on: 26 April 2019, 18:04:31 »
You are correct. So if you hit someone, roll on the right side chart and get a floating crit, said crit will also be rolled on the right side chart. So no issue.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2032
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #43 on: 01 May 2019, 16:29:24 »
Normally, I prefer to use the Floating Critical Hits rule, because having ALL critical hits land in the same spot is ridiculous.

I prefer the "Setting Fires" rules, because what's not to like about having a bonfire to gather around.....or several bonfires to navigate between.

The Extended Range rules also make sense, because laser beams and cannon shells don't magically stop after travelling some specific distance, but do tend to lose some punch.

Then there's the "Firing while prone" rule.  Regardless of whether I've got one or two functional arms to shift the 'Mech around on, I can still point a torso weapon in the right direction, with a penalty.  Not being able to fire it because the one arm is gone doesn't make sense.

There have been a couple of rare situations where I've taken a pair of engine hits and lost a heat sink in the process.  I had the 'Mech fall back into hard cover, but could do nothing to stop the inevitable rise in heat each turn until the ammo exploded.  One needs some way to be able to shut the 'Mech down in an emergency, especially in a campaign setting where there IS a tomorrow to consider.  Manual startup/shutdown solves that problem without ejecting and having to replace the expensive cockpit.

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4812
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #44 on: 01 May 2019, 17:41:16 »
Setting Fires is one of those rules that has the potential to be awesome, but creates far too many opportunities for nonsense. If you have a short-ranged force (think a Lance of Guillotines or a force of Piranha), you can just ignite random terrain and drag every fight into a melee engagement. While that might be fun once-in-a-while, it creates a situation where BV no longer works due to the terrain literally changing on-the-fly.

If the fires did something like burn down woods but caused no To-Hit penalties (sensors should see through that anyhow... it's smoke, not chaff), then this would be a fantastic rule. Perhaps separating them into "Starting Fires" and "OPTIONAL: Smoke Causes To-Hit Penalties" would be better. (Not trying to drag this into thread drift -- just my reasoning).
« Last Edit: 02 May 2019, 00:12:44 by TigerShark »
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17396
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #45 on: 01 May 2019, 23:08:38 »
I know its on MM, but does TacOps have a rule to burn down woods?
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4812
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #46 on: 02 May 2019, 00:12:14 »
I know its on MM, but does TacOps have a rule to burn down woods?
Yes. There is a rule for it reducing CF over time, of both woods and structure.


TacOps, Page 45
Quote
Terrain Factor: If using the Terrain Factor rules (see p. 64),
if all terrain conditions in a hex reach 0, then there is nothing
left in the hex to burn and the fire will go out during
the End Phase of that turn. For example, if a fire in a woods
hex reduces the wood’s Terrain Factor to 0, during the End
Phase of that turn, the fire in that hex is extinguished.

Although I don't see a line specifically saying how to burn-down woods, it's clear that the TF is equating to the CF of buildings. So you could assume a 2 TF deterioration/turn. So heavy woods would take 20 turns to reduce to light woods, while light woods would take 25 turns to reduce to rough terrain.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2032
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #47 on: 02 May 2019, 09:19:32 »
I believe it reduces construction factor by 5 points per round, which is just about enough to remove a hex of heavy woods over the course of a typical scenario.  I've used this in a MegaMek scenario where my hovertanks got deployed on a map with no clear path to the other side, and a mission to exit the opposite map edge.  I've also set fires to drive parked LRM boats out of cover, and in one case to remove a pesky infantry platoon from a hardened building to clear a safe route past.  Oh yes, I've used it to wipe out a bunch of infantry and vehicles hiding in the woods in several scenarios, with no return fire in the process.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #48 on: 02 May 2019, 09:37:36 »
fire burns buildings at 2 CF per turn. nothing in the terrain factor rules (TO, 64) countermands that so i assume it's the same for woods unless i missed something

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10341
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #49 on: 02 May 2019, 13:43:49 »
The reason fire is never going to be a standard rule is because determining the spread and smoke is a separate sub-simulation by itself and a massive pain to actually do by hand.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 250
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #50 on: 03 May 2019, 01:15:57 »
these are the ones i generally play with as a matter of course. do you have any you wish you could force get other people to use?

*hull down for quads
i think quads need more love
As some one who faces quads a lot, I do not think that they do, right now with partial cover shooting a quad you hit the berm more than half the to hit chart (6 of 11), now adding an extra +2 to hit for only 2mp does not sound good to me, (sounds great if I am the quad). We have one guy who loves his quads and they are such a pain right now just do to how many hits miss. I have seen many times where mediums can take on assaults and win just do to the fact that it is difficult to hit them. Having said that I think it makes perfect sense from a real world view.

*walk backward up/down hills
filed under: logical extension of the rules
This one I 100% agree should be standard rule, just makes sense.

*careful stand
i'm not as firm on this one after realizing I read the rule wrong and see you can't take the bonus if you only have 1 or 2 mp (we used to use it to make losing a leg less catastrophic but that doesn't work as written)
I like having this rule there even though I rarely use it, as I have found that when you need it to get up, you can not afford to not move after getting up.

*floating crits
maybe the most popular one among players?
I really like this one, but everyone else in my local group hates this so much. We almost never use it and when we do all they do is complain about it

*called shots
it gives you an option to concentrate fire a little without a TC.
I am mixed on this, as called shots are over powerful from what I have seen, but on the other hand they are more realistic.

*firing when down with one arm destroyed
filed under: logical extension of the rules
One more that just does not make sense to not use.

*single arm flipping
filed under: logical extension of the rules
Unless I am not remembering correctly (has happened before) this used to be the norm, and I agree it should be again.

*shutting off equipment
especially gauss weapons
Not being able to shut it down just never made sense to me.

*BAP expanded hidden units
I understand why for simplicity's sake that you generally only see hidden units when you finish movement, but it really diminishes the value of that ability.

*BAP -1 woods penalty
i'm not a fan of dead weight gear and if you're not using hidden units, BAPs are dead weight. this provides a modicum of utility
The BAP really needs some love, and with out them you are right it is nothing but dead weight.

*hotloading LRMs
if you're playing with small forces on small maps, it's not always possible to have "correctly" deployed forces and escort units. it's also fun.
I have never used them, so not sure how well it really works out, but did think they always sounded like fun.

*infantry digging in
i like being annoying
Infantry are one more of those things that are in a weird state I think, one they are supper weak and yet tough. A well used infantry platoon can be a pain to get rid of (as they should be), and this helps with that makes me love it. However I think infantry really need a complete overhaul, but maybe that just me.

Some other ones that I like (not sure if it is TacOps or not), the expanded hit chart, it just makes sense to me that if I am shooting on one side that I could hit the back.

The expanded piloting check for each 20 points, along with the bonus/penalty for weight classes. If 20 points of damage may make you fall, why does 100 not make it easier to fall?

and last one I have been using in MegaMek and found that I kind of like it is the alternate energy damage, where you do one extra point for point plank, and one less at long range.

Cannonshop

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1925
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #51 on: 09 May 2019, 12:57:38 »
Setting Fires is one of those rules that has the potential to be awesome, but creates far too many opportunities for nonsense. If you have a short-ranged force (think a Lance of Guillotines or a force of Piranha), you can just ignite random terrain and drag every fight into a melee engagement. While that might be fun once-in-a-while, it creates a situation where BV no longer works due to the terrain literally changing on-the-fly.

If the fires did something like burn down woods but caused no To-Hit penalties (sensors should see through that anyhow... it's smoke, not chaff), then this would be a fantastic rule. Perhaps separating them into "Starting Fires" and "OPTIONAL: Smoke Causes To-Hit Penalties" would be better. (Not trying to drag this into thread drift -- just my reasoning).

gotta disagree with you here.  your assumption seems to be that that LOS blockage and heat effects wouldn't also hit units doing it, one, and two, that all terrain is properly combustible, and three, that BV is somehow terrain related or subjective, rather than an objective measure of a unit's specific equipment and movement profile.

Lemme give you a counter example:  AC/20 assault 'mech on a map with nothing for terrain whatsoever, up against an equal BV 'mech with long-range headcappers (Gauss rifles or Clan ERPPC's.)

Guess what?  just because that ac/20 assualt can't close to effective range against that gauss-boat, doesn't mean it's got lower BV.

other examples being: fighting an equal BV of boats on a lake map, or an equal BV of aerospace fighters on a space map.  it doesn't change the BV of the unit simply because a specific tactic or terrain is more difficult or some other unit is better optimized (potentially even with LESS BV on the sheet.)

in your 'firestarter' Example, I counter with "I brought an Arrow-IV catapult/and or a Naga, go ahead, start your fires."

or a stand of FA infantry, or...get it?  How about something goofy, like a Yellowjacket Artillery mod? that's got a pretty low BV...

or calling down an airstrike on a given hex. that's not even a Tac-Ops thing, that's in your core rulebook.

it's not that intentional (or accidental) fires are OP, it's that they consume mass quantities of time to deal with in a game.  They're like the "let's make vehicle hit tables more complicated!" choice.  it extends the time it takes to resolve a turn and ends up grindy as a result.
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4812
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #52 on: 09 May 2019, 13:49:30 »
gotta disagree with you here.  your assumption seems to be that that LOS blockage and heat effects wouldn't also hit units doing it, one, and two, that all terrain is properly combustible, and three, that BV is somehow terrain related or subjective, rather than an objective measure of a unit's specific equipment and movement profile.
1. No, it wouldn't hit units by attempting to start fires. I can ignite woods or buildings far away from any targets and especially in intervening terrain between our forces. You don't need to target a unit or even an enemy unit's occupied hex to start a fire. It can be any hex on the board with combustible material.

2. I did assume that since we're talking the "starting fires" rule. If there's no combustible terrain on the board, there's no reason to use the rule or discuss its balance/usefulness.

3. BV is subjective. An ARC-2R's BV is not representative of its actual "value" (and that is what it stand's for -- a unit's real value on a board) if 100% of the map restricts LOS so that all fire MUST be within the minimum range penalty area. i.e.: a map with 100% heavy woods. Put a Lance of Archers against a Lance of Guillotines on said forest map and you'll find out quickly how large a factor terrain plays in making BV function.

Terrain doesn't have a number associated with it, but it is the primary factor in how well a unit performs on the field. And it can completely negate BV's usefulness as a tool of balancing forces. 
« Last Edit: 09 May 2019, 14:02:11 by TigerShark »
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33439
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #53 on: 09 May 2019, 14:11:36 »
This thread is not about BV, or any connection(or lack thereof) between it and terrain. Keep things on topic, please. C:-)
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer

Cannonshop

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1925
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #54 on: 10 May 2019, 10:39:08 »
1. No, it wouldn't hit units by attempting to start fires. I can ignite woods or buildings far away from any targets and especially in intervening terrain between our forces. You don't need to target a unit or even an enemy unit's occupied hex to start a fire. It can be any hex on the board with combustible material.

2. I did assume that since we're talking the "starting fires" rule. If there's no combustible terrain on the board, there's no reason to use the rule or discuss its balance/usefulness.

3. BV is subjective. An ARC-2R's BV is not representative of its actual "value" (and that is what it stand's for -- a unit's real value on a board) if 100% of the map restricts LOS so that all fire MUST be within the minimum range penalty area. i.e.: a map with 100% heavy woods. Put a Lance of Archers against a Lance of Guillotines on said forest map and you'll find out quickly how large a factor terrain plays in making BV function.

Terrain doesn't have a number associated with it, but it is the primary factor in how well a unit performs on the field. And it can completely negate BV's usefulness as a tool of balancing forces.

Let's take this off the board so as not to agitate things.
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1794
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #55 on: 29 October 2019, 16:21:28 »
  As a GM, ALL rules are optional. If I consider a rule nonsensical, or over exploited, I'll change them. On the Role Play level, no small arms can damage battlemech armor, and I don't believe in floating crits. 

Bedwyr

  • A Sticky Wicket
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7297
  • RIP. Again. And again. And again.
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #56 on: 29 October 2019, 16:35:10 »
**MOD NOTICE**

Please discontinue discussion of CGL's incorporation vs. land-mines. That line of discussion is borderline political and unwelcome on the forums. Keep things oriented toward rules preferences and not advocate real life political positions.
Alas poor Photobucket. I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

Cannonshop

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1925
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #57 on: 29 October 2019, 23:46:33 »
  As a GM, ALL rules are optional. If I consider a rule nonsensical, or over exploited, I'll change them. On the Role Play level, no small arms can damage battlemech armor, and I don't believe in floating crits.

That's a good point.  (I also don't believe in Floating Crits, the game's complicated enough without them.)
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1794
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #58 on: 30 October 2019, 01:41:33 »
That's a good point.  (I also don't believe in Floating Crits, the game's complicated enough without them.)
  It isn't complication, it's about players basing their strategy around luck by increasing the numbers of rolls. I've been war gaming since the 1960's, and while almost all games require a random element, war isn't about luck, it's the application of superior doctrine.

  My group had a couple of kids we called the "Masakari Brothers" whose entire battle plan revolved around headcapping mechs. They would stand and blast away with Clan PPCs and while IS mechs dropped like flies. In a tournament, I dropped one of them and drove the other from the field with a Black Python, leaping from one stand of heavy woods to another. The kids could not understand how they lost, as they has never been beaten before. They only played Clan and fielded Masakaris, that rarely moved once they were in range.

Greatclub

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 911
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #59 on: 30 October 2019, 02:00:12 »
I'm actually thinking what I'd take out of total warfare.

Protomechs. I love the little clan light-mech-standins, but they are extremely niche

WiGE. Worse than protos for being niche.

IndustrialMechs & industrial HtH weapons - we've moved well past the first couple clickytech sets. Get the chaff out.

C3 - put in the tacops equivilant.

Support Vehicles - scenario-level utility, hardly basic game

the RATs, or revamp them for the early clan invasion era

What I'd put in - Arrow IV, BMM artillery, alternate ammunition, careful stand, active probe targeting, a limited selection of weather and planetary conditions, and not much else. The scenario section needs a mild working over though.

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17396
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #60 on: 30 October 2019, 02:13:08 »
Protomechs have been around for a while and are some faction's flavor . . . C3 is tournament level equipment, ECCM mode of ECM needs to be TW level IMO.

Forget BMM artillery- regular is fine.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17396
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #61 on: 30 October 2019, 10:38:05 »
LAMs were also verbotten for a lot of that time and they are not a core part of specific faction's forces.

The ONLY reason I can see C3 being turned 'off' is if you are facing someone who has ARAD ammo and you do not want to take hits before you are in useful range but since ARAD is advanced rules, like turning equipment off, I am not sure it matters.

Remember, what is in TW does not come down to personal likes really- its what is easily used in tournaments, official live scenarios/events and most scenarios provided in published material.  Which also means that what is in the era appropriate line TROs (which leaves out things like Prototypes, and other 1 off PDFs) is going to be the baseline . . . just like when a official Dark Ages era event occurs the 'allowed' tech increases to what is in TRO3145/50.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

dgorsman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 611
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #62 on: 30 October 2019, 11:05:59 »
I think the earlier "... whether it's active..." refers to being affected by enemy ECM.
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4812
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #63 on: 30 October 2019, 12:31:36 »
One rule that bugs me (and always has) is the inability to fire indirectly if the unit has LOS. This is especially weird for Artillery, which can Direct Fire from hex 7 up to 17. You cannot fire indirectly at a hex within that range because you have LOS. But on hex 18... you can have LOS? This is truly strange with 'Mech Mortars, whose to-hit accuracy is BETTER without LOS than it would be if the unit was looking at the target (or hex) they're firing at. O.o

I feel like anything that can fire indirectly should be allowed to fire in that mode, even with LOS.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1794
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #64 on: 30 October 2019, 13:09:26 »
I feel like anything that can fire indirectly should be allowed to fire in that mode, even with LOS.
  Anybody whose been in the Army, especially working with mortars or artillery, would know that IF is the primary use of these weapons and against dug-in positions, is the most efficient means of engagement. This is what I meant by nonsensical rules, which defy logic or even physics, and I have to wonder why they exist at all.

Cannonshop

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1925
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #65 on: 30 October 2019, 14:56:01 »
  Anybody whose been in the Army, especially working with mortars or artillery, would know that IF is the primary use of these weapons and against dug-in positions, is the most efficient means of engagement. This is what I meant by nonsensical rules, which defy logic or even physics, and I have to wonder why they exist at all.

i think it's mostly treated as a game-balance isssue.
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 885
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #66 on: 31 October 2019, 06:20:02 »
LAMs were also verbotten for a lot of that time and they are not a core part of specific faction's forces.

The ONLY reason I can see C3 being turned 'off' is if you are facing someone who has ARAD ammo and you do not want to take hits before you are in useful range but since ARAD is advanced rules, like turning equipment off, I am not sure it matters.

Remember, what is in TW does not come down to personal likes really- its what is easily used in tournaments, official live scenarios/events and most scenarios provided in published material.  Which also means that what is in the era appropriate line TROs (which leaves out things like Prototypes, and other 1 off PDFs) is going to be the baseline . . . just like when a official Dark Ages era event occurs the 'allowed' tech increases to what is in TRO3145/50.

I can see turning off C3 when up against ARRAD Missiles but like you said, they're advanced rules so I'm back to wondering why turn them off during Tournament Rules?

Era appropriate gives a wide variety of unit types and tech can be used. That includes units that are used but not "core" units, like LAMs.  Using scenarios then pretty much anything is open for use, including prototypes and one offs. Some scenarios specifically involve said units. Neither are necessarily Tournament Legal.  Tournament Legal does change by era but even so it still excludes a lot of units and tech even though it's era appropriate.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #67 on: 31 October 2019, 07:42:00 »
Rules consistency. If you can turn off anything you don’t need a list of exceptions.

Cannonshop

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1925
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #68 on: 31 October 2019, 09:31:34 »
I can see turning off C3 when up against ARRAD Missiles but like you said, they're advanced rules so I'm back to wondering why turn them off during Tournament Rules?

Era appropriate gives a wide variety of unit types and tech can be used. That includes units that are used but not "core" units, like LAMs.  Using scenarios then pretty much anything is open for use, including prototypes and one offs. Some scenarios specifically involve said units. Neither are necessarily Tournament Legal.  Tournament Legal does change by era but even so it still excludes a lot of units and tech even though it's era appropriate.

I think that's why we used to have the "Level" system-back in the day, esp. between the death of FASA and CGL becoming profitable, Tourneys weren't typically organized by the company-they had to do SOMETHING for that demographic, and having a set of common 'tourney rules' between pockets of players (like having a common language) was needed.

esp. when you have players who don't see anyone outside their local group most of the year.  Having a sort of 'shorthand' that is common across state lines ("Tournament, Level 2 tech, at BigassCon this month!")  is a lot quicker than a detailed list of allowed/not-allowed detailing each tech item that is applicable or banned, because that sentence has a definition in the books, that players can look up as they're getting ready for their semi-annual or annual journey to play BT with strangers from halfway across the country.

I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #69 on: 31 October 2019, 19:20:04 »
As I mentioned in another thread, I feel the TL list should be an era agnostic binary. Either it’s suitable or it isn’t. We’re deep enough into the TO paradigm to not lose our minds if VSPLs show up in a jihad game.

If it’s TL compliant and the intro year falls at or before the scenario date, it’s legal. Having multiple breaks in the TL shift isn’t helpful

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 885
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #70 on: 01 November 2019, 11:05:46 »
I think that's why we used to have the "Level" system-back in the day, esp. between the death of FASA and CGL becoming profitable, Tourneys weren't typically organized by the company-they had to do SOMETHING for that demographic, and having a set of common 'tourney rules' between pockets of players (like having a common language) was needed.

esp. when you have players who don't see anyone outside their local group most of the year.  Having a sort of 'shorthand' that is common across state lines ("Tournament, Level 2 tech, at BigassCon this month!")  is a lot quicker than a detailed list of allowed/not-allowed detailing each tech item that is applicable or banned, because that sentence has a definition in the books, that players can look up as they're getting ready for their semi-annual or annual journey to play BT with strangers from halfway across the country.

Which is great until things get changed. For example, Clan Tech used to be Level 3 and now its Tournament Legal.



As I mentioned in another thread, I feel the TL list should be an era agnostic binary. Either it’s suitable or it isn’t. We’re deep enough into the TO paradigm to not lose our minds if VSPLs show up in a jihad game.

If it’s TL compliant and the intro year falls at or before the scenario date, it’s legal. Having multiple breaks in the TL shift isn’t helpful


The problem is that what is Tournament Legal changes. Tournament Legal can also be played independent of of era dates.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #71 on: 01 November 2019, 11:38:18 »
yes, that's what i'm saying. it shouldn't change. either it's too complicated or it isn't regardless of whether it's 2590 or 3151 - mines and artillery already follow that rubric. rules complexity and in-universe production status should not be a conflated variable.

weapons have a born-on date that would disqualify them in scenario play anyway. if the game is era-agnostic, BV exists or the organizer can decide what's usable. this is much easier than having hundreds of dual-shift data points

Insaniac99

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 348
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #72 on: 01 November 2019, 13:08:31 »
yes, that's what i'm saying. it shouldn't change. either it's too complicated or it isn't regardless of whether it's 2590 or 3151 - mines and artillery already follow that rubric. rules complexity and in-universe production status should not be a conflated variable.

weapons have a born-on date that would disqualify them in scenario play anyway. if the game is era-agnostic, BV exists or the organizer can decide what's usable. this is much easier than having hundreds of dual-shift data points

I agree with this.  Having something change rules level at some point in the middle of the dark ages creates a headache.  tournament organizers have to decide exactly what year tech is in there.

Personally I think it should be a simple break down of complexity + Tech Bases allowed + era, and that's it.  Everything is an A/B question.

Event organizers can simple say "Advanced technology, Inner Sphere Or Clan only (i.e. no mixtech), Clan Invasion era."

Anything that fits the rules and doesn't have an X in that era's availability code would be fine to use.

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 885
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #73 on: 01 November 2019, 17:43:28 »
I agree. It is frustrating when tech changes level. What should change is availability, not tech level.


Edit
If tech does change level, it'd be really nice if the Rule Book was errata'ed to make not of that change.
« Last Edit: 01 November 2019, 19:39:42 by RifleMech »

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11574
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #74 on: 01 November 2019, 17:47:17 »
*snip*
Event organizers can simple say "Advanced technology, Inner Sphere Or Clan only (i.e. no mixtech), Clan Invasion era."
*snip*
I'm good with that... Blazer Cannons for all my friends!  :D

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #75 on: 01 November 2019, 20:09:21 »
If I had my way

1) the ip would certainly be doomed
2) but until its inevitable demise, Blazers would be TL

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 885
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #76 on: 02 November 2019, 16:20:30 »
If I had my way

1) the ip would certainly be doomed
2) but until its inevitable demise, Blazers would be TL

2) Wish granted. TRO:Prototypes has the Blazer's game level being moved to Tournament Legal.


Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11574
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #77 on: 02 November 2019, 16:22:52 »
I love the idea, but wasn't IO published after TRO: Prototypes?  ???

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 885
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #78 on: 02 November 2019, 16:49:25 »
I love the idea, but wasn't IO published after TRO: Prototypes?  ???

Yes, so?  If you're just playing Tournament Legal, it's legal. If you're playing an Era Specific Tournament Game, then it isn't.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11574
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #79 on: 02 November 2019, 17:22:59 »
More recently published rules superseded earlier ones... if IO said it's not TL, then it's not TL...

Retry

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 585
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #80 on: 02 November 2019, 18:02:21 »
More recently published rules superseded earlier ones... if IO said it's not TL, then it's not TL...
Does IO specifically state it's not TL, or is the Blazer simply not mentioned?

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11574
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #81 on: 02 November 2019, 18:18:12 »
IO lists them on page 43 (under "Binary Laser (Blazer) Cannon"), and gives them a Prototype date of "2812 (FW)" and a Common date of "3077 (WB)".  To my understanding, that means they're not TL in 3025...

dgorsman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 611
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #82 on: 02 November 2019, 18:27:02 »
Better confirm that in errata, as usual.
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11574
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #83 on: 02 November 2019, 18:39:43 »
The only thing that comes close in the errata is the general change on page 33 that deletes the link between "Common" availability and "Tournament Legal".

Greatclub

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 911
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #84 on: 02 November 2019, 19:12:25 »
LAMs were also verbotten for a lot of that time and they are not a core part of specific faction's forces.
And protos are core for hells horses, snow ravens, a couple homeworld clans, and that is about it. Jade falcons don't use them, ghost bear don't have ASF genotypes and I don't think use them, leaving the wolves the first tier clan that might use them significantly.

You can't play late-jihad WOBbies properly without cybernetics. Can't play proper society without iATM and nova, can't play republic first line units without a bunch of IO level stuff. Can't play Klondike, Age of War or 3040s without prototype level gear. Are you going to suggest that stuff should be core rules? Because if so, you better have a heck of an argument. I view it as another book purchase being a tax on choosing some factions. Not nice, not fair, but little in life is.

Quote
The ONLY reason I can see C3 being turned 'off' is if you are facing someone who has ARAD ammo and you do not want to take hits before you are in useful range but since ARAD is advanced rules, like turning equipment off, I am not sure it matters.

Maybe not 'turned off', but brought down by C3.



As for the fiction, I want it kept in. The wealth of the backstory is one of battletech's strengths, however little some people care for it. The three pages per chapter in the current TW version is a little excessive, however, and a couple of them, notably the protomech one, are a little tangential to the topic at hand. A page per chapter sounds right to me.

Of course, it might not matter, as neither BMM or CampOps have any fiction in them. This suggests to me that the chapter entries have been eliminated, which I think a shame.




Full colour glossy is maybe not necessary. B&W plain paper with a gloss section was fine for FASA, don't see why it wouldn't work now. Although I don't know what the price point difference would be in the modern market. If it's less than $5 or so, there wouldn't be enough benefit.



Backing mechs up hills - another optional rule I think should be optional TW II
« Last Edit: 02 November 2019, 19:14:25 by Greatclub »

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11574
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #85 on: 02 November 2019, 19:16:14 »
I think one piece of fiction per book would be more than enough.

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 885
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #86 on: 02 November 2019, 21:10:38 »
More recently published rules superseded earlier ones... if IO said it's not TL, then it's not TL...

The only thing that comes close in the errata is the general change on page 33 that deletes the link between "Common" availability and "Tournament Legal".

In this case I think you're going to have to ask. The IO rules look to be written for games in specific eras. If you're just playing a pick up Tournament Level game though ...  :-\ I'd say its legal but it's your game.





And protos are core for hells horses, snow ravens, a couple homeworld clans, and that is about it. Jade falcons don't use them, ghost bear don't have ASF genotypes and I don't think use them, leaving the wolves the first tier clan that might use them significantly.

You can't play late-jihad WOBbies properly without cybernetics. Can't play proper society without iATM and nova, can't play republic first line units without a bunch of IO level stuff. Can't play Klondike, Age of War or 3040s without prototype level gear. Are you going to suggest that stuff should be core rules? Because if so, you better have a heck of an argument. I view it as another book purchase being a tax on choosing some factions. Not nice, not fair, but little in life is.

Well, you can play them but you're going to be limited. If you're going to play them without limits then you're going to want the book.



Quote
As for the fiction, I want it kept in. The wealth of the backstory is one of battletech's strengths, however little some people care for it. The three pages per chapter in the current TW version is a little excessive, however, and a couple of them, notably the protomech one, are a little tangential to the topic at hand. A page per chapter sounds right to me.

Of course, it might not matter, as neither BMM or CampOps have any fiction in them. This suggests to me that the chapter entries have been eliminated, which I think a shame.

I agree that backstory helps Battletech. I also agree that there's a bit much in the Core Rule Books. There's all kinds of backstory written in already when talking about units and weapons/equipment, short stories aren't really necessary. Especially, when it drives up page count and causes the book to be split. :(



Quote


Full colour glossy is maybe not necessary. B&W plain paper with a gloss section was fine for FASA, don't see why it wouldn't work now. Although I don't know what the price point difference would be in the modern market. If it's less than $5 or so, there wouldn't be enough benefit.




I agree.  :)

Quote
Backing mechs up hills - another optional rule I think should be optional TW II


Isn't it optional now? ???

Greatclub

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 911
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #87 on: 02 November 2019, 22:01:59 »
I agree that backstory helps Battletech. I also agree that there's a bit much in the Core Rule Books. There's all kinds of backstory written in already when talking about units and weapons/equipment, short stories aren't really necessary. Especially, when it drives up page count and causes the book to be split. :(
borderline strawman; I'm fairly sure that tacops without the fiction would still have had to be split, the book is bigger than TW. If fluff should be eliminated anywhere, tech write-ups would be my first candidate for a slimming; technobabble is low value.

I think that you're underestimating how much fiction has helped drive battletech's success and longevity; as they're no longer accessible in brick-n-mortar bookstores and rarely accessible in most game stores, people have to be exposed to them somehow.

Quote
Isn't it optional now? ???

It's tacops optional. I'm talking bout TW II, the new edition hinted at elsewhere. BMM has several optional rules in sidebars; I'm proposing to do the same with one more another rule.
« Last Edit: 02 November 2019, 22:16:06 by Greatclub »

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #88 on: 02 November 2019, 22:33:03 »
Ditching the TacOps fiction places it a hair under 400, which isn’t some magic number to get under. It’s still too big under their criteria

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 885
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #89 on: 03 November 2019, 02:24:31 »
borderline strawman; I'm fairly sure that tacops without the fiction would still have had to be split, the book is bigger than TW. If fluff should be eliminated anywhere, tech write-ups would be my first candidate for a slimming. I think that you're underestimating how much fiction has helped drive battletech's success and longevity; as they're no longer accessible in brick-n-mortar bookstores and rarely accessible in most game stores, people have to be exposed to them somehow.

It's tacops optional. I'm talking bout TW II, the new edition hinted at elsewhere. BMM has several optional rules in sidebars; I'm proposing to do the same with one more another rule.

Not really. Most of the other Core Rule books are larger than TW.

I'm not under estimating the fiction. It's a big part of success and longevity. I just don't think the Core Books need several individual stories.

I can see some commonly use optional rules being included. There's got to be a limit though or TWII would be pretty big.  I do wonder now though if the stories and the miniature set up sections were removed and the rules section from TO, also minus the stories, were added to TW how but the resulting book would be.




Ditching the TacOps fiction places it a hair under 400, which isn’t some magic number to get under. It’s still too big under their criteria

How big is their criteria?

Greatclub

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 911
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #90 on: 03 November 2019, 02:50:22 »
I don't know. Based on BMM and CampOps? 150-200 pages, 250 max.

Notice starfinder, printed by the king of big books, Paizo? Bigdonkey core book, and splatbooks in the ~200 page range. Same with PF2; The first ed books are being re-printed in pint-sized 'pocket editions' (Which is what I wish CGL would do with the various ops books, but I don't see that happening.) I think it's a sign of things to come.
« Last Edit: 03 November 2019, 03:11:50 by Greatclub »

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 885
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #91 on: 03 November 2019, 03:42:01 »
I don't know. Based on BMM and CampOps? 150-200 pages, 250 max.

Notice starfinder, printed by the king of big books, Paizo? Bigdonkey core book, and splatbooks in the ~200 page range. Same with PF2; The first ed books are being re-printed in pint-sized 'pocket editions' (Which is what I wish CGL would do with the various ops books, but I don't see that happening.) I think it's a sign of things to come.

TW if 314 pages. I'm guessing if fiction and miniatures pages are removed and rules from TacOPs added TWII would be close to 500 pages or more. How big is Starfinder?  Spatbooks? Pocket Editions?  ???

Greatclub

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 911
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #92 on: 03 November 2019, 04:32:12 »
Who said they were going to join TW and Tacops? Last thing I'd expect, aside from a few select bits, like the arrow iv, VSPL, and handful of optional rules they put in BMM.

Starfinder is a bit over 500 pages, but it's a paizo corebook. splatbooks are 150 or so
Shadowrun 6 is ~300 pages, down from the monster 500 page 5th edition.
The pathfinder 2nd edition world guide (Lost omens) is about 150 pages, down from ~350 for the inner sea world guide a decade earlier
Pathfinder pocket editions are the same number of pages as their original printings, but softcover and 6.5"x8.5"; instead of 8.75"x11.25 and hardcover for the first editions.

Battlemech manual, ~150 pages. CampOps, ~200 pages.

Everyone's books are going on a diet. Sad fact of modern publishing, it isn't 2008, or even 2013, anymore.

This is, of course, logic, which is a notable way to be wrong with certainty. I don't know what CGL is going to do.
« Last Edit: 03 November 2019, 05:25:37 by Greatclub »

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #93 on: 03 November 2019, 09:48:44 »
How big is their criteria?

Closer to 300 than 400, obviously. They didn’t split tw or tm.

The books bigger than TW are going to get split or potentially just never be reprinted. SO will not be a single volume (and conveniently cleanly splittable around page 200 of 450). AToW and IO have no guarantees of ever seeing a reprint - and will be split if they are.

At the speed the reprints are occurring, I’d expect TWII: Totaler Warfare before they get past SO

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11574
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #94 on: 03 November 2019, 10:31:07 »
Split AToW??  How on earth would they do that?  Obviously something would have to move to the Companion, but I wouldn't know where to start...

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #95 on: 03 November 2019, 12:17:38 »
They may make an exception if it proves too difficult  but option B in all cases is no reprint. I doubt we’re ever going to get a solid like HB: kurita again to finish the set for the sake of finishing the set.

Churchill’s proclamation that politics are the art of the possible is now the only rubric I apply to my expectations for the IP

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 885
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #96 on: 03 November 2019, 15:20:51 »
Who said they were going to join TW and Tacops? Last thing I'd expect, aside from a few select bits, like the arrow iv, VSPL, and handful of optional rules they put in BMM.

Nobody that I know of but if we keep adding rules for what we'd like to be optional into TWII we might as well add the rules part of TO to TW.

Quote
Starfinder is a bit over 500 pages, but it's a paizo corebook. splatbooks are 150 or so
Shadowrun 6 is ~300 pages, down from the monster 500 page 5th edition.
The pathfinder 2nd edition world guide (Lost omens) is about 150 pages, down from ~350 for the inner sea world guide a decade earlier
Pathfinder pocket editions are the same number of pages as their original printings, but softcover and 6.5"x8.5"; instead of 8.75"x11.25 and hardcover for the first editions.

Battlemech manual, ~150 pages. CampOps, ~200 pages.

Everyone's books are going on a diet. Sad fact of modern publishing, it isn't 2008, or even 2013, anymore.

This is, of course, logic, which is a notable way to be wrong with certainty. I don't know what CGL is going to do.

Thanks for the explanation. :)

So it looks like a TW with TO rules would fit in with that. I suppose all the other "Rule" sections could be their own book. I'm not sure how they'd split TM. Maybe move the Aerospace to add to the Advanced Aerospace in SO. Or maybe adding both aerospace section to the construction half of TO. That'd put the construction rules in 3 books instead of 4 or more. But that's me.

I don't know what TPTB have planned but I hope it works.



They may make an exception if it proves too difficult  but option B in all cases is no reprint. I doubt we’re ever going to get a solid like HB: kurita again to finish the set for the sake of finishing the set.

Churchill’s proclamation that politics are the art of the possible is now the only rubric I apply to my expectations for the IP

Problem with option B, is that there won't be any books in the stores to interest new players or old ones.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9099
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #97 on: 03 November 2019, 15:48:10 »
If they’re not going to make enough money, it doesn’t matter

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 885
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #98 on: 05 November 2019, 07:39:45 »
Hopefully, they will. I for one don't wish Battletech to end.

Greatclub

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 911
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #99 on: 05 November 2019, 15:46:08 »
I'm wondering how close to loss-leaders the last printings have been.  :'(

Apocal

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 348
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #100 on: 06 November 2019, 14:37:21 »
I like Direct Blow and Advanced Determining Criticals, but I like it best when they synergize to give me a +5 bonus on my crit rolls.

Need an 8 to-hit with my AC/20, roll an 11 for a Direct Blow +1 bonus on the crit roll.
21 points of damage applied, taking me over the Advanced Criticals threshold for +4 bonus on the crit roll.
I roll a 7, which normally does nothing, but gets turned into a 12 instead and blows through 2 locations.

 :D