Battletech Public Playtest Thread

[MGibster]

One thing that bothers me a bit about Battletech is that Mechs die too easy. I don't mean that they get to defeated too easy, but that very often they die by damage to the center torso, and the chances of surviving are low. That kinda stands against the claim of mechs handed down by generations.

There's very often a big difference between the narrative of any particular game and the fiction. In could be that we're just looking at a snapshot and the exciting things happening during that particular game. Or perhaps mechs just get repaired over and over again.

 

[TheHand]

Played the second session of my story-based BattleTech campaign (loosely based on the old video game, Crescent Hawks Revenge). We decided to try all of the playtest rules. This group had both brand new players and vets of the game, which will be nice for the different perspectives.

Side shots only came up a couple of times, so nothing to really report there. No ammo explosions either this time.

Biggest tipping point of the battle was when an enemy Rommel tank lost its AC-20 to a vehicle crit, going from terrifying beast to an over armored Lrm-5 carrier.

 

[payn]

Biggest tipping point of the battle was when an enemy Rommel tank lost its AC-20 to a vehicle crit, going from terrifying beast to an over armored Lrm-5 carrier.

Yeah thats a tank you can safely ignore at that point. I was rocking a schreck this weekend in Vegas. I just parked it on the first hill I came across and fired PPCs until it couldn't. Was pretty effective.

 

[TheHand]

Yeah thats a tank you can safely ignore at that point. I was rocking a schreck this weekend in Vegas. I just parked it on the first hill I came across and fired PPCs until it couldn't. Was pretty effective.

In the 90’s I used to run big BattleTech convention games. A lot of the players had never actually used vehicles in their games, so I always enjoyed throwing them for a loop with tanks like the Schrek (or Blake forbid when the Alacorn game out!)

 

[Kannik]

In the 90’s I used to run big BattleTech convention games. A lot of the players had never actually used vehicles in their games, so I always enjoyed throwing them for a loop with tanks like the Schrek (or Blake forbid when the Alacorn game out!)

Funny, I was just thinking about the Alacorn. I also have a soft spot for the Ontos (if perhaps only because of the battle history from TR3026, with the opposing force unexpected running into 144 lasers fired at once...)

At a convention in January this year got to try out the new battlefield support rules for vehicles. In the context of the large battle that was raging, I liked them. Felt like they supported combined arms play w/o much overhead and while still emphasizing the mechs. I might enjoy assigning different damage numbers to each range bracket, or maybe just giving a bonus to one bracket for vehicles that are optimized there. But even as-is I thought they ran well.

 

[payn]

Funny, I was just thinking about the Alacorn. I also have a soft spot for the Ontos (if perhaps only because of the battle history from TR3026, with the opposing force unexpected running into 144 lasers fired at once...)

At a convention in January this year got to try out the new battlefield support rules for vehicles. In the context of the large battle that was raging, I liked them. Felt like they supported combined arms play w/o much overhead and while still emphasizing the mechs. I might enjoy assigning different damage numbers to each range bracket, or maybe just giving a bonus to one bracket for vehicles that are optimized there. But even as-is I thought they ran well.

I didn’t like the barrel field support rules in smallish pick up games but yeah I can see times they work. If you are doing a narrative GM run opfor against your players they are great.

 

[MGibster]

When I played, very often there was no reason not to concentrate all your lance’s fire on one particular enemy mech. Is that still a thing?

 

[Kannik]

When I played, very often there was no reason not to concentrate all your lance’s fire on one particular enemy mech. Is that still a thing?

As with all tactical games, focus fire continues to be an important tactic. And likewise maneuvering to prevent focus fire from your enemies while maximizing your own...

Unless playing the Clans following zellbrigen in an RP-adhering game or campaign.

 

[MacDhomnuill]

Got to play a couple of small games with the new rules and they were…meh. So the set up is that my group largely plays 3025 tech and prefer classic mechs. That said we also have used forced withdrawl rules as a standard. We had one ammo explosion on an already heavily damaged medium so the 20 points still did it in, no change to expected results only benefit seemed to by avoiding a single multiplication problem (remaining ammo X damage). In my 35 years playing ammo explosions have been pretty rare so I personally don’t see much value in this change.

Elimination of side to hit charts.

Who boy no one like this at all. Except the player who favored fast jumpy mechs, who was able to get into a side arc and just live there against several different mechs. The only one heavy was able to effectively shield its open side and that was against another slow heavy. Once some lights got into the scrum that was that. The general feeling was that the to hit changes were a huge benefit to attackers and fairly useless to defenders.

If these changes go into effect we will just ignore them and keep using the old rules.

I two absolutely believe there are some things that could be fixed in total warfare for sure but the core combat mechanics ain’t it

 

[payn]

As your appointed Comstar sideline reporter im pleased to announce playtest package 2 This time mobility rules! There is a lot going on here compared to last time so ill do it item by item.

1. Water mobility changes. No longer a PSR for walking in water per hex, or at all. Can now run in water with a PSR. Payn's thoughts, awesome about time they made water something people did everything they could to avoid.
2. Backwards level changes with PSR TacOps optional rule becoming standard. Payn's thoughts; About time commonly used house rule in most pick up games.
3. Immobility definition expansion. Previous any building or vehicle/mech shutdown is immobile and receives -4 TMM. New, any building or vehicle/mech that has shutdown or been reduced to 0MP receives -4TMM. (Actuator damage can reduce a mech to 0MP like motive checks for vehicles.) A mech can be reduced to 0MP but still jump, its considered immobile if it doesnt jump instead of stationary. Furthermore, enemies can pass through immobile unit hexes which they couldnt before. Payn's thoughts; ish I dont like this. I think losing an initiative count is really bad (calculating unequal units is one of the tables biggest PITA events). A -4 to hit is already a bad day, now you no longer count for initiative nor can you control any area on the board with said units as their last stand. Reducing MP to 0 will be rather frequent and can happen to a single critical on assault mechs. I'm gonna plytest this hard by askign everybody to bring MASC units this week.
4. Piloting check for a damaged Gyro is no +2 instead of +3. Payn's thoughts; Im cool with that.
5. Foot actuator critical changes. If foot actuator is destroyed, reduce MP by 1, +1 to kick attacks, and PSR on jumps only (previously on run too). Payn's thoughts; Im cool with this too.
6. Hip actuator critical hit changes. First hip critical MP reduced by half (4/6 become 2/3) second hit reduces speed again by half (2/3 becomes 1/2). Hips ovverride any previous loss of MP from foot or leg actuators. No more kick attacks, +1PSR stacking with any other leg actuator hit, PSR on run or jump movement. Payn's thoughts, I like everything but the chance to reduce a mech to 0MP. I think this should only occur on a gyro destruction or a leg blown off (which only happens on a 12 roll for critical confirmation check).
7. Cumalitive leg PSR effects. All leg criticals are added together for one single PSR to remain standing. Previously if you had multiple actuators hit, you had to make multiple PSRs all at the same cumaltive check which resulted in likely fall as you now need to make 2 or more difficult checks. Payn's thoughts; Im good with this I think it will speed things along and keep mechs ont heir feet.
8. Leg Destruction. MP reduced by half min 2 (this overrides previous MP reduction by leg critical hits). No more kick attacks. +4 PSR checks for standing, running, or jumping. Quad stuff im not going into. Payn's thoughts; Its fine, but weird that you could theoretically take a number of leg actuator hits, become immobile, but then get MP back by a leg getting destroyed... I dont care for this 0MP to a mech buisness. Also, the forums are having a vote right now if a destroyed leg flies off a mech or if it requires a 12 on a crit confirmation. Its really weird if a leg comes off but you can still stand and move IMO...
9. Standing up PSR change. PReviously straight PSR check, now -1 PSR. Payn's thougths; love it, it shouldnt be hard to get up with a fully functional mech.

Whew, thats a lot. I love it all except mechs can be reduced to 0MP through actuator hit, even less so that you can regain MP in certain situations. Im hoping they take the actuator and leg hit changes without the immobilization. Vehicles being immobilzed easily is already a burden that needs looking at IMO.