Battletech Public Playtest Thread

[RangerWickett]

I like these proposed changes. And from the leaked documents I saw, I like those changes too.

It seems all pretty even keeled to make the game flow a little better, have slightly fewer non-games, and require less looking stuff up that slows games down.

Personally I'd also support a full rules overhaul to make the combat system play faster and have more interesting decision points with less random chance, but I know the bulk of the player base is hostile to any big changes.

But yeah, decision points are good. The game doesn't let you aim, ugh, annoying, but at least now it lets you have a better chance to hit a particular side. That's a start. Maybe in 30 more years I'll be able to play tabletop BT the way we play Mechwarrior video games, aiming at vulnerable spots.

 

[payn]

I like these proposed changes. And from the leaked documents I saw, I like those changes too.

It seems all pretty even keeled to make the game flow a little better, have slightly fewer non-games, and require less looking stuff up that slows games down.

Personally I'd also support a full rules overhaul to make the combat system play faster and have more interesting decision points with less random chance, but I know the bulk of the player base is hostile to any big changes.

But yeah, decision points are good. The game doesn't let you aim, ugh, annoying, but at least now it lets you have a better chance to hit a particular side. That's a start. Maybe in 30 more years I'll be able to play tabletop BT the way we play Mechwarrior video games, aiming at vulnerable spots.

Targeting computers let you make called shots but it ain’t easy.

 

[payn]

Play test report 1.

We had 12 players broke into two games.

I’ll start with ammo explosions cause it’s easier. We didn’t see much difference at all. Mechs lost torsos or died. I’m still on my initial thought the damage needs to be even lower for this to matter.

Side torso change has some pretty big impact to the gameplay. Being able to focus damage on a single side was way more beneficial to the attacker than the defender. With a little luck on initiative you could really sandblaster a mech to hell. It became so obvious the movement phase became a game of circle the wagons.

I didn’t like it, but I could see some folks liking the increase of offensive power as it speeds up the long game. @RangerWickett might like this as it allows you to concentrate fire on a few locations so it’s closer to called shots.

As for making turns quicker, we didn’t feel it would do that. The newest players found it just as confusing, and the vets were still using reference charts anyways.

I got a round this weekend so I’ll try it again and see if I dislike it any less.

 

[TheHand]

Just stumbling on this thread. I’ve played BattleTech since right before they invented the Clans, and while I only get to play it sporadically I still will bust it out from time to time with old friends.

I kind of like that the game has hardly changed since the beginning, but when I run short campaigns I definitely have some house rules.

Ammo explosions are a big house rule, we tend to play with it blowing off the location it’s in but no more without CASE, and with it, it does the base damage internally of the weapon type. Base rules, Inner Sphere mechs with XL Engines and CASE serve no real purpose. So I’m in support of adjusting ammo explosion damage.

Side locations I’d rather keep because it can be used tactically by both defender and attacker. BUT I tend to leave them out when teaching a new player until they get more comfortable with the game.

I also tend to do a little bit of buffing with generic Autocannons, but that’s probably too big of a change to the official game.

For anyone looking for a less complicated rule set than CBT but not abstracted as Alpha Strike, Mechwarrior Destiny might be worth checking out. Given its RP focus, it has simplified rules for Mechs that still keep some of the classic feel.

 

[MGibster]

Secondly, because bits of it didn't make sense, both because why would an omnidirectional explosion of some ammo do the same base damage as shaped charges or kinetic impactors, and also why would arm internal damage travel perfectly through the small tunnel of the shoulder joint into the torso?

Historically speaking, ammo explosions in tanks typically result in catastrophic damage taking it out of the fight. NATO tanks are typically designed to channel such explosions in a manner that makes it more likely the crew survives, but the tank is still out of commission. I imagine when the rules were being written they had this in mind. As for why it might do damage, keep in mind the armor on a mech is designed to protect it from outside enemies rather an an internal explosion. Ammo going up inside should be a terrible occasion.

I'm open to the idea of ammo explosions doing less damage. But from what I remember, by the time I started taking internals the writing was pretty much on the wall. I was probably going to lose anyway.

 

[payn]

Ammo explosions are a big house rule, we tend to play with it blowing off the location it’s in but no more without CASE, and with it, it does the base damage internally of the weapon type. Base rules, Inner Sphere mechs with XL Engines and CASE serve no real purpose. So I’m in support of adjusting ammo explosion damage.

This one comes up a lot. From a single force for an afternoon of BT fun, case in XL engine mech seems like nipples on breastplate. Though, from a campaign and narrative point it makes sense. The only way to destroy beyond repair a mech is to core the CT. A mech can lose a torso and go down but case leaves the wreck salvageable.

Historically speaking, ammo explosions in tanks typically result in catastrophic damage taking it out of the fight. NATO tanks are typically designed to channel such explosions in a manner that makes it more likely the crew survives, but the tank is still out of commission. I imagine when the rules were being written they had this in mind. As for why it might do damage, keep in mind the armor on a mech is designed to protect it from outside enemies rather an an internal explosion. Ammo going up inside should be a terrible occasion.

I'm open to the idea of ammo explosions doing less damage. But from what I remember, by the time I started taking internals the writing was pretty much on the wall. I was probably going to lose anyway.

This is one of those sneaky topics folks need to dig deep on. In introtech, ammo weapons are balanced against energy by heat. As long as you got ammo you can blast those those ACs and missiles every round. Energy boats tend to have to cycle. Enter clan invasion and the return of double heat sinks and now ammo weapons are just noticeably worse. So, I think the ammo explosion change is supposed to make it so its still very bad, but not mech dead bad. Though its looking to only be marginal. We have been using 1/10 damage on explosions for years locally. It seems to do what the playtest wants better.

I'd likley look another place to make a difference in weapons, stability like HBS did. Energy weapons dont cause PSR checks as a trade off for not blowing up. I know thats an extra layer of granularity they seem to want to remove, but it would make a difference in actually having ballistic weapons.

 

[MGibster]

Enter clan invasion and the return of double heat sinks and now ammo weapons are just noticeably worse. So, I think the ammo explosion change is supposed to make it so its still very bad, but not mech dead bad.

Look, pal! I only recently accepted the fact the Clans were here to stay and would remain a part of Battletech forever. Don't go trying to drive a wedge between me and the Clans!

 

[Cergorach]

They should move from 2d6 to d20 and add levels (and not just for terrain)!

I think simplifying streamlining the simulation is a good idea with less table references! The ammo explosions I'm not exactly sure about how that one interacts with all the options these days, but making lucky shots a bit less destructive is a good thing, head shots are already bad enough...

 

[payn]

They should move from 2d6 to d20 and add levels (and not just for terrain)!

I think simplifying streamlining the simulation is a good idea with less table references! The ammo explosions I'm not exactly sure about how that one interacts with all the options these days, but making lucky shots a bit less destructive is a good thing, head shots are already bad enough...

Heads shots pretty rare yet satisfying for us. We make lucky shots less destructive by using the floating critical rule from TacOps. The leaked playtest indicates they want to make the rule standard.

 

[TheHand]

I’ve often thought the Heat Scale could be simplified to earlier shutdown rolls and Internal Damage at the higher points, rather than the granular accuracy and movement penalties, but that doesn’t seem to be an agenda item for them…

And it wouldn’t be very backwards compatible, considering the heat scale has been on every Mech sheet for decades!