Battletech Public Playtest Thread

[MacDhomnuill]

So far I am pretty unimpressed with the whole playtest so far, none of these changes seem to be aimed to simplify the game as was claimed. These changes all look like minor pet peeves from some of the battletech forum and discord mods instead of any kind of meaningful simplifications.

 

[payn]

So far I am pretty unimpressed with the whole playtest so far, none of these changes seem to be aimed to simplify the game as was claimed. These changes all look like minor pet peeves from some of the battletech forum and discord mods instead of any kind of meaningful simplifications.

The first packet seemed like the designer's pet interest disguised as a speed of play benefit. This second packet goes a long ways though for making the game a bit better. Immobile definition change aside; water isnt a death sentence anymore, getting up is easier, you can walk backwards down a hill with PSR. multiple leg actuator hits dont require numerous rolls, PSR checks slightly less painful now after crit hits. I think packet 2 has some winners in it.

 

[Kannik]

Giving these a read, not sure I'm keen on including Mech's with just 0 MP due to damage as Immobile (just because they can't move fast enough to really leave a hex doesn't to me mean they aren't still moving about within the hex or even a bit in place).

The rest though it seems like their intent is to adjust and diminish some of the overly punishing rules/situations of the game, and for that I'm all for them taking a look at it. Like ammo explosions, things like falling over could result in a humiliation conga that could do more to take out your mech than weapons fire does. ("I take two actuator hits, I need to make two piloting rolls, more rolls mean greater chance to fail, I fall, my MechWarrior takes damage, I go to stand, fail, fall, take more MechWarrior damage, and before you know it my pilot is unconscious and the 'Mech is out of the fight due to something that looked like a banana peel incident" kind of thing.)

I'll take a closer look at the quad rules later on. As a quad-lover who thinks they often get the short end of the stick, I hope that this is favourable to them.

 

[payn]

I'll be trying them out tonight at weekly Battletech at the FLGS.

 

[Kannik]

So far I am pretty unimpressed with the whole playtest so far, none of these changes seem to be aimed to simplify the game as was claimed. These changes all look like minor pet peeves from some of the battletech forum and discord mods instead of any kind of meaningful simplifications.

Hmm, guess what is meant by simplifications. If it's about making the game less granular, that I'm personally not that interested in. There are other games out there that already do that. (Alpha Strike included, which I don't play as if I go BattleTech I want BattleTech, if I want something less granular and 'quick' then I'll go with a different game.)

If it's simplification as in making things more clear and and 'logical', then that's a good goal to me.

 

[Kannik]

I'll be trying them out tonight at weekly Battletech at the FLGS.

I will have to live vicariously through you. Looking forward (or backwards with a PSR) to your report.

 

[payn]

Playtest report 4 (Package 2; mobility)

We had our open BT night last night. Fedcom Civil War Era 4K BV per player 3v3. We had two maps so 12 players total.

Folks really enjoyed this package compared to the previous. We have been using backwards level change with PSR as a standard optional rule for a few years now. We used water maps and folks enjoyed going in it as opposed to avoiding it at all costs like a tom cat. Getting up being easier was makes sense, and the actuator changes were well received. Basically it slows the death spiral and keeps the mech in a fight another turn or two. Reducing 2,3,4 PSR checks from leg damage to 1 was a speed up and felt less bad when you eventually fail anyways from so many checks at the highest PSR anyways.

The immobility change was less liked. Seems already bad enough losing a mech movement, but also losing an initiative count is harsh. There is a strange logic in MP reduction as well. We had a player get a mech reduced to 0 MP thus immobile, but then lose a leg and get MP back... We just preferred the old lose a leg and get 1MP rule where basically you can stand and if standing you can move 1 hex.

Thats it. A pretty standard procedural playtest package that we enjoyed testing out.

 

[MGibster]

Giving these a read, not sure I'm keen on including Mech's with just 0 MP due to damage as Immobile (just because they can't move fast enough to really leave a hex doesn't to me mean they aren't still moving about within the hex or even a bit in place).

A hex only represents about 30 meters (at least late time I checked), and if you're a vehicle moving so slowly that you can't get out of 30m hex then you're effectively immobile.

This does remind me of a BattleTech argument I had during play circa 1992. My opponent had some sort of jumping mech and he started his turn in the hex directly behind my mech. He jumps, something like six hexes, circling back right into the hex where he started the turn directly behind me. When it was someone else's turn to fire at him, an argument broke out because he claimed to have moved six hexes with others saying he didn't move any hexes at all. I don't remember how we resolved the issue.

 

[Kannik]

A hex only represents about 30 meters (at least late time I checked), and if you're a vehicle moving so slowly that you can't get out of 30m hex then you're effectively immobile.

Sorta... if moving 0 MP (so not moving out of the hex) doesn't count as being immobile, as the 'mech is still able to duck and weave and move about enough within the hex to not get the immobile modifier, then being at 0MP due to damage to me still feels like the 'mech would still have enough mobility/flexibility to still duck and weave and move about to avoid the full immobile modifier (as it's not inert like a shutdown 'mech or a building). That said, IIRC immobile was -4... maybe make 0MP due to damage -2, splitting the difference... I could be comfortable with that. Or maybe -1. The inability to move at all is already a harsh penalty.

Now then shoot out both legs and, sure, I'll grant the -4.

This does remind me of a BattleTech argument I had during play circa 1992. My opponent had some sort of jumping mech and he started his turn in the hex directly behind my mech. He jumps, something like six hexes, circling back right into the hex where he started the turn directly behind me. When it was someone else's turn to fire at him, an argument broke out because he claimed to have moved six hexes with others saying he didn't move any hexes at all. I don't remember how we resolved the issue.

Haha, yeah, a classic 'tactic'. I think the rule is "number of hexes entered since your last direction change if walking" , so if the pilot wants to spend 6 heat + higher to hit mod on that kind of maneuver, go for it!

 

[payn]

A hex only represents about 30 meters (at least late time I checked), and if you're a vehicle moving so slowly that you can't get out of 30m hex then you're effectively immobile.

This does remind me of a BattleTech argument I had during play circa 1992. My opponent had some sort of jumping mech and he started his turn in the hex directly behind my mech. He jumps, something like six hexes, circling back right into the hex where he started the turn directly behind me. When it was someone else's turn to fire at him, an argument broke out because he claimed to have moved six hexes with others saying he didn't move any hexes at all. I don't remember how we resolved the issue.

So, yeah he would have had a 1 TMM from the jump not TMM 3. The rules state you cant jump away and back in a single movement. Now, if it was a spider it could potentially dosey doe as a run and end at the same spot with a nice TMM,