Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Battletech Public Playtest Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 9751956" data-attributes="member: 90374"><p>So, playtest round 1 is labeled "Survival Package". Its pretty simple with just two major rule changes.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Remove side hit location tables. Only Front and rear tables for playtest.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ammo explosions do a maximum of the following;<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">20 damage with transfer to a location without CASE.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">10 damage without transfer to a location with CASE</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">1 Damage and no transfer with a location with CASE II</li> </ul></li> </ul><p>I am on the fence with removing side hit locations. The reasoning is that vets often have front and rear memorized and can deal damage quickly as a result. I have seen this, but Ive also seen veterans who still needs a reference chart (everybody still needs one at some point). My pitch for keeping the side location tables is I think it makes a tactical choice on both offense and defense when it comes to damaged locations. For me, this is what sets Classic Battletech apart from Alpha Strike and other modern miniature games. I dont think having 2 instead of 4 tables will be any quicker for the general gaming public. </p><p></p><p>On ammo explosions, this is much needed. Ammo explosion usually means dead mech, period. Now, encouraging fast and dangerous play is one argument, but energy weapons not only dont rely on ammo, they also dont explode. Making some mech load-outs just plain superior to their ammo reliant cousins. So, I agree with this change in theory. I plan to test it out soon. My gut says the damage needs to be even less, something like 12/8/1 since 20 is enough to still render most mechs dead or severely disabled. Though, I will save that feedback until ive actually gotten these to the table.</p><p></p><p>On the topic of ammo explosions, not only is it known, but we have had a long running house rule. We use the aerospace 1/10 damage ruling. Meaning, most ammo explosions will not destroy a mech, but likely put one in forced withdrawal if you are using that rule. Its kept ammo explosion as a dreadful thing, but not allowed it to be an insta kill thing. Which the devs are aiming for witht he playtest. I will provide this feedback since I have years of experience with it now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="payn, post: 9751956, member: 90374"] So, playtest round 1 is labeled "Survival Package". Its pretty simple with just two major rule changes. [LIST] [*]Remove side hit location tables. Only Front and rear tables for playtest. [*]Ammo explosions do a maximum of the following; [LIST] [*]20 damage with transfer to a location without CASE. [*]10 damage without transfer to a location with CASE [*]1 Damage and no transfer with a location with CASE II [/LIST] [/LIST] I am on the fence with removing side hit locations. The reasoning is that vets often have front and rear memorized and can deal damage quickly as a result. I have seen this, but Ive also seen veterans who still needs a reference chart (everybody still needs one at some point). My pitch for keeping the side location tables is I think it makes a tactical choice on both offense and defense when it comes to damaged locations. For me, this is what sets Classic Battletech apart from Alpha Strike and other modern miniature games. I dont think having 2 instead of 4 tables will be any quicker for the general gaming public. On ammo explosions, this is much needed. Ammo explosion usually means dead mech, period. Now, encouraging fast and dangerous play is one argument, but energy weapons not only dont rely on ammo, they also dont explode. Making some mech load-outs just plain superior to their ammo reliant cousins. So, I agree with this change in theory. I plan to test it out soon. My gut says the damage needs to be even less, something like 12/8/1 since 20 is enough to still render most mechs dead or severely disabled. Though, I will save that feedback until ive actually gotten these to the table. On the topic of ammo explosions, not only is it known, but we have had a long running house rule. We use the aerospace 1/10 damage ruling. Meaning, most ammo explosions will not destroy a mech, but likely put one in forced withdrawal if you are using that rule. Its kept ammo explosion as a dreadful thing, but not allowed it to be an insta kill thing. Which the devs are aiming for witht he playtest. I will provide this feedback since I have years of experience with it now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Battletech Public Playtest Thread
Top