|
So I've been reading the info on this stuff and think I have one last newbie question. I've seen books that seem about the major houses and factions and all, are those like Warmachine's armybooks where it's 'no you don't NEED it but it has all the info for their stuff on the table and their fluff', or are these pure fluff books? Also I'm leaning to Capellan Confederation, but mainly because I haven't slogged through the huge list of the clans and all. What's their deal, the writeup in the first page said they were all stealthy and stuff, does that actually apply to like, table top stuff or is it just fluff for helping you build your force?
|
| # ? Mar 16, 2012 18:56 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 11:42 |
|
|
It's fluff. There's some faction- and unit-specific rules in the Field Manuals, but they're optional and not tournament-legal. The description of the CC as "stealthy" is a reflection of their preference for Stealth Armor on mechs, and their use of Thunder LRMs to lay land mines, for example. The Lyrans are described as a generally heavy army, so their field manual gives a rule where all LCAF units get a bonus to rolling on random mech weight classes. However, none of these statements apply to every unit in that army. Some Capellan units like the St. Ives Lancers and House Dai Da Chi specialize in being the point unit in an invasion, which means land mines aren't as much use, for instance. And for Lyrans, there's units like the 2nd and 4th Donegal Guards that actually are lighter than the Inner Sphere average. so you don't have to play a Heavy mech-dominated force if you want to be Lyran any more than you need to run with a stealth mech lance shooting land mines if you want to be Capellan. Mechs are also surprisingly easy to capture via salvage, so it's not uncommon for a unit to field the mechs belonging to its enemies. There's no absolute rules for force construction other than "your force needs to be made up of units that don't break the construction rules."
|
| # ? Mar 16, 2012 19:25 |
|
|
That's cool, I dig that it's pretty wide open, it never made sense to me when sci fi settings especially are all 'oh no there's no way this culture has access to the tech of the neighbors they've been fighting for ages!' Is the fluff in the house books any good? I may pick up the Capellan book later on just because their wiki article made em sound pretty neat. I guess all that's left now is to just wait for my box to come.
|
| # ? Mar 16, 2012 19:42 |
|
|
The house books are somewhere on the website for free text-only download IIRC.
|
| # ? Mar 16, 2012 19:48 |
|
|
Xotl posted:If you do look to get a hard copy of the advanced rules book (Tactical Operations), hold off until the new printing comes out, presumably some time in the next 6 months or so. Battletech is 25 years old and uses mostly the same ruleset since it was founded (minor revisions and errata fold-ins, but no Warhammer-style complete rules reboots), so most of the books aren't too bad in the way of errata. You bastard I bought Tac Ops only a few weeks ago (along with Sword and Dragon). I'm surprised that the Battletech rules haven't undergone periodic major revisions. It explains a lot about the rules that I've been wondering about. Coming from Flames of War and board games in general, Battletech's rules seem strangely complex in parts that I can't imagine any other non-rpg game even caring about and then lacking in other areas. My brother and I played the first game of a sword and dragon campaign where he chose "Supply Run" and I rolled up a 5 strong Light Mercenary Lance. After a few turns (lost track, the game took us about 6 hours spread over two weekends to complete, we are new to the game) it was clear I was going to lose but probably at the cost of destroying one of his mechs. The thing I was thinking was that it seemed a little silly that I (in my guise as the commander of the faceless opfor merc unit) would stay in the fight just to kill one of his Mediums at the cost of my entire lance, which fluff wise would probably ruin me financially assuming I lived. But from meta game standpoint I would want to hurt him as much as possible and keep him as close to being broke as possible, so that when our real, non-random cannon fodder forces did meet I would have the advantage. So the first solution we thought of was to copy some other war games where there is a morale check at some point (generally after a certain percentage of your force is gone) as people don't often fight to the death if they have the ability to escape. That or maybe both of us could roll up a TO&E for both sides and then we are limited to those units. Lose an entire lance of Assault Mechs? They are gone forever! (for the purposes of the campaign). Ideally I kind of want both. From the PDF previews on the Classic Battletech page the Historicals kind of look like that but are they?
|
| # ? Mar 16, 2012 21:18 |
|
|
Numlock posted:You bastard I bought Tac Ops only a few weeks ago (along with Sword and Dragon). Some merc units however have the forces to field entire regiments of troops so losing a lance of five is not terribly large a loss if you win the war.
|
| # ? Mar 16, 2012 21:36 |
|
|
Also the way merc campaign rules currently are, there is no reason to ever have battlemechs in a merc company since you are paid for personal dropped not actually how effective they are. So a merc company of infantry would get paid much much more, than 12 guys in mechs.
|
| # ? Mar 16, 2012 21:53 |
|
|
Numlock posted:You bastard I bought Tac Ops only a few weeks ago (along with Sword and Dragon).
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 01:19 |
|
|
Numlock posted:You bastard I bought Tac Ops only a few weeks ago (along with Sword and Dragon). I get what your saying about 'sticking in till the bitter end' in a fight and fluff wise, at least early in the timeline it doesn't make sense and even the clans had what they call 'Hegira' where one force can withdraw when it admits its defeated. But I don't believe you need to copy some other system's rules for it. Actually, I rather oppose there being hard and fast rules for morale and units breaking etc, at least on the individual mech scale of Battletech. Now, at large unit levels I can see the need, but not for individual pilots. (Indeed, if you read in some of the older books I think there were indeed guidelines, with units being questionable, reliable, fanatic etc in regards to morale.) In the example you've given from the Sword and Dragon book your brother is either playing the Fox's Teeth or Sorenson's Sabres, and you are the 'game master' for lack of a better word. Its your call and on you when your forces break. Has your brother absolutely smoked the opposition? Has his placement made it untenable for your GM controlled force? Cool, let him shoot up one or two so he has some salvage and then pull your forces out. As the GM you should be handling that and making those calls as the mercenary commander. Is it some fight over some stupid no name hill? Give up, roll out and fight tomorrow. Is it a fight to save the wives and families of the mercenary unit from a treacherous employer seeking revenge? Fight to the death, and then fight some more. I think hard and fast rules for such a thing would limit the GM flexibility and storyline portion of a GM run campaign and in a tournament such rules don't matter since tournaments are a fight to the final victor anyway. BV's as it is are tough enough to calculate. Add in morale, morale tests and breaking? Yeah. Now, if you want to make a mechanic for it go right ahead. But I think its handled easily enough in a home campaign just to make the call yourself. This also gives you the flexibility to let your brother off the hook when he fucks up. Fake Edit: If I read the 'Warchest' rules correctly, your brother does have to worry about damaged units carrying over to the next fight and having to pay repair costs etc. So, really thats built into the PC's side of the campaign. Only reason I could see the need for defined morale rules is if your GM is a dick and wants to try and stick it to you just to be mean about it. And, since you are asking the question in the first place, I would guess you are rather fair minded about it and hard and fast rules aren't needed.
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 22:21 |
|
|
Mao posted:I think hard and fast rules for such a thing would limit the GM flexibility and storyline portion of a GM run campaign and in a tournament such rules don't matter since tournaments are a fight to the final victor anyway. BV's as it is are tough enough to calculate. Add in morale, morale tests and breaking? Yeah. I want to quote this paragraph because it talks about one of the things that really differentiates Battletech from a lot of other popular miniatures and board games. Battletech comes from a time when GM run and narrative/(fake)historical scenarios were the norm in wargaming, and since it really hasn't bothered evolving, it's still at its best when played that way.
|
| # ? Mar 17, 2012 23:16 |
|
|
We will probably just use the Forced Withdrawal rule with some other extra house rules that suit us. Since we don't have a third player to be a GM for the campaign then we will just have to use hard and fast rules agreed to before hand. It may be moot because we meet the local players and it didn't leave us with a good impression. Seems like a bunch of grogs who were not looking to expand their group. So probably group play is not in our future, very depressing because we both like battletech. Is there a Megamek server that you guys play on?
|
| # ? Mar 18, 2012 01:05 |
|
|
A number of goons play on Mekwars: Legends, which is an ongoing campaign server set in 3067 that is now on its (I believe) sixth iteration. It is a lot of fun and there's plenty of opponents, but for this iteration all fights* are set up using blind matchmaking, so it's quite difficult to play against your buddy if that's what you want to do. There's also a pretty steep learning curve getting set up on Legends, understanding all the rules (which are documented, but not indexed, and they sometimes get modified mid-campaign, and a few critical ones are not enforced by the software), and not screwing up. However, people are for the most part pretty friendly, and most factions have at least a handful of really helpful veterans who are happy to handhold a new person. But goons that hang out in #megamek on SynIRC also play pick-up megamek games. Anyone who can figure out their firewall and IP address can host a game, so you don't need a big public server. *Except aero fights, but those are weird and different and there's far fewer players who regularly do aero
|
| # ? Mar 18, 2012 17:48 |
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Ah, well that's good to know, I don't need to stress over getting the 'right' one, then, just one I think looks fitting for what I want it to be? I enjoy the fact that I don't HAVE to have the minis, though, good for getting people in and just kinda loving around, but I'm a collector type who just kinda enjoys having/painting stuff so I'll most likely try to get some stuff to at least represent my 'core' stuff well. Gotta say, reading this thread and all has made me pretty pumped to get this in the mail. The official makers of Battletech minis in NA is Iron Wind Metals generally the quality is pretty good and they are all pewter unless specified otherwise. EU goons should order from Ral Partha Europe.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 06:16 |
|
|
Both companies are run by the kind of people that make you wonder how the hell GW spends so much time and effort on customer service and still manages to get it so drat wrong. The kind of dealings I have with them both (since RPUK doesn't get limited edition stuff and other things take ages to get over here) have been nothing short of exemplary. Seriously, give these people your money and buy lots of small robots.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 23:19 |
|
|
Wonderful, apparently my box will be here on Thursday, good to know there's a solid source for minis, and they look petty drat spiffy too.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 23:56 |
|
|
Cross posting from the miniatures thread. Here's a few 'Mechs I've done. The Maurader IIC and Archer are from IWM. My Marauder IIc and my Archer (never could get those missile doors right on the Archer)     The BTech box set minis I've done so far: 
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 20:06 |
|
|
Dunno if anyone posted this already, but all the Battletech core rulebooks are on sale on RPGNow for $11.25 each, as well as the RPG core book. Well worth a look if you're missing any of that stuff.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 20:37 |
|
|
Refind Chaos posted:Cross posting from the miniatures thread. Did you do the posing on the Archer? Because it's very nicely dynamic.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 21:25 |
|
|
Xotl posted:Did you do the posing on the Archer? Because it's very nicely dynamic. The legs come in the position, but I set the arms, and the torso. The Marauder I set the legs, arms and torso in the positions they are in.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 21:45 |
|
|
thorsilver posted:Dunno if anyone posted this already, but all the Battletech core rulebooks are on sale on RPGNow for $11.25 each, as well as the RPG core book. Well worth a look if you're missing any of that stuff. drat, thanks! Just bought Total Warfare and TacOps for $22.50 total. Thanks for the heads up, I've been meaning to get these books for a while now. This is the PDF version of course, but that's fine with me.
|
| # ? Mar 21, 2012 16:25 |
|
|
Xotl posted:Did you do the posing on the Archer? Because it's very nicely dynamic. I agree--but I think the Marauder pose is even better.
|
| # ? Mar 22, 2012 14:43 |
|
|
Yesterday on the Legends campaign server there was an argument about case II in the arms in legs, I was involved in the argument and was proponent of it would just blow out the rear armor on the associated torso, later one of the guys asked on the official forum and it turns it out was a grey area, the developers came up with my idea on their own, but... a sperg argument on a fake campaign server caused a rules errata to occur. 
|
| # ? Mar 23, 2012 07:43 |
|
|
The horrible threads in the Suggestions subforum on Legends continually remind me just how good we have it here on SA. There's just so much assholishness, total lack of grammar spelling or punctuation, sperging out, "you obviously didn't read my first post" bullshit, etc. etc. God other forums are bad.
|
| # ? Mar 23, 2012 16:22 |
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:Yesterday on the Legends campaign server there was an argument about case II in the arms in legs, I was involved in the argument and was proponent of it would just blow out the rear armor on the associated torso, later one of the guys asked on the official forum and it turns it out was a grey area, the developers came up with my idea on their own, but... a sperg argument on a fake campaign server caused a rules errata to occur.
|
| # ? Mar 23, 2012 16:50 |
|
|
OK so having just ordered the Battletech box set and snagging all the rulebook PDFs for cheap from RPGNow, what's the best place to start as far as Tech Readouts/Record Sheets? 3039 is recommended by the website, but I'm interested in checking out some of the others too. I'm most interested in getting a good selection of tactically interesting/unique mechs that would attract some newbies to getting into the game. I'm less into tanks/ground troops for the moment since the mechs are the big selling point of this as far as my potentially-interested friends go. So which TROs have cool and/or iconic mech designs that would be worth picking up?
|
| # ? Mar 23, 2012 21:11 |
|
|
TRO:3039, TRO:3025 (might be redundant with the former), TRO:3050 upgrade, and maybe TRO: Project Pheonix. That selection should cover the most iconic BattleMechs of the last 25 years. If I had to pick one I would say 3039, if 2, I'd go with 3025 and 3050, but that's just me. Edit: Note I am a succession wars guy. If you like clan stuff and you can only pick one go with 3050 upgrade. Refind Chaos fucked around with this message at Mar 23, 2012 around 21:43 |
| # ? Mar 23, 2012 21:39 |
|
|
I would recommend reading 3025 first to see what intro level bt is like and where these designs come from. Then onto 3039 to see the first jump in tech. 3036 is just vehicles. Then to 3050 upgrade, for intro clan tech.as well as clan general mechs which any clan can use. Then jump forward to 3060 for iconic vidya game mechs and 3067 for the start of high tech and civil war mechs. Then skip to 3085 for current era wierdness. That should cover you for all the eras you might play. Battle armour is in 3057 and 67 upgrades iirc.
|
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 05:59 |
|
|
TR 3039 almost completely replaces the now out-of-print readouts 3025 and 3026 - you only need that one book for basic stuff (there is no 3036, and 3039 doesn't have upgrades except for aerospace fighters - it really is just the basics). Accompanying record sheet book is RS 3039 Unabridged. TR 3050 Upgrade will give you the upgrades for a lot of these mechs, ranging from real lovely refits to top of the line rebuilds, but the majority of the book is respecs of the mechs from 3039, so it's familiar territory coming from 3039. Note the word "Upgrade": do not get any other edition of TR3050. Accompanying record sheet books are in two volumes: RS 3050 Upgrade Unabridged - Inner Sphere and RS 3050 Upgrade Unabridged - Clan & Star League. From there it's anything you want. Since you want to focus on mechs, TR 3055 Upgrade is almost entirely mechs, and is the first batch of entirely new models, not found in any form in 3039 or 3050. Accompanying record sheet book is RS 3055 Upgrade Unabridged. All the other ones - 3058, 3060, 3067, 3075, and 3085 - have significant sections devoted to other unit types (combat vehicles, battle armour, etc), but are still full of mechs you can use. I'd buy 3067 last, not because it's bad but because a modern reprint will be going to press soon, so you might as well get a copy with all the errata. While we're on the topic, 3055, 3058, and 3060 all have modern reprints (put out by the current company and labelled as such) that fold in all the errata - you can see what they look like on the Catalyst website (they have different covers than the older printings and so are easy to tell apart). Xotl fucked around with this message at Mar 25, 2012 around 20:34 |
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 07:10 |
|
|
This thread inspired me to get back into BattleTech. I used to play back in the early 90's, so I guess a lot has changed since the Clan invasion. I'm trying to catch up on the backstory, but everything that happened after the FedCom civil war looks pretty dumb. I'm actually looking forward to the post-DA fast forward, just so the universe can be rebooted a bit. Unfortunately, all of my old BattleTech supplies (with a hundred or so miniatures -- all metal and painted, including a bunch of unseen and other rarities) are long gone. I just picked up the 25th Anniversary box set to get to a basic starting point. I'm a bit disappointed that the introductory rulebook only includes 3025 tech. The amount of stuff in the box is impressive though -- my high school self would have killed for those amazing map boards, and the plastic minis are... well... there are a lot of them, at least. Are there any major core rule changes that I need to look out for? The only one I've noticed so far is partial cover (which seems to actually be worthwhile now). I also don't see distinct rules for cluster hits -- if I remember correctly, LRM damage is dealt in 5-damage groups, but I don't see that anywhere in the intro rulebook. Now I just have to convince all of my Euro-boardgaming friends to put away their wooden cubes and push some big stompy robots around the table for a change.
|
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 13:47 |
|
|
There's some Clantech and SL gear in the record sheets booklet IIRC. It's not just the basics anymore, there's a bit of expansion in there.
|
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 14:41 |
|
|
I just introduced a friend to Battletech for the first time. I gave him an Atlas, a Marauder, a Warhammer, and a Phoenix Hawk and I took a Devastator, Battlemaster, Thunderbolt, and Jenner. I think I could have easily stomped him with that force if I had played to win, but I wanted to make him enjoy the game so I basically did the silliest thing I could on every turn. It's so much fun to play when you aren't taking winning seriously. I don't think my Battlemaster was below 19 heat the entire game. But I also realized that heat in the double digits isn't nearly the death sentence I thought it was. It's an annoyance I could do without, but you aren't totally hosed. I think the only mech that actually failed a shutdown roll was his Phoenix Hawk because he was jumping and alpha striking with it every turn since it seemed likely that it would finally be the turn when the Phoenix Hawk died. The thing ended up surviving the entire game and was really the star of the show. It's such an awesome little mech. I also used to be really cautious with the Devastator because its heat management is so bad, but seeing how it can tear apart mechs when you let it run hot has more or less convinced me to just go ape poo poo with it in the future and trust to its massive armor. Also, Jenners aren't very good at absorbing Warhammer alpha strikes at PPC range. But it's always the long shot machine gun that actually lands the critical hit.
|
| # ? Mar 25, 2012 15:51 |
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:Are there any major core rule changes that I need to look out for? The only one I've noticed so far is partial cover (which seems to actually be worthwhile now). I also don't see distinct rules for cluster hits -- if I remember correctly, LRM damage is dealt in 5-damage groups, but I don't see that anywhere in the intro rulebook. Cluster rules are the same 5 point groupings you remember. I posted a pair of changelogs on page 34 that will take you from 1994 to today, but here's the big changes: - new vehicle hit tables. - the fact that partial cover for mechs is completely different (now being a good idea rather than a potential headcapping death trap). - Infernos now do 2 heat per missile hit for one turn, to a maximum of 15 heat. They do other effects to vehicles, infantry and protos. - Infantry now deal and receive damage differently. - New weapons (PPC subtypes, Hyper-Assault Gauss Rifles, Plasma Rifles, MMLs) and unit types (WiGEs - mostly unimportant). - Anti-missile systems are different now.
|
| # ? Mar 25, 2012 20:39 |
|
|
Thanks for the information. I'm putting together a short campaign for some of my Btech-newbie friends. They're going to be the "protagonists", while I handle the opposing forces. I'm going to start it in early 3050 so they can get familiar with the basics, then throw in the Clans once they seem comfortable with the system. I've chosen a unit with one of the more interesting backgrounds relating to the Clans -- the Black Omen mercenary company. When the Ghost Bears landed on Damien in the FRR, the Black Omen garrison went into hiding, making the Clan invaders think the planet was undefended. The mercs then did a bunch of hit-and-run strikes (using all sorts of dirty tactics -- booby traps, bombs, artillery, hiding underwater) to whittle down the small Ghost Bear garrison, finally wiping out the weakened Clan defenders. Eventually the CGB invasion force doubled back to Damien, but the sourcebooks are self-contradictory about what happened next. The Black Omen is pretty much the sole reason the Ghost Bears despise mercenaries, and their dealings shaped the treatment of mercenaries for the rest of the invasion (ranging from disregarding zellbrigen to the outright slaughter of surrendering merc units). The unique background should allow for some interesting battles, and I'm all for letting the players come up with their own unconventional tactics. Anyway, I'm looking for a bit of advice here. I'm not planning a full-blown RPG, but I want to keep a persistent campaign going. I'm trying to balance the scenarios so the players have a definite edge, but want to keep things somewhat challenging/risky. For those of you who have run ongoing campaigns before, how do you handle cases where the storyline requires that the players win, but things just don't go that way? Unlike a true RPG, it seems difficult to fudge the rules in a miniatures wargame.
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2012 16:15 |
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:I'm putting together a short campaign for some of my Btech-newbie friends. They're going to be the "protagonists", while I handle the opposing forces. I'm going to start it in early 3050 so they can get familiar with the basics, then throw in the Clans once they seem comfortable with the system. I've run this exact sort of game with my group for the past ten years, and am just coming to the Clans now. I think the only difference is that I'm playing out a full RPG, breaking out the actual Battletech board game every third session or so for a bit of mech combat. I'm not sure just how much leeway you're giving your players to pick scenarios, if you are at all, so some of this might not apply, but: How I handled it was in very clearly laying down the ground rules of the universe at the start, and reiterating them once in a while: no matter how big you are, it's canon fact that there's someone bigger than you, absolutely everyone gets stomped once in a while, and it's perfectly normal to run away when faced by superior firepower. Even Wolf's Dragoons eventually get stomped into the ground. My players have a really good feel for risk/reward now. From there, it's a matter of creating two types of scenarios. #1 is where the players understand that they have a chance to be superior to the enemy, if they play their cards right. #2 is outright telling them in the mission briefing, "look, you have no chance here if you were stupid enough to go up against the enemy main force, which is why we're sending you in to raid/kidnap/sabotage instead." It reinforces the universe ground rules while getting the players into the mindset of "we're flies, and we better not piss the elephant off too much." I feel free to warn my players if they're doing something exceptionally risky, but leave the final call to them. Between these two I really don't think you should run into a scenario where the players accidentally get their asses kicked by you. Start out with obviously inferior forces if you're unsure of how to balance scenarios - I'm sure you'll quickly find that it's actually pretty easy to avoid accidentally overwhelming them. Build retreat options in place in the scenario itself, since a) they make sense when facing a Clan opponent (the Inner Sphere in the early days is usually fighting from ambush) b) it reinforces the universe tropes (be careful, prepare to run) and c) this gives you the perfect opportunity for the players to run like hell without it feeling like you just deus ex machina'd them out of there with a "oh, um, you get away". Storms, attacks from lake beds, etc etc. These sort of battles also offer a golden opportunity to pull out weird maps and all the various Tactical Operations environment rules. If it does go to hell and you want to stick with the results, offhand you have a couple of options. You could have them in early easier scenarios capture a couple of spare mechs, so that they can take a bit of a licking later and not feel it too bad. You could also prep a prison break scenario ahead of time, so that if a guy has to punch out and is captured you have a mission ready for the others to rescue him and at the same time get him a new mech (they could be held captive at a depot where the local militia's Inner Sphere mechs were piled together, which are crap to Clanners only fit for scrapping, and in the break the player can grab one).
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2012 19:08 |
|
|
Xotl posted:I'm not sure just how much leeway you're giving your players to pick scenarios, if you are at all, so some of this might not apply, but: After the Clan re-arrival (which by most accounts smashes 50-75% of the Black Omen battalion before they get offworld), the players will probably take full control over the mercenary company, and I'll design scenarios based on whatever contracts they take, balanced to their equipment level. That's probably a few months off, so I haven't thought too much about it. quote:From there, it's a matter of creating two types of scenarios. #1 is where the players understand that they have a chance to be superior to the enemy, if they play their cards right. #2 is outright telling them in the mission briefing, "look, you have no chance here if you were stupid enough to go up against the enemy main force, which is why we're sending you in to raid/kidnap/sabotage instead." The players would get crushed in a straight-up fight with a full, angry Cluster of Clan mechs. Basically, I want them to get beat up a little, to put the proper fear of the Clans into the players, but I don't want it to be a gigantic rout where everyone dies. It's just a matter of coming up with achievable objectives (get at least 50% of the force to a waiting dropship, delay the Clans from getting past a certain point for X number or turns, etc.). One question about your game specifically: How do you handle character death? Stock BattleTech rules are pretty lethal for Mechwarriors, especially in the pre-CASE era. Do you use different rules for determining whether a Mechwarrior can eject safely, or do you just make the players suck it up and reroll if they get headshotted/ammo-exploded? Thanks for the ideas, I'm really looking forward to running this and think my players will have a blast.
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2012 19:58 |
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:One question about your game specifically: How do you handle character death? Stock BattleTech rules are pretty lethal for Mechwarriors, especially in the pre-CASE era. Do you use different rules for determining whether a Mechwarrior can eject safely, or do you just make the players suck it up and reroll if they get headshotted/ammo-exploded? Well, my game is a RPG first and a game of Battletech the board game second, so the players have characters and they're attached to them. This comes down to the belief of both the players and the GM as to what makes a good game, but my rule in this (and all my games) is no player death unless you deliberately choose to play it especially risky (going all-offensive in a room full of guys with automatic weapons, voluntarily participating in a fight to the death for money) or you want to sacrifice yourself. I don't see the point of bumping off a character someone has been developing for literally a decade just because they took an AC/20 to the head or I rolled particularly well on my autofire check or what have you. There's still plenty of room to hit players where it hurts if they do badly, without resorting to death (permanent injury, capture, theft/destruction of equipment, etc, the latter being especially memorable in Battletech). In a nutshell, when I was setting down ground rules I outright stated that a player always manages to punch out in time if his cockpit/mech is destroyed. However, what happens from there depends on the situation, phases of the moon, my whims, etc. What matters is what your players expect and will be happy with. Just be clear as to how it works so there's no surprises. quote:Thanks for the ideas, I'm really looking forward to running this and think my players will have a blast. No problem: happy to help. I think you have a great setup for a game and your players should have a lot of fun (I'm thinking of using some of it myself, since I have the Clans coming in in the next few sessions). Just make sure you tailor the logistics of your campaign to the players - some want a lot of bookkeeping and juggling of supplies and to them being short on parts and ammo is interesting, and some want to just blow poo poo up without any of that accounting nonsense.
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2012 21:10 |
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:One question about your game specifically: How do you handle character death? Stock BattleTech rules are pretty lethal for Mechwarriors, especially in the pre-CASE era. Do you use different rules for determining whether a Mechwarrior can eject safely, or do you just make the players suck it up and reroll if they get headshotted/ammo-exploded? Also IIRC the Ghost Bears attack Damian in a balls-to-the-wall manner because they lose a cluster to a bad call in an asteroid field on the in-system trip. Era Report 3052 has more details.
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2012 22:55 |
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:For the first few sessions, I'm creating and balancing all of the scenarios beforehand. The players will be controlling single mechs for the first couple of missions, and I'm gradually going to give them more forces and leeway on mission planning -- selecting from the unit's mech roster, coming up with objectives, etc. Another thing is, you don't always have to play the enemy to the best of your ability. You might know poo poo the 'enemy' commander doesn't. Feel free to 'make mistakes' if you think they might need a little help or the chance to run away. Set a mech in a position thats not the most advantageous. Leave it with a low defensive modifier etc. Call it 'contempt for the IS scum' thats causing them to make sloppy errors. But.. really, you can play a lot of leeway into how you play your 'badguys' to help out. The rules themselves are hard and fast, but you can make some 'dumb' choices for your enemy leaders if its called for.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 23:35 |
|
|
You can also allow events to diverge from canon. See poptart ninja's LP... it might involve more work on your part but it could be really fun to see if a series of relatively small changes to the timeliness could snowball into major differences in larger scale events over time.
|
| # ? Mar 29, 2012 02:29 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 11:42 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You can also allow events to diverge from canon. See poptart ninja's LP... it might involve more work on your part but it could be really fun to see if a series of relatively small changes to the timeliness could snowball into major differences in larger scale events over time. I'll probably give them options similar to what PTN is doing in his forum game, for example: 1. Join up with the Outlaws mercenary company and keep fighting the Clans 2. Return to Outreach to try to rebuild the unit 3. Go to Solaris and try to raise money as an independent stable 4. Challenge Clan Wolf to a Trial of Possession for the mummified remains of Alexander Kerensky's left butt cheek ...and maybe let them know which one actually happened in the canon universe (which isn't always the most fortuitous choice).
|
| # ? Mar 29, 2012 02:47 |
|
