|
The Merry Marauder posted:I mean, sure, if an IS Pack Hunter and a hideously expensive pile of Level 3 Tech get you off, go nuts! Well, she WAS the best until the New 52 happened, but I digress...
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 23, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:I mean, sure, if an IS Pack Hunter and a hideously expensive pile of Level 3 Tech get you off, go nuts! I'd take a Blitzkrieg-4F over an actual Pack Hunter, since the Blitz has a C3 slave. Plus Clantech is for bad players.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
So, no problems with the order deadlines then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
Not from the watching side of things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:08
|
|
+ 
= 
|
PoptartsNinja posted:So, no problems with the order deadlines then? Fine with me. Are you waiting on any orders now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:Are you waiting on any orders now? I've received 5/8
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:I've received 5/8 That's a good movement rate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:That's a good movement rate. 5/8/8 80 tonner  Pulse loadout.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:5/8/8 It'd be better if you used Partial Wing + IJJs to move 4/6/7. That way you can carry a ludicrous ton of weapons and fly around like a light mech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
MJ12 posted:It'd be better if you used Partial Wing + IJJs to move 4/6/7. That way you can carry a ludicrous ton of weapons and fly around like a light mech. Not the first time I've seen someone fly around in a LTH-3R Literally Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Defiance Industries posted:Not the first time I've seen someone fly around in a LTH-3R Literally Hitler. Nobody has come to your LGS with their lovingly painted LAH miniatures yet so be glad. Appropriately enough, nothing but Clan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
KnoxZone posted:It is such a bittersweet moment when you catch a near pristine foe in the open with no move mod, focus an entire company worth of fire on him, and the very first shot from your Barghest blows off his head. Don't forget that PTN has been extra-nice and let players call contingency targets even for plain-old overkill on the initial focus! Always have a backup plan for if your first target turns out to be out of LOS or happens to die before it's your turn to shoot it, and remember to specify your melee attacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
I can't help but think my repeated weather freakouts during Hogarth helped contribute to this new deadline rule  Sorry again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
No, the new deadline rule exists because I want to do two updates a week instead of what's happening now (it's been what, eight days since my last update due to my schedule shifting thanks to the labor-day holiday?). It has nothing to do with any individual players. Also unrelated to any individual players: I'm thinking about a new house rule because I want to keep using tanks but they're absolutely hosed due to the "I always lose initiative" rule. The moment someone does the smart thing and stands on them, all non-hover vehicles become write-offs I'm better off suiciding directly into the other players rather than using as any part of a real strategy. I'm thinking about a new House Rule to give tanks under my control (possibly only ones with turrets and almost certainly not including fast hovers) a reactionary attack (possibly with a +1 or +2 to-hit penalty for firing out of the proper sequence) with one turret-mounted weapon on the turn an enemy unit tries to occupy the same hex. That at least makes the "go stand on tank" strategy a little more dangerous, since currently they're completely screwed by the tactic. I want to use tanks more, but right now they're just such a huge liability to the opforce that either I have to ignore them completely when I'm considering mission balance (which could drastically turn the odds in my advantage) or not take them at all. Even if I do go with this house rule, like the deadline change, it'd also only be valid after this battle. So players; no need to change any of your plans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
How about giving them an M-pod, or an A- or B-pod that works on 'mechs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
I'd have to redesign every vehicle to account for the tonnage; It's this or forcing a piloting test with a +2 or so penalty due to trying to occupy the same space as a big, heavy, maneuvering object. Of course, that piloting test would go away if the tank were immobilized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:I'd have to redesign every vehicle to account for the tonnage; It's this or forcing a piloting test with a +2 or so penalty due to trying to occupy the same space as a big, heavy, maneuvering object. Of course, that piloting test would go away if the tank were immobilized. So, kinda-sorta adapting the DFA rules to stepping on tanks? I'd be okay with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
My policy has always been "there's a reason tanks come two to a pack;" shoot the guy standing on your buddy and vice versa. Just one solution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:I want to use tanks more, but right now they're just such a huge liability to the opforce that either I have to ignore them completely when I'm considering mission balance (which could drastically turn the odds in my advantage) or not take them at all. Even if I do go with this house rule, like the deadline change, it'd also only be valid after this battle. So players; no need to change any of your plans. At least with the lighter tanks and hovertanks, I think you'd be justified in calling them Agile and letting them move after the players do. To differentiate from Ace, maybe limit them to one or two hexes worth of movement after players go with the remainder taken prior to player movement as it is now. That would make standing on tanks extremely undesirable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Wait, you're allowed to occupy the same hex as a tank? Why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
The problem with "bringing more tanks" is that it requires me to throw any actual mission balance out the window. I could just discount tanks entirely; either by not bringing them into serious fights (which I don't like) or by balancing missions around `Mech forces and tacking the tanks on after (which I also don't like). It would be different if they had a chance to drive away; but unless I give them all some variant of ACE (which is another option I don't like) that's not an option I have available to me.TildeATH posted:Wait, you're allowed to occupy the same hex as a tank? Why? Hexes are 30 meters in size. `Mechs and Tanks are not, and a tank can't push or punch you to keep you at bay. This, coupled with the rule that says ranged weapons can't be fired on targets in the same hex means that a vehicle in the same hex as an enemy `Mech is utterly screwed. They're also screwed by infantry for the same reason; but I'm OK with that since infantry are almost always slower then tanks. PoptartsNinja fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Sep 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Fair enough. Do you feel "no weapon attacks at Range 0" is a sacred cow, or is there an argument for ignoring it entirely? e: And I didn't mean "bring more tanks," so much as "ensure you have a buddy system." The Merry Marauder fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Sep 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Infantry are completely hosed if they can be shot at by enemies occupying the same hex. They're already limited enough that I don't want to penalize them further. The trick to my reactive weapon rule is that if the tank does use it, the turret has to point the direction the attacking `Mech came from which could very well spoil its other shots. It gives me an option with an honest trade-off (do I take the shot or hope someone else moves somewhere I can exploit) rather than simply giving the players an always-on penalty (the piloting test), making missions outright harder, or letting me fire everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Um.... this wouldn't really work for helping you use tanks as much, but maybe start having more player controlled vehicle forces? Also, have people been going for stepping on tanks a lot? I don't recall it happening all that often. What about using a buddy system of having one of your own mechs in the same hex as your vees? Then players wouldn't be able to enter that hex. Either way I would encourage more player controlled vehicle scenarios and vehicle centric forces in general. I just love me some tanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:Hexes are 30 meters in size. `Mechs and Tanks are not, and a tank can't push or punch you to keep you at bay. This, coupled with the rule that says ranged weapons can't be fired on targets in the same hex means that a vehicle in the same hex as an enemy `Mech is utterly screwed. They're also screwed by infantry for the same reason; but I'm OK with that since infantry are almost always slower then tanks. Since this whole LP breaks one of the cardinal mechanics of BattleTech (individual initiative) what's the big deal about saying mechs can't enter vehicle hexes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Perhaps instead of a free shot, if a mech were to stand on a tank that tank could automatically enjoy ace initiative the following turn?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:Infantry are completely hosed if they can be shot at by enemies occupying the same hex. They're already limited enough that I don't want to penalize them further. What about just ruling that you can't shoot at something in the same hex if it's smaller than the shooter? Tanks could shoot at 'Mechs in the same hex, but not infantry. "Mechs can't shoot at anything in their hex. Infantry can always shoot at everything in their hex.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Why not just let tanks shoot at mechs in their hex? It seems like a bone-simple, easy to understand fix for what is basically just an exploit in the modified initiative rules. I'd personally love to see tanks come back. The mixed composition scenarios have been some of my favorites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Honestly what is the "ranged weapons can't be fired on targets in the same hex" rule intended to do in straight Mech vs Mech combat? Whatever the intention it can't have anything to do with tanks, really, so why not just break it? Just letting tanks shoot at anyone within their hex as if they were 1 hex away makes sense to me from my limited knowledge. To my mind if a Mech is planting its crotch directly in front of a turret shouldn't that make it easier to hit them with most weapons?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
I am all for you doing something to make tanks a bit less of a joke. A shame your proposed rule does nothing for fast hovers with no turrets, which are the single most annoying little shits in normal tabletop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Trundel posted:Honestly what is the "ranged weapons can't be fired on targets in the same hex" rule intended to do in straight Mech vs Mech combat? Whatever the intention it can't have anything to do with tanks, really, so why not just break it? It does nothing in straight mech vs mech combat, because two mechs cannot occupy the same hex. It exists only in the context of combined arms combat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Defiance Industries posted:It does nothing in straight mech vs mech combat, because two mechs cannot occupy the same hex. It exists only in the context of combined arms combat. So basically the only reason it exists is to make giant robots more awesome and vehicles and infantry worse against giant robots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
W.T. Fits posted:So basically the only reason it exists is to make giant robots more awesome and vehicles and infantry worse against giant robots. I'd like if we could see a different attitude with the new line developer, since Herb was very adamant that nothing was allowed to eclipse the Mech in importance (hence why he basically wiped WarShip combat from the universe going forward) but I'm skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Defiance Industries posted:I'd like if we could see a different attitude with the new line developer, since Herb was very adamant that nothing was allowed to eclipse the Mech in importance (hence why he basically wiped WarShip combat from the universe going forward) but I'm skeptical. You're allowed to ignore stupid rules in a game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Yeah, but the rules are symptomatic of a larger problem of perception, which is what I'd really like to see changed. Hence my use of the word attitude, rather than rule.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Still, in the context of this Let's Play, if there's a rule that does literally nothing for the game but gently caress tanks over then why not just axe the rule? It will make things a lot easier on the learning BT players than trying to figure out what that enemy tank might or might not do if they move into a certain arc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
W.T. Fits posted:So basically the only reason it exists is to make giant robots more awesome and vehicles and infantry worse against giant robots. It's sorta half-and-half. It's there to protect infantry, but it also means tanks have no recourse since they can't perform melee attacks. It's also a safeguard, because it keeps some rear end in a top hat from parking an Alacorn and a Demolisher in the same hex and making an unapproachable death bunker. If you can get a Locust into that death bunker it can slowly kick both tanks to death. That's not really a tactic I'd ever use in the LP, but it would be effective if there was no recourse but to sit a hex away and let the Demolisher AC/20 you to death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
That's the part I don't get - next turn , the Demolisher backs up three, and since the Locust ain't gonna move if it wants to kick, the Alacorn will be picking bits of Locust shell out of its tracks for days while drinking freshly-opened Pharoah beer. (or, I guess, the Alacorn shoots the Locust off the Demolisher, either way)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:That's the part I don't get - next turn , the Demolisher backs up three, and since the Locust ain't gonna move if it wants to kick, the Alacorn will be picking bits of Locust shell out of its tracks for days while drinking freshly-opened Pharoah beer. Or, the Locust bugs out (which it should be doing anyway), leaving the Demolisher out of position so that something heavier can put real pressure on the Alacorn. In the mean time, the Locust still got a free kick (and potential crit) on one of the tanks the turn it entered the hex. Of course, if both tanks back up then the Locust can just pop a proverbial squat right on top of them again. In a scenario when the Locust can't get into the same hex, it stops short and very probably the Demolisher blows it apart. It's not a rule I feel strongly about either way, but it's already caused me problems (and it's going to cause more). Another solution is, of course, to give Tanks a little more respect and just count them as little legless `Mechs. That'd mean one tank per hex, friendly `Mechs can't occupy the same hex as a tank, and that enemy units can't just dance on them. That'd work for players too, come to think of it. I may very well go with that. Edit: And that's the real concern. I don't like giving myself an advantage that the players can't match. PoptartsNinja fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Sep 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 23, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:Or, the Locust bugs out (which it should be doing anyway), leaving the Demolisher out of position so that something heavier can put real pressure on the Alacorn. In the mean time, the Locust still got a free kick (and potential crit) on one of the tanks the turn it entered the hex. Of course, if both tanks back up then the Locust can just pop a proverbial squat right on top of them again. This is why everyone should use individual initiative. PoptartsNinja posted:It's not a rule I feel strongly about either way, but it's already caused me problems (and it's going to cause more). Well, talking about it kills time until you get orders in. PoptartsNinja posted:Another solution is, of course, to give Tanks a little more respect and just count them as little legless `Mechs. That'd mean one tank per hex, friendly `Mechs can't occupy the same hex as a tank, and that enemy units can't just dance on them. That'd work for players too, come to think of it. I may very well go with that. Sold.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 22:56
|
|