Just thinking of a possible house rule

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
ghostrider
03/06/15 12:35 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well had a thought and instead of weight of mech, use the actual speed of it, since a slow moving mech is easier to control then a fast one.
Could also extend this to vehicles and definitely jumping and flying units, thought aerofighters have their own. I was thinking of lams.
though the psr penalties retry has seems solid.

Not sure if I mentioned it, but this could be applied to hover craft requiring a drive roll when the air skirt is hit. Anything from missing the next turn trying to recover on up to complete rolling of the hovercraft into a crash.

And as donkey said, it is house rules. Suggestions to try and make the game fun while trying to bring some things back into line.
Choose what sounds good, and even change it to fit better.
I don't think any of us are developers for the game. Non of this is official or cannon.
But who knows. Maybe they might get wind of some of it and think about it.
wolf_lord_30
03/11/15 09:36 AM
166.137.244.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Here is a house rule that was brought on by misreading the rules many years ago. Unless it was this was in the second edition rules, can anyone look that up for me?

Hatchet and club attacks use the punch hit location.
ghostrider
03/11/15 01:36 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I believe hatchets were not available in the original boxed set. But clubs were.
Interestingly it is missing from the original citytech. I can not find my original boxed set rule book at this time. Someone else might be able to check it out.

You use the kick location if the puncher is a level lower then the punchee.
Just as a kick uses the punch table if the kicker is a level above the kickee.
Pg 34 of the compendium
pg 44 of the master rules

and from what it looks like, they pulled the damage location table done by infantry when above or below a mech in a building.
wolf_lord_30
03/11/15 01:52 PM
166.137.244.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You're right hatchets, weren't in the original set. I was looking at the 4th edition rules and they had the rules for hatchets. I naively thought that since the rules were there for 4th edition, they would be there for the 2nd edition.
Anyways, like I said for the house rule, we always used the punch hit location for clubs and hatchets. We treated them basically like bigger punches. Very nasty way of smashing in someone's head. Maybe too mean, but it was fun bringing Berserkers and Axmen to the fight.
ghostrider
03/11/15 09:47 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A lot has changed. Some of it isn't funny at all. Others of it you wondered how they were printed.

For some reason, I always went with the club locations when using hatchets, ie the punch table. It just seemed like the description of mechs made it sound like limited range of movement, so basically you got to a certain point and the limits of movement were reached. Suddenly.
Since a club could extend the reach of a mech, it makes sense they could hit legs of another on level ground. Never thought about it until you said something.
I was thinking of suggesting that a physical weapon equipped unit be allowed an extra hex for a swing, but they are not the reach giving. 30 meters is just too much. But maybe an extra arc hex for hand held ones. You can twist the hand to use the shaft to extend the blade some more. Maybe have a penalty like breaking the actuator one an extremely bad or good roll.
Not a great suggestion, but a little something.
Akalabeth
03/11/15 10:58 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In the miniature rules, physical attacks have a 1" range but physical weapon attacks have a 2" range. Not sure if that's a house rule we use or in the rules themselves but think its the latter.
ghostrider
03/11/15 11:44 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I starting thinking of allowing it to rear in the rear arc with the wrist turn. Maybe lessen the damage as well as the possibility of blowing the hand actuator, but that is just a glimmer of a thought.

While talking about physical attacks with a weapon, do you stick with just one? or allow multiple shots, maybe base it on piloting skill roll?
Say something like (current skill)*3 rounded down to the next number. Or only letting it swing twice if you have a piloting skill of 0-3? One attack per target, must have multiple targets to attempt. Maybe use the ultra shots to see if you get a second chance?
Yes this is potentially unbalancing and dangerous when using units that use hatchets and such.
This would be for non clan warriors only, since they normally don't use hatchets and such, and would be highly dishonorable for them to consider it.
Could potentially say the swing is just continued from the first strike into a second unit.
Retry
03/11/15 11:48 PM
76.7.225.145

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Standard variety autocannons, which are fluffed as firing numerous shots at their opponents even in their larger varieties, do not do multiple to-hit rolls. I wouldn't believe that melee weapons would work differently.
ghostrider
03/12/15 01:34 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I believe there is one novel with Kai Liao on twicross using a hacthet man that gave the impression he was doing just that guarding the pass so the raiders were safe from the falcons. It is an impression.

And I was not suggesting hitting the same target but another one in range, like chaining together a martial arts attack. Also, if you really think about it, why would you be limited to one attack punching anyways? If mech movements are really that slow, then they should not be kings of the battlefields.
Some run over 100 kph. Yet they arms don't move that fast? Wouldn't they fall down the moment something happened like a wind shift? Only turning on pavement or special conditions affect them moving that fast, but yet the same conditions affect the one that tops out at 34 kph. Why does this sound screwed up?
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/12/15 02:47 PM
172.56.10.145

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
By the published rules you can do two punching attacks, one hatchet attack, or one kick.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
ghostrider
03/12/15 07:10 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
that is why it is here and not under canon rules

I understand why they limited the number of attacks for the hatchet and kicks.
Then again the original rules had nothing about a crawling mech but they used that in a scenario pack.
Same thing with firing off jets when not standing properly, but that we battle technology, not more canon material.

The lack of 2 attacks with a hatchet was done to prevent the dual hatchet wielding mechs from becoming an annoyance, but they didn't put as much thought into the pulse/targeting computer dilemma. Or a few other things.
ghostrider
03/31/15 03:01 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The stealth armor came up yet again.

I was thinking maybe in a very limited form, of allowing the light bending paint to perform something similar to this ability.
Maybe at a high cost, if you use costs in the game, of allowing it a benefit of adding a +1 penelty to the enemy to hit the unit at long range. Or maybe having that at medium range, and +2 for long. Input would be nice on this.

I am not seeing how just changing the formula of armor would make it harder to hit while still being as useful as normal armor. Yes it doesn't provide as much protection, but it isn't that much worse.
wolf_lord_30
05/29/15 11:15 AM
166.137.90.63

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
After seeing a couple posts of KJ's and others responding to his in d8 battletech, I thought of a possible house rule. Actually more like a change of pace. This actually first came up in my gaming group alot how to change initiative around to make the game flow faster.

Let me state right now, I like how battletech plays already and I'm not a huge fan of trying to change it. And I was influenced by the board game Doom. So somebody should try this out instead of me and tell me how it works.

Okay, so when you when initiative, you actually move first. You can shoot anywhere along your path at anytime. So a BattleMaster starts adjacent to a Dragon. He declared he is walking (for attacker firing penalty) and shots fired mgs and srm6 at point blank. Then he moves backwards 3 hexes and shoots his PPC. This is where record keeping becomes very important though.

If a mech had NOT moved this turn, you use their last turn's previous movement modifiers for the attacker to shoot at them. If they have moved already, use this turn's movement modifiers.

Physical attacks are also resolved during the mech's movement phase. Effectively,a turn is just each mech taking a complete turn in one step instead of having separate phases.

This is supposed to give battletech a more fluid feel and you can move to get out of LOS while blasting away with your own guns. I'm bout sure how this would really play and might change the game too much.
ghostrider
05/29/15 01:58 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It seems to be a good start, but there are some clarifications needed.
First thought is if the battlemaster blows off the dragons ac arm. Does that mean it can not use that cannon in that turn if it did not already go?
Same with ammunition explosions. You set it off next to the mech, since vehicle explosions do nothing to surrounding units, means you are caught in that explosion?
Which also asks, if you fall, and don't have the movement left to stand, that would mean you finish the turn on the ground?
Or even the unit that was attacked. I would assume they would have to get up before anything else.

But firing first before the others and having the effect go now instead of end of round does make it better to move first instead of waiting for the enemy to move so you can get an advantage on it.

As for being able to blast away then hide. Remember. The enemy can do the same. Though this does allow you to pop up, fire and get back into cover. It would add some excitement into the game.
wolf_lord_30
05/29/15 02:27 PM
166.137.90.63

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Since things move at a different pace, I would say the dragon is short on his ac if he gets fired on first. With ammo explosions, you're just out of luck. it sets it off right then and there. So if the mech hasn't moved, he's gone.

Movement is the same. If you don't have enough to stand, you don't have enough to stand. Just like it is with the regular rules.
ghostrider
05/29/15 03:54 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Had a follow up thought on this.
maybe add in the ability to delay your move if you have the initiative.
This would allow you to preempt someone else that is hiding behind a building, so when they step out, you could fire on them without their cover bonus. Limit it to like the first couple of units based on the size of the combatants.
Maybe even limit it to once a combat, or every so many rounds.
wolf_lord_30
05/29/15 04:24 PM
166.137.90.63

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Like overwatch? It's a good idea to me.
ghostrider
05/29/15 06:47 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I didn't know anyone else would know that term. Xcom or even ufo;enemy unknown for the old commadore system. But I guess that fits some. I was thinking a little more specific, like one unit you are watching, not just anything that moves.
But that works.

That is really going to make a few people mad. Think they will run behind a unit only to find they fall just as they move out.


Edited by ghostrider (05/30/15 10:28 AM)
ghostrider
09/04/15 11:31 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Conversation in another thread talking about bracket fire and why people don't do that.
The idea of using a ppc at range 3 because of damage verse using mls came to mind, and the idea of a single hex, going to 4 would mean the ppc is far better then the ml since it is in short while the ml is in medium.

This is kind of stupid if you think about it. The medium lasers were supposed to be the weapons to use once getting in close like that, but the shear fact the numbers show otherwise. Most would fire both if they were not redlined to start the round.

Maybe the range catagories might need tweaking. Say change short range to a range of 5, medium to 10, with long being 15, and maybe adding extreme to anything beyond 20.
So a medium laser would have a max range of 9, but their longest bracket is medium range. Yes, it would make some weapons worse, such as the gauss and erl weapons, and improve others like the flamer and mg, since their max would be considered short.
It is a thought. Input would be nice.

Even if it is to curse me out for a stupid idea like this
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
09/05/15 07:03 AM
71.170.162.49

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Even if it is to curse me out for a stupid idea like this



Well considering (A) curse words are blocked by software and (B) personal attacks will get one banded, I don't see that happening.

Quote:
Conversation in another thread talking about bracket fire and why people don't do that.
The idea of using a ppc at range 3 because of damage verse using mls came to mind, and the idea of a single hex, going to 4 would mean the ppc is far better then the ml since it is in short while the ml is in medium.

This is kind of stupid if you think about it. The medium lasers were supposed to be the weapons to use once getting in close like that, but the shear fact the numbers show otherwise. Most would fire both if they were not redlined to start the round.

Maybe the range catagories might need tweaking. Say change short range to a range of 5, medium to 10, with long being 15, and maybe adding extreme to anything beyond 20.
So a medium laser would have a max range of 9, but their longest bracket is medium range. Yes, it would make some weapons worse, such as the gauss and erl weapons, and improve others like the flamer and mg, since their max would be considered short.
It is a thought. Input would be nice.



I happen to agree with you but its not happening at least for the board and roll playing game. As for computer games that might be standard because its most likely easier to program the game that way.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
ghostrider
09/09/15 06:12 PM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would still like input with the range change concept, but another thought came to mind.
Jump jets.
The entire concept of them and how they are used, really makes me wonder if they could be used as often as you want. The jump packs for landing non jet mechs have fuel reserves, but yet normal mech jets don't have any such limit.
In a vacuum they are supposed to use small amounts of mercury, if I recall. And in normal environments, they supposedly use super heated air passed over the reactor, yet it heats up the mech to use them, not cools it down.
And yet there is no maximum to using them.
Something for nothing comes to mind here.
I would suggest limiting the amount of times they can be used like fuel in a fighter. That would change alot of how they are used.
ghostrider
12/04/15 02:15 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The idea of changing the size of map hexes came up in the design of a weapon.
I don't think the map hex size should be change so much as the actual distances of the weapons ranges needs to be seriously looked at.
Yes I know that would destroy most physical mechs from being a large factor in the game, such as the axeman or hatchetman.

But with the speeds of the projectiles and frankly the power of lasers and such, ranges of under 1 kilometer are redaculous to the extreme. Even the weapons of wwI had better ranges and hitting abilities then alot of the weapons in the game.
And that doesn't even begin to question why the weapons firing in space using the same ammo moves that much faster since the range on world is soo much closer.

Is there a need to actually change the ranges to make it more realistic?
Of would it be that difficult to play if a laser has horizon as the limits of it?
We discussed a little about dropping the weights of cannons and such to help make them more worthy on the battle field as ammo dependent weapons are horrible in most cases, but a few are used such as gauss and lrms.
ghostrider
03/03/16 12:02 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I know some won't like this, but balance may be what is keeping the game back in some respects. Maybe it is time to allow things to move beyond the medium ranges of 6 to 16 hexes. Maybe 16 hexes should be short range. Yes, it will make physical attacks obsolete, but it would open up alot more reality into the game. Extending the range then can hit at, does not mean they hit better.
Thinking about it, almost all weapons are less then a kilometer, and that is a little over half a mile. So a gauss slug would not be effective past a half mile?
The tank cannons today shoot further, and they are supposed to be the equivalent of the ac5/ac10?
75 mm bore was supposed to be equal to one of those, though I would have to look up which one.
Akalabeth
03/03/16 10:46 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think you're playing the wrong game if you're looking for realism.

Balance IS keeping the game back in the sense that all new technologies are created to be roughly balanced with 3050 tech. New weapons have trade offs that prevent them being much more effective than their predecessors. It's not really a philosophy I agree with because I feel it creates a stagnant universe, but it seems to be working for most Battletech players
ghostrider
04/02/16 11:25 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The idea of using endosteel and double heat sinks was going thru my mind, and a possible solution came to mind.

Would it be worth using both in vehicles if the reduced the amount of weapons and such a vehicle could carry?
The extra space taken by them could cover this reduction if pressed.

Such as 2 double heat sinks would reduce the equipment carried by 1.
The endosteel I don't have any suggestions to how much it would reduce things, but then only the larger units would suffer from it, and benefit from it at the same time.
Akalabeth
04/03/16 05:00 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Even a 35 ton vehicle can carry 12 items. Having endo&dhs cost items wouldn't be much of a restriction at all.

A 50 ton clan-hover tank with 2 turret mounted ER PPCs, moving 8/12 with 10.5 tons of armour (40/34/20/40turret) would under your suggestion still have 5-6 unused spaces if it had 15 DHS & a fusion engine.
Karagin
04/03/16 05:36 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Question becomes would the DHS on a vehicle be able to be stuffed into the engine i.e. like on a mech where after the first 10 DHS that come with the engine, see that is the flaw in FASA/WK/CGL's argument against vehicles have these since vehicles use the same types of fusion engines that mechs do, are the other ones going to show up as per the normal rules for fusion engines and heat sinks, be them double or single? Or is there something else at work here?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/04/16 12:36 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't see an issue with the engine hiding the sinks up to the limit. This would apply to extra or ICE units. But that would be up to the people playing.

As for the people defending the inability of vehicles using them, ask them how a half ton engine supplies 10 tons of heat sinks free. I suspect a ban from the board as they will hate to answer that. The smaller engines don't hide the criticals so that is another hole in the argument.

As for using them, it was something that came to me as I was doing things. They want to limit them, it's there game. I figured it might give some here an idea to use them with some limits.

And now that does bring up another question. If an engine can only hide x amount of heat sinks, does that mean double sinks would cause it to hide less?
Ie clan half, while IS 1/3rd?

Or is my math off with space taken in the engine compartment?

Honestly, I don't see why double sinks wouldn't work in a vehicle, if they are all hidden by the engine. I don't agree with it, but I could see issues with those outside the engine set up. They have always suggested fusion engine being salvaged from vehicles. So that kind of makes it sound like it is the same thing.


Edited by ghostrider (04/04/16 12:43 AM)
Akalabeth
04/04/16 02:26 AM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So when are you guys going to start arguing that vehicles should need heatsinks for ballistic & missile weaponry?
I mean fair's fair right. If vehicles should get double heat sinks, because logic, then logic also dictates that their non-energy weapons should generate their regular heat.

Furthermore when are vehicles going to start paying for crew? I mean a battlemech pays 3 tons to have one guy. But a 100 ton assault tank pays 5 tons to have 7 crew? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Also shouldn't conventional vehicles need to track fuel? If a conventional fighter has to pay tonnage for fuel, then shouldn't an ICE-powered vehicle do the same?
ghostrider
04/04/16 03:51 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I want to say it was suggested that those weapons heat up tanks, and I will add it should put it back on an even footing.
Those weapons should heat up tanks or not heat mechs. That is where alot of the issues with this started.

But then it looks like they thought tanks would be munitions dependent as the original release had fusion engines in mechs almost exclusively. It is the fact lasers seem to be the most efficient weapon out there, as you run out of ammo and the things the use it are heavier then needed.

As for the crew quarters. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is the same as ship crew quarters. They are sealed environments. A tank pays to have it sealed up for hazardous environments, where the mech doesn't. I can be dropped or work under water without having to be sealed like a vehicle does. Also, I would think part of the cockpit in a mech has to deal with the way things move including the neural helm computer.

I know there is somewhere on the board, but I can't find it now, someone did say they put a fuel limit on vehicles. I want to say 1000 divided by engine size determined that. I think the example was a 250 rated engie ran 4 turns on a ton of fuel, but not sure. Not sure if that was a house rule, or something else. But there should be a fuel tank added with ICE, including industrial mechs.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
Extra information
2 registered and 70 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 31630


Contact Admins Sarna.net