Ok, armor piercing is supposed to be powerful. It is supposed to simply shread through defensive equipment... Now, this is a highlander saying this...

Charging can stay the way it is. It's the only way to handle 16" shooters.

Tank dropping... I have a solution somewhere on this site... hang on...
http://www.mwrealms.com/forum/showth...247#post437247

Your solution is unfair to infantry, perhaps.

I do love the arty thing though. Maybe they should keep the +4 with open LOS, but I love the 'must beat defense value' thing.

hmmm, hth beats agility, ####, my kodiac would become USEFUL! It could be good, could be bad

Vehicles ignoring min range for things in base contact... not even mechs can do that ( cannot do ballistic attacks with min range 3, etc), I think vechicles are powerful enough, allright.

I like the rules.

Now, stupid question time.

How does an artillery attack that drifts still manage to do AP damage to a target within the blast radius?

Especially in the case of an Arrow IV. The missile missed didn't it?

So I would submit that if an AP artillery attack doesn't hit a units base AP doesn't come into play. Damage would be dealt normally to units in the blast radius minus the AP.

Just a thought, I hadn't seen it posted anywhere yet.

Plausible? Sensible? Stupid?

@ arch...

AP is still powerful without negating decoy too.

This ruleset doesnt do anything to infantrydrop. Infantrydrop is strong, but not quite broken (although the SSTACdrop toes the line).

Mechs can still attack units inside their minimum range in melee. They do their primary weapon's damage value.

@ LeTigre...

I think AP is supposed to represent shaped-charge submunitions.

I would like to see a self-destruct roll available to mechs, as soon as the mech is captured the former owner can declare a self destruct, and on a die roll of 6 on a single dice (or a crit hit on 3 die, something that makes it kind of tough), the mech is destroyed, the capturing player gets points for the destroyed mech, and it is totaly out of the game. no damage to the capturing unit, as any self respecting BT fan would know, the total destruction of a mech is not an accepted thing to do, it can be repaired after the battle, by the winner of the battle.

I would like to see anti-p work in arty attacks, it seems more realistic than AP over a large area.

it is about time that a "towed" vehicle can be targeted.

AA should not work on VTOLs at NOE.

any mech that can pay the 12 movement points should be able to do what VTOLs do and move and shoot, with an addition of a modifier to make it harder to hit the target. Ex: a mech that has a movement of 7 can run 14" in a run, that means it can move 2" (I know, 2" does not sound like a lot, but I sure wish I have had it in the past) take a heat for the run, and the target of the attack has +2 to its defence. or even a mech can move half of its base movement takes a heat, and the target gets a +2 modifer to its defence. either one might be fun.

spoter units should not be able to do an action that turn, other than spotting, it takes an order, but no token. and the spoter gives +4. arty LOS is only +2

capturing units should be targets of ranged weapon attack, unless it has captured infantry, with a modifer to its defence, and if you miss, half of the damage from the firing unit, is transfered into the captured unit (armor helps aginst this). it is not like you are firing into close combat. I mean why can I target a unit next to a building, but can not target that unit when it is next to a captured unit. (I know, this one is stupid, but I hate capturing units ;) )

I know I had some more stupid ideas, but my brain has shut down, maybe that is why these that I came up with are so silly. :ermm:

over all I like the rules that have been listed, I hope to give them a try soon. something has got to be done to put the "mech" back into Mechwarrior. :cool:

There's a marked difference between reasonable expectations towards rules changes and "I wanna make this my game since I'm too lame to actually do anything as creative as design a game myself so I'll just whine about this one instead".

If you are actually intimidated by the thought of "dozens" of infiltrating DF SM1's pre-immunity/infiltration errata, you are a subpar player, sir.

How many of the thousands of cards in magic are playable? A hundredth? Maybe? I don't think you have any leg to stand on. Sure sure, argue away that "Mechwarrior is more expensive so my piece had better be playable, dammit!" Who cares? Don't like it? Complain a bit. I'll listen and pretend I care. Then quit the game before your complaining gets tiresome.

Actually, Axis and Allies isn't a bad game. And it still sells well locally. As far as your "guaranteed" Allies win, I don't know about that. It is still a game based on die rolls and I'll be happy to take 1,000,000-1 odds on being able to beat you since you're "guaranteed" a win.

People have some sort of sick obsession with parity. Parity does not exist in this world and for some reason, many of us want it to exist in our fantasy realms. L5R is currently one of the most one sided deals in the gaming community and it is also referred to as the chess of ccg's (Anyone notice how many tournaments Lion have been winning)? Before I fall into the naturalistic fallacy, there's no evidence to support the reverse either, something many of you don't seem to understand.



It might be a cheap way to bust you, but my work is done. If any of your players saw you post in response to me and you lied... well, you'll have to deal with that in your own community. :) I hope you aren't lying. I also hope you're not stupid enough to run non-standard rules if you are a BM.

As far as your rules set goes, I think it stresses mechs way, way too much. I think it will be popular with the "Mechs must rule" crowd though.

I can say I like every of this rules... except the Minimum Range Tanks. This rule "might" make big tanks a little bit too strong.

There should be a penalty to hit because you fire weapons into ranges they were not intended to be used, just like in CBT when you get a penalty if you fire LRM's or normal PPC's at targets below their minimum range.

I'd suggest getting a -2 to hit for a minimum range of 3 or more, and a -1 to hit for a minimum range of 2 or less.

A damage reduction is a bad idea IMO because it would strongly favor units with hardened armor.

....

Or, you COULD dump the whole thing and give EVERY unit the possibility to fire below its minumum range and say, 1.5 times beyond its maximum range using the normal indirect shot rules.

RE: "Why play a tank"

I missed the firing inside min-range rule on the first read through. That pretty much compensates for anything with 360 arc and the rest can formation move with RA protection. Good 'nuff.

RE: Fatties

I played DA and agree there was little problem dealing with fatties there. However, in the current environment you get a lot more support. Caden Senn was the best camper at 3/300 because he could bring enough support to base formations for a while. Under your new rules at 3/450 you've got 150-200 points of support for even the biggest mechs. You can ruin formation shots for 60 minutes pretty easily with that much stuff making DA-style anti-fatty techniques less effective.

But it really was a question, not some "you're acting f00l!" kind of thing. I'm curious whether you're seeing a trend toward big mechs winning since you've been playing this format for a while. (Apparently.)

Nice rules. Me likey.

And Wonderbread, if you are shocked by the rules, don't post. 7 warnings.......... I'd watch my hands if I were you.

Just another interesting idea appeared in this thread... I like the idea of giving units who base a tank with a minimum range a defense bonus equal to the minimum range. That way the based tank at least isn't totally useless, without completely ignoring the handicap of a minimum range.

Yup, that min range vehicle shot defensive bonus thingy is an act of pure beauty. Very easy to remember, very easy to play, nicely deals with nastier basing issues...
I might even go so far as to suggest a damage cap for the same rule, like indirect fire, say max damage 2. Also, why not make it generic rather than not mechs - I know you said mechs can hit in HTH, but it nicely reduces Agility to an anti-special rule role, which IMHO is no bad thing.
Artillery is neutered quite heftily, here - to be honest I've always liked the "ignore defense value" way of working. The thing that has always caused me probs is the ability to lay down multiple pogs for one order, and the hell that pays with shutdownable mechs.
Shouldn't faster mechs and units have a better chance of avoiding arty? A shot in the dark here, but wouldn't it be better to modify the attack score by the target's speed, or something similar? Otherwise it just feels like a WH40K burst circle attack. Also, nominating a unit as "spotter", costing it an extra order - I've suggested this before, and still feel it would keep artillery deadly, but not essential. If the shot hits, it should hurt, but it should be generally more tactical and difficult to land that barrage on target. The rule suggested at the beginning of this thread is a tad too fatty friendly for my tastes...
Other than that, kudos to Warflail for creating a thread with such an upbeat, positive outlook on a topic of some,... toasty debate???? :)

Oh no, my reputation will be ruined! Heh. ;)


Remember that some tanks has as much as a 4" minimum range. +4 to a targets defense means even a 17 defense infantry is going to have a 21 defense. A Highlander Hoverbike would have an effective 23 defense against such a tank. Do we want it that high?

Hey War...I have not read all your stuff here but what we have done to help minimum range units is to treat those attacks as Indirect Fire. It works well enough.

i think these rules are just what the game needs. played them last night at my venue and everyone really liked them. the only thing though i i would like to see no special equipment used on arty. ever since the rule came out that you couldnt use AnP on an arty attack, we havent used AP either. this has balanced arty more than enough. but i would still love to see warflail's rules become a reality (dreams).

Wonderbread: L5R's designers are not afraid of fixing problems with a scalpel, chisel, sledgehammer, or bazooka.

Lion was dominant in early diamond: Design then nerfed Kyuden Ikoma and Akodo Rokuro.

They can't errata combat dials unless they were initially misprinted. There's *no* inclination toward factional balance in MWDA. L5R is like the "chess" of CCGs, but that's because there's continuous, conscious effort to balance it.

The mantra of L5R's Diamond Edition design was "zero coasters". In MWDA, wheat-to-chaff ratio for pieces is horrific under the current rules, because WizKids is so slow to change, playtest, or take any action to rectify it.

Out of like the 800 cards in Diamond, among all clans and decktypes there's probably almost 200 of them used. (Might be more.) 25% is a heck of a lot better than the 2-3% for MW.

kinra> Lion got toned down because of Kyuden Ikoma and Akodo Rokuro? That's like saying Charge is now fixed.

Also, notice strategic crossroads and barren fields on the watch list. Both can still screw over an opponent if you're playing a lion blitz deck and they don't need to use either ikoma or rokuro to do so. As it stands now, Lion will dominate the koteis still, crane honor runners or not.

But that's just my opinion.