i agree mostly of what is said here. stats in general, and attack ratings in particular, of mechs go down too fast that who ever got hit first will surely lose the game as he will never be able - or rather very unlikely - to hit back his opponent. this is one very big problem with mechs currently. attack ratings should be more stable for the next 4-5 clicks or so as damaging a mech doesnt really much affects the gunnery skill of the pilot as the first few hits would only chunk at the mech's armor. this is what made mechs risky to play. with just a few hits their stats go down like other figs half of what they are pts to. here's just one example of that. give me a mech that after a 5AP hit from a tankdroped di schmidtt will still be able to be played effectively. this is what made everbody cried FOUL on the di schmidtt tankdrops. a 125pt combo with a range of 22" can reduce a 200+ pt mech - whos suppose to be the king of the battlefield - into a walking target that will be no better than to kill a few little guys thats worth not a 10th of its pt cost.

another issue is the movement vs range that has led to charge abuse. since when does a mech can walk farther than the range of its weapons, say a PPC? the increase of movements have really gone out of hand with arnis having a 12" evade and mavis at 14. since charge relies heavily to a mechs running range then this also brings charging very much out of hand as well as they both can practically reach anything they want on the field with little threat or counter. range should have always been the means of combat in mechwarrior but it escapes me why they have made movements longer than range could ever reach. miguel v's packhunter can charge twice a far as his PPCs so whats the use of mounting them in the first place? by charging i can penetrate armor and do 1 more damage than my PPC...
i do like the idea of charging on those in your front arc coz its kinda stupid to charge something from behind you and that you have really no idea of where you will be charging into.

we have to take these problems very seriously if we want the game that we love to have longevity. coz the current problem corelates with one another and really disrupts the current gaming environment.

One idea that was brought up once kind of addressed this.

Simulataneous damage. Player one takes his turn .. does his thing .. deals his damage to player two ... etc. BUT. The damage that is dealt to Player 2's units is marked on each unit with damage counters. Player 2 then takes his turn and does his thing and any damage he does is again in the form of damage counters. At the end of player 2's turn all units for both players who took damage then click their units down. This potentially gets rid of the first-to-damage-wins syndrome. I haven't done any research on it to investigate the downsides however. Would anyone be willing to test it?

If you think through that, you realize what happens. Longer range becomes king again just like in the original DA rules. Player 2 places 14" range unit is placed exactly that distance from a 12" range unit.

Player 1 can now charge, retreat, or reposition in range. Case 1 Player 2 gets to shoot back before the charge damage is applied. Case 2 Player 2 just repositions back at 14" and you repeat the process until a heat dial fails, Case 3 Player 2 applies damage before Player 1 has the chance to attack.

The units that can do so, shouldn't be able to leave the DZ..

As in WH 40K the units that have infiltrating get deployed last. But must be placed in the DZ not half way across the board.

I know WK wants to sell more product. Something I've noticed discouraging new players from buying product is rules that don't make sense. These come in a separate category from the 'balance' issues. Some of these things we take for granted as veteran players and just say "that's the way it is."

Now put yourself in the shoes of a new person who likes how MW looks and has a wallet full of money. They play their first game.

Frequent questions I hear from new players:
1) "Why can this little peasant keep my assault mech from shooting?"
2) "So you mean the tank just teleports on to the battlefield from out of nowhere? I thought it was being -towed- by this transport, not held inside it. There is no room to fit this thing in the transport!"
3) "Why does my mech have to break away from infantry that doesn't have grapple?"
4) "Why can his mech charge me from well out of my range and even though I can see him coming at me a mile away I can't shoot at him first? Do I just have to sit her and let him slam into me?"

The majority of the time (70-80%) the players who ask these reasonable questions do not continue to play the game or buy product.

Thanks for the thread!

The four issues WarFlail and others have highlighted are bang on. But you lot knew that already, didn't you...? :noid:

What draws my attention is the issue of damage allocation - having heard the arguements for simultaneous damage (NOOO! :eek: ) and removing COW Drop (:)), I'm baffled by the problem presented here in...

Take the example of two large tanks squaring off - Tank A lands a hit on B and puts a sizable dent in it, resulting in a radical drop in Tank B's damage and attack. Doesn't take a genius to see the problem...

Ah, but compare this with similar game systems - WH40K is a prime example - where turn by turn is still used and you can end up with droves of units biting the dust on turn one, while a good commander can still pull victory from defeat.

So why does it work here and not in our beloved Mechwarrior? Simple - look at the relative amounts of miniatures on the table - The most expensive (point wise) unit you are likely to see is either a large tank or Command squad at barely 30% of the average gaming total. This means you have sufficient firepower to retaliate with.

Maybe the problem here is actually with the MW Order mechanic - the ability to place your shots depending on what your army has just done is mightily powerful. Maybe TOO powerful...

Example: Tank A and B are firing on Z and Y. Tank A shoots at Z and damages it. B decides to thump home the advantage and also scores a hit - dead Z. Y is now left alone to the predations of A and B, both still at full strength.

Counter example: Tank A and B shoot at Z and Y. They elect to shoot at the both targets, A hits but B misses. Now, Z and Y retaliate, but at the same target. Z hits A, as does Y, thanks to the lowered defense. A bites the dust leaving B with a full strength opponent and one at half strength.

Mathematicians among you may notice that it is possible for this to happen either way with the same dice rolls each time.

What if vehicles and infantry had to declare orders and actions (including defense scores on targets) BEFORE resolving them, where as mechs could wait and see? Just a thought, but how would this address some of the existing issues?

Hypothetically, even though A and B still get to shoot before Z and Y, the second tank to shoot would never receive a bonus due to his pal landing a blow first. It doesn't feel perfect, but it's worth chewing over. Comments?

;)

Oh, COW stands for "Can OF Whup###" :)

And I'd love to know the origins of the term "Chargemonkeytude"???!!! :confused:

I got the same idea of orders being declared before any resolve about halfway through your post.

I think it'd be great, and they should do it; there'd be very little errata necessary.

My 2 cents.

First, I am a DF player, and never really play Tank Drop. While it can be effective, as most people have noted, that is one strategy that can normally be countered. I do not consider it a problem as compared to some others. Also, it is not strictly a DF concept, as I encountered an interesting SSw J-37/Behemoth Tank Drop in Faction Wars.

However, I do think the flexibility of VTOLs in multi-tasking (I mean this by move-shoot and not being based) and their relatively cheap costs along with high attacks make them the best unit in the game. They may have shallow dials, but you can field 3 of them for most mechs, so you will have your multiple attacks against them, ability to move into rear arcs, etc. Either they should be made more expensive, have more AA pieces in play to counter these, or lower their attacks/damage.

Artillery is also a big problem, as many have noted the decreasing point costs but increasing damage and targets. As pointed out earlier, the original artillery added an element to the game in FFE, but then Wizkids thought movement was not needed and made them far cheaper. Now, artillery is carried around by J-37s and repaired by them too. You literally must break both the J-37 and the arty piece to render it ineffective.

Capturing is also still a problem, since hail mary captures are a ridiculous concept, as in, "My peasants attempt to capture your Atlas in the last minute. Oh look, Critical Hit, I win!" I can accept the capturing roll, but remove the critical hit roll as a possibility for capture. If the unit has the attack and skill to roll the high number, more power to them. However, if they can't even do it on an 18, don't give them a way out.

Transports: How come they can be damaged, but the units inside not hurt at all? In all movies or reality, the troops would catch some bullets punching through the armor or casualties if the transport were reduced to salvage materiel. Instead, a mech charge on a transport that only salvages the vehicle unleashes angry hornets that jump all over it. Two possible solutions: a) the unit goes back to taking the one damage from being shaken up by being thrown out of the transport or the violent disconnection (i.e., towed), or b) the unit is shaken and may not make an action the following turn after it is dropped, due to being shaken up. Consider it an auto-tokening from being disgorged by a salvaged transport, with the following turn being required to clear, or if they push, then they take the damage anyways.

And last, Charging. I have to agree the game has become a game of bumpermech. As someone already pointed out, why does having huge PPCs mean you do more damage? Instead, two possibilites occur to me to fix this. One, again, as someone noted, only allow mechs with melee attacks to charge. And two, the one thing about charges that is in CBT but not here: where are the piloting checks? That would make a big difference, if you couldcharge your opponent, but even if you hit failed your piloting check and got kicked in the head because of it.

Again, my 2 cents. (Boy, am I cheap!)

People, people... DONT POST FIXES! It was speciffically asked of you NOT to post rules suggestions - this is supposed to be a list of problems with the game.

Someone hinted (draddog i IIRC) that if you post suggestions, some issues are raised b/c of intelectual property rights, and if they can make money off YOUR ideas.
So DONT do it. Let us open a thread (or revive the old one) on suggestions... OK?

I like formation movement, but I think formation fire is a problem. Calmly, I will call it stupid. Formation fire has no, absolutely no, basis in CBT and makes really no sense.

Okay, so as I see it, we have so far:

Major Issues:

Tankdrop
Chargemonkeytude
Mega Damage Arty
VTOLs

Minor issues:

Capturing
Heat effects too extreme
Overpowered SE (IT, agility, AP)
Underpowered SE (ECM, armor)
"Reality" issues (peasants vs Atlas)

FWIW, I may or may not personally think some of these issues are really problems. I'm simply listing things that have come up on this thread. Did I miss anything?

@ White Knight...

I started using the term with some friends when we were discussing game issues. It seems to have caught on. I've got a buddy RL who now howls like a chimpanzee as he rolls charges.

@ Shiva...

One of the things I miss most about pre-FFE play is formation vs formation infantry melees. I cant remember how many times my formation of 5 HL Purifiers and a particular friends formation of 5 SC CBA tied up into a big swirling melee of flamers, power-armor claws, laser blasts, and jumpjets.

Yeah, warflail... that was FUN!

Nowadays, a SC Ghost or a *gasp* ROTS balac come and spoil the fun...

You did forget one:
Rapidly declining stats on 100+ point units
- Also Know as the 1st commandment to the MW:DA General:
"He who shoots first, wins"

Let's not forget the biggest complaint...the game is too expensive for the new gamer to compete.

Oh yeah...and the fun complaint: it's not CBT!

I agree, that not as much a mechanics spoiler, reality issues (peasant vs. atlas) seriously drain from the energy and fun factor of the game. I don't know how many times someone has felt really disappointed, or flat out pissed, that their Kriya Wolf can't jump away from a peasant when they rolled a darn one (seems to happen a lot, at bad moments) or that that Behemoth tank can't just drive over and make hamburger patties of infantry.

That it even has to be rolled for is a ridiculous idea. And that the peasant takes no damage, just as bad.

I've incorporated some of the suggestions in to the growing "House Rules list" which I have now deemed version 3.0 I won't post any here since those are solutions.

I think at this point we've pretty well hit the nail on the head with the big issues.

If anyone cares to peer at some possible suggested solutions take a peek. If you get a chance to playtest any of them let me know the results so I can keep the ones that work and pitch the ones that don't; but please ... don't just look at em and come back saying "Man that sucks." If you are going to give feedback please use actual playtesting experiences using them.

http://www.hyperaviator.com/houserules.htm