They could...and one could charge the other...thus ending the dance. Or one mech could lead the other into a trap...there are normally other units on the board ya know?

Heck...this dance can happen today if both are in a large water terrain piece. :)

How about something like if a mech only has 1 order token on it, a move order doesn't cause heat (thus it gets one extra move before heat starts to occur)

Does anybody still play non-agility mechs? Playing mechs that are chargeable is a sure loser these days.

We did some play testing on this and the issue came up a number of times. Try it in some competative games and you will see.

The dance does happen now. But there is always an end to it.

Yes...c'mon now...the mechs that are played are not all agility mechs.

I see your point though but you still fail to realize that thier are other units on the board too. What were they doing during the dance?

Mech often pair off against each other at some point in the game. And, yes, all playable mechs are resistant to charge (ie. high defence or agility).

Other units may or may not get into it. With mechs getting a free move, they can often avoid the support units as well. Try it and see for yourself. Use two mechs that see alot of play (Mavis vs arnis for example).

I feel mechs need a little move and shoot just like everyone else. It relieves base and break and helps against vtols.

I have tried the move and shoot thing. It really unbalances mechs. Even giving then negatives and more heat it still gives them too much.

perhaps we should all just give up and play SolarisVII

Terman8er, I'm really curious: how does giving 'mechs a "move & shoot" capability unbalance things? I'm not asking from a game standpoint -- I fully realize that instituting such a rule will give 'mechs an enormous advantage over other units in the game. My question is more oriented on the focus of the storyline and maintaining the connection to the MW type games that have preceeded MW:DA.

According to most veteran CBT players, 'mechs utterly dominated play in the original game; in any of the MechWarrior PC games, vehicles were little more than an annoyance. All the Battletech novels also focus on the unsurpassed destructive power of 'mechs against their vehicle and infantry counterparts. Given that as the ostensible background for the game, I don't understand why 'mechs shouldn't dominate gameplay in MW:DA too. And as it is, according to most players who post to this forum, the 'mechs don't reflect that dominance in actual game play (they may or may not be 'powerless' as some maintain, but they certainly don't exert uncontested dominance).

So, again, within that context (that 'mechs ought to be dominant on the MW:DA battlefield -- and to clarify, that's not 'invincible' or 'unbeatable,' just dominant), what I'm asking is why you think giving them a "move & shoot" capability makes them excessively powerful.

And I should note that I'm fully willing to accept an answer of "I don't think that we should be bound by the books/CBT/PC games view of the battlefield." That's fine, but it needs to be acknowledged as such since it changes the rationale behind your objection to "move & shoot" as relating to the 'game balance' versus 'accurate simulation' aspects of MW:DA.

Don't misunderstand me. I am a huge advocate of CBT/Novel style mechs in MW but when I instigated a move and shot policy suddenly we had even the smallest mechs circling the large tanks and mechs to shot them in the back. Basically a move/shot gives a free +2 to thier AV.

Now...I LOVE the idea of making mechs the Kings that they should be but in game dynamics it really unbalances things. All units would be obsolete except for mechs. Tanks from 70 and up would become dust collectors. heck, all units from 70 and up would never see the light.

Imagine a mech shooting VTOLs out of the sky from 20"+ away. Laying waste to everything before they can even retaliate.

While it seems cool...no more anything except mechs and point fill units.

Terman8er, have you considered using a "move & shoot" option while eliminating running? That would considerably reduce the 'circle to rear and fire' aspect -- many 'mechs lack the speed to circle around without running.

The house rule that we use allows 'mechs to take two actions per turn (each costing a command point, with any pushing generating heat) but eliminates running entirely. If a 'mech wants to run it has to use both actions for movement (and thus can't shoot). We also modify 'Evade' such that it allows a 'mech with that SE to move without generating heat (regardless of pushing). Seems to work well for us, and tanks are still quite viable in play.

I did. I mean...no running...walk only. Still, circing is easy.

I won't bother with the endless debates about most of these rules. But, let me see if I can explain the problem with making Mercs into a faction.

Consider a very simple situation. I don't play faction pure. Simple, end of story (this is an example, not my actual play style). I make an army with a mixed set of units. Three of those units are merc Kanazuchis. Now I can shoot with them in formation and move them in formation. My army is just better than it should be and I have lost nothing.

If I play someone else using a mixed set of units who is not playing mercenaries, I have basically gained a point advantage on him for no reason.

By your rules, any time somebody doesn't play faction pure, the best thing they can do is find mercenary version of most of their units and use those, because they are all discounted. This rule only balances if EVERYONE plays faction pure. If they don't, the rule is completely unbalanced. Merc units are just better than equal pointed units (compare the green Merc Kanazuchi to the other green or even to the veteran).

-SYB

Hmm. What about applying a -2 AV if to any unit that takes "shoot" as it's second action? Effectively eliminates any benefit for circling into the target's rear arc and then taking a shot; still allows you to do it, just removes the benefit (until next turn, assuming the target doesn't move/spin).

I agree with you here SYB. The thing is it gives everyone the same benifit...unless you play non-merc faction pure then, if you do, you get a chance at an additional order every turn. Thus, IMO, balancing it out.

Some good, some bad. Having seen most of them posted numerous times before, and tried playing with a few, I see that some do work.

1) Works best when it doesn't transfer on death. When the highest point unit dies, the ability is lost for that battle.

2) A good idea, can be unbalancing.

3) Won't fly for all the reasons listed in replies.

4) Many debates on this one. I'm in favor of the one where only vehicles in salvage or with a move of 0 can be towed, and they remain outside the transport, fully targetable, with none of their defensive SEs working.

5) Not realistic. The pogs should stack. I prefer the no damage SEs on pogs route.

6) Mercs are costed for their non-formation limitation. No need to make them the next uber meta.

7) Keep VTOL rams out of the game, unless you make them instantly destroyed on impact, regardless of success or failure.

8) Keep the current rules. Infantry inside VTOLs when they go to salvage at cruising die unless they have jump jets. Why they put spots on the dial with salvage and 0 movement in the first place is a mystery.

9) NO! Rams should be discouraged; they are so unBattletech. Games of bumperbots inspire no interest at all. Make it so that the attacker takes 2 clicks of damage on success and 3 on failure, and always takes 2 heat for the charge. Keep the charges in Solaris where they belong.

10) Why? It works fine as it is.