I think that our Gamer Group might try to implement a "house rule" to help balance out the Infantry/Mech play balance problem. Here's my take on things:

Restrict Capture attempts against 'Mechs to Battle-Armor-equipped units (as this is what THEY are designed for) or standard Infantry with the Bypass SE (the very-rare but often-mentioned "Anti-Mech Infantry" with satchel charges) ONLY.

Standard Infantry may still make Capture attempts against Vehicles as normal (as this is a little more realistic).

This would be consistent with the old CBT fluff, and should help. IMHO, I don't think it makes sense that a bunch of unarmored, untrained Peasants, deprived of any heavy anti-Mech or anti-Vehicle weapons, can physically "take down" a 100-ton armored bipedal killing machine literally bristling with tons of destructive weaponry, as easily as they are apparently able to do in MW:DA! The VAST majority of them would, by all rights, be squashed into a bloody pulp as a result of making the attempt...

Once again, this is IMHO only. Just a suggestion to help balance things out in a more realistic fashion...

End Dispatch

This is it now...when rules change to better, some still whine that there is something wrong.

Infantry is, like Shuriken already said, cheap cannon fodder. In BT-universe mechs rule battlefields and infantry units and vehicles are more like suport units. Then there is ofcourse infantry with flamer SE, now they SE means something when getting enemy mech shutdown is more important than before.

"Better" is completely subjective...please remember that.

Infantry are BORKEN...

They are cheaper per click than any other unit.

They never have salvage.

They are useful right to their last click (as part of a formation).

They are all but immune to energy weapons.

They cannot be charged.

You can transport them in ones, twos and threes and hot drop them.

A formation of them loses no combat efficiency when one of the members gets hammered (most of the time).

They can capture and therefor disable units up to 75 times their cost at least one time in thirty-six.

Infantry have been way undercosted since day one. I do not think shakeoff greatly helps mechs. An 18 def mech is still easy pickings. I think that infantry will hardly be made any less useful by the changes. Even if they are, it would still be a little fairer.

P.S. I like the idea of a mech in salvage running into a bunch of infantry, thrashing its arms and legs about, then running off again... I know that it would make me think twice if I was an infantryman and I knew that was the only way the pilot could make himself useful. I would keep my head down.

I meant to add this to my above post, but ran out of editing time. Argh...

I don't know if you have ever taken writing or debate classes, but when making a subjective arguement, one should provide relevant evidence to support one's perspective.

If you would like to call these new rules better, please explain why you have experienced them being "better."



I do think that many of the rules will make the game better and more enjoyable. However, the infantry damage breakaway rule change is far too powerful in the game itself. Note that I am disregarding the fluff environment.

Marcel Thennes and the BR Targe should NOT have 7 targets.

Certain 'Mechs should NOT be able to consistently do more damage to units by moving rather than shooting.

Something seeds to be tweaked. Otherwise, infantry's vunerability will all but remove them from the game, make 1/2 of every booster we buy essentially useless

(Edit: d'oh! luftvier went and made his arguments more reasonable after I wrote this long post.)

luftvier: you seem to have a bone to pick. I think that the new designers had noted problems with gameplay, and a large number of players, particularly on this forum, articulated what they wanted to see in the game.

Their concerns were quite legitimate.

The extent to which you've played BattleTech before now is admirable; your collection of game experience, novels, and presumably memorabilia (though perhaps not the K-nex models and TV show tie-ins) is impressive. Does that mean, however, that you were satisfied with how the game played as of the Oct. 15 FAQ? Dominated by multipog artillery and VTOLs, with cannon fodder to base targets of opportunity? Armies of such homogeneity that they made zergling rushes jealous?

If so, I'm happy for you. I suspect, however, that you too (given your appreciation for the BattleTech universe) wanted the rules to ultimately evolve into a more enjoyable game. And you probably wanted the game to continue, rather than having newcomers be put off by the uselessness of the coolest-looking units (no, not the MASH vehicles).

There is more to this proposed rule update than incessant whining, and while I'm sure you don't mind doing WK a disservice, you do so undeservedly by attacking their desire to improve their game. (Their flagship game, perhaps.)

(Edit: ...uh, I'm also adding that infantry still aren't useless, but I think they deliberately went overboard with Shake-off damage to see whether it needs to be reduced. If it doesn't smush infantry too bad, it might stay as is; if you playtest it and find it to suck of the nard, then it will doubtless be nerfed.)

Even with the shake off rule, infantry are still quite useful.

The people saying they are going to replace their infantry formation with a formation of VV1s aren't thinking things through--no free spins, terrible breaks, lack of protection from rams, charges, and energy weapons, and even still tend to be pricier than infantry with equivalent stats. You want to accept all that just so you don't take 1 damage for basing the giant robot?

Please.

Could one or two be valuable as a designated "mech-baser"?

Possibly...

But infantry are still where it's at, and the artillery stacking change helps them as much as shake off hurts them.

PS. I'm not particularly "for" this change in the current wording, but people are going way overboard about the demise of infantry.

I think the most fundamental pricinciple that this rule is trying to restore is point balance. In the ideal point-based game, if you randomly pull units out of a bag and make two armies that total the same, it should be an even match. Now life is far from ideal, but the goal of the game balance should be to come as close to that as possible.

It does not matter if it is a 'Mech, a tank, a pogo stick with rocket launchers, whatever; if you have a 200 point unit, and 3 units that total maybe 60 points, the 200 point unit should trash the 3 units almost without trying. They are only 30% of the value of the larger unit, less than a third. It should not be that you need great, even slightly good, strategy to defend against the 3 with the 1. In fact, you should have to be much better than your opponent in order to beat a unit with only 30% of its value in points.

Good point, Sabrel: the point value of an army should give you an approximately idea of its effectiveness; "points" should represent in-game usefulness, not something tangible like tonnage (hence Stefani Ehli costs 30 points more than Joel Nguyen, and Arnis Drummond costs almost as much).

Two 200-point armies, even if one is expertly crafted by Unfedrat or Noeticist and the other randomly chosen by a lemur, should be at something like the same relative power-level. (ie. if Unfedrat and the lemur switched armies before the game, Gagan should still kick the monkey's butt.)

In the ideal world: building armies is fun and cool and all, but the better player should win *during* the game, not before. I mean, it's not chess, but it shouldn't be Type 1 Magic either.

I do admit that problems with the current ruleset exist. However, I blame not so much the rules but the cutthroat players who resort to using cuthroat tactics to win at all costs.

Trust me, I get annoyed as anyone else playing against the Balac/Donar/Arnis/SS AAA/SH DI army.

Agreed that players' concerns are legitimate. However, the manner in which players went about this is silly. Also, this sudden bandwagon of jumping to embrace the rules change without TRULY testing it and playing with degenerate armies that exploit the rules (as players do now in this current environment) concerns me greatly. People are TOO eager for change, I think, and are willing to embrace without learning and testing.

These are oftentimes the same people who criticize WK for not playtesting rules and units! It amazes me!

Actually, the animated series is what got me into BT as a youngin'. :) Knex Models- 'eh, not so impressed.

Was I satisfied with how the game was played? At my venue, yes. However, I recognize that many others were not, which is fine. Vtol and Arty domination does bother me a bit. (I am all for the non-stacking rule for Arty.) I do not blame the rules for exploitation, but the players themselves (just as society is not responsible for a person's own actions).

I do NOT want to see this game change to a point where half of the units in ever booster are almost useless, though. Yes, infantry is a bit powerful for points, I realize this. (I just had a Clara Parks critically captured in a game today by 45 points worth of infantry-I played a "fun" army). I still think that the infantry breakaway rule is a bit powerful though, which is why I ask everyone to playtest using a cheese-colored filter.

I do want the game to evole to a point where 'Mechs are more readily played. However, I do not want such an extreme change to how infantry will be played (I am of the mind that capture should be a bit more difficult).

I am not meaning to do WK a disservice. I know that they desire to improve their game. Kinks need to be worked out. I feel that taking a entire class of units and virtually eliminating them from play is not a good way to do this.
Agreed. Playtesters tested these rules before the "general gaming public" ever saw them. We told WK about certain abuses. They already know what WE think is wrong. I do agree that this is purposely overpowered to begin, and may be toned down as such (easier to whittle away than to tack more on).


Again, I will wait to see what happens. I do fear though, that while the rules will encourage short term bliss, people will soon grow tired of Assault 'Mech + arty + Vtols armies just as quickly as they tired of the current "metagame."

God, I hate that word. "Metagame." This isn't Everquest online. Metagaming is a farce.

Personally, I played BTech 1ed in grade school (circa 1988) and then got hooked once MechWarrior (Blazing Aces and Gideon Braver styles) came out. By the time I was gunning battlepods at VirtualWorld in Chicago, I was well and truly hooked.

Infantry is indispensible to MW:DA. The game would not exist in its present form without it -- MW:DA would be like Shadowrun Duels. The "combined arms" idea is new to many BattleTechHeads, but infantry and tanks give you a true sense of scale.

A true cheeseproofing of MW:DA is probably a year or two away. Hopefully a coat of paint and some caulking will keep the game going until it reaches that lofty height.

"These are oftentimes the same people who criticize WK for not playtesting rules and units! It amazes me!"

Sad, but true. Lots of big talk, but very few people posting overviews of actual games. It's a concern.

I wish I had the pieces to field what I think will be the current Power Army for the Proposed Rules. Even so, I wouldn't be able to play it enough to determine its dominance.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree that infantry is essential to the game. It most definately should not be pushed out of the game. The tricky is properly balancing it vs. everything else. I mean, if infantry could deal with armored units without any problem, the Army would not have tanks.

If I make it to any of the venues this week, I will be all over VTOL + ICEMech armies. Stompy stompy. Plus some SW Padillae, of course, and a (tacnuke) J37.

Oh, and Sabrel: in Starship Troopers, the novel (not the Verhoeven excuse to show Dina Meyer in the shower), it's postulated that infantry can get powerful enough to replace vehicle-armour with personal powered armor.

Thus began the whole "giant robot/mecha suit" genre, to which MW owes countless debt...