Are you aware of the complete contradiction in your statement? Rewarding failure balances things?

Whether units are in the front arc or not, getting something for nothing is not the answer. Especially since Mechs get a free spin once they are based by infantry already. This guarantees a click of damage, period. That, my friend, is completely relevant.

I totally agree with balancing the game, but not at the expense of rewarding failed die rolls, regardless of who gets the benefit. The rule was put in place, IMHO, to discourage capture attempts. Here's a summary of a scenario with the rules that are already in place, with the new proposals added:

-infantry bases mech. Intent: Capture.
-Mech gets free spin to face infantry of choice, getting as many in the front arc as possible to remove free +2 modifier in rear arc.
-Mech attempts to break away. Failure. All infantry in front arc take a click of damage.
-Infantry, if push to capture, take a click of damage. If the attempt fails, all Infantry take a click of damage.
-Mech pushes to break away. Fail again (not likely, but hey, this is purely speculation for arguements sake). Infantry take a click of damage. If mech succeeds, infantry take a click of damage.

(now getting into the realms of being silly...)

-Mechwarrior stops to make Macaroni and Cheese in superheated cockpit of Mech. Infantry take a click of damage.

(just had to say that)

Infantry, in this scenario, will take a minimum of 1 click of damage just for showing up, to a maximum of whatever it takes to kill them. The Capture scenario of the future will include Flamers from Mech-based close combat, as well as other energy based ranged attacks to produce sufficient heat to shut a Mech down. Only then will infantry be introduced into the mix. Anything else is a logistical suicide.

Panzerfaust

panzerfaust, I can appreciate what you're saying, but I think you may be missing the intent of the proposed changes.

First off, the mentality behind shake-off damage definitely revolves around making non-Salvage, non-shutdown 'Mechs very difficult to capture. I think that's admirable, since I've been pushing for just that kind of logic since I started playing.

Secondly, I know infantry can't surround a 'Mech as bravely as before, but let's face it, it made little sense. Why is it that a gigantic war machine thrashing around trying to move away should not deal damage to infantry? If anything, I'd say shake-off should ONLY apply to failed attempts at breaking away, since a 'Mech that succeeds will most likely ignore the infantry that was basing it.

I do agree with you, however, that the rules aren't perfect yet. I'd still happily take them over what we had before, but they could use a little change.

I think their main problem is that they still revolve around the basing mechanic. If, instead, you said:

Units with movement mode 'Mech ignore infantry bases for movement purposes. When a unit of this type crosses over infantry bases while moving, give one click of damage to all infantry units whose centre dot is covered by the 'Mech's base during the move. This may be used after a successful break-away attempt. Note that 'Mechs still cannot end their move on spaces occupied by other units.

This would seem more fair to me, given that you're ACTIVELY trying to step on the infantry. But then, I don't make the rules. ;)

I note two threads on this mech "shake-off" damage discussion. One hinges on the "reality" of a large tonnage mech being finally able to squish (or at least damage) pesky infantry basing it and the other on a so-called reward for failing a break-away. I mostly prefer making mechs more useful in the so-called standard game that prevails in the WK tourneys and the 3 order-450 point rule goes a long way there.

I've always riffled at the idea of the last 5 minutes of a fray turning into infantry swarming to get that last minute home run with a capture. This is MechWarrior not InfantrySwarm after all! I want to dust off some of my mechs and actually _play_ them in a standard game.

As for the "shake-off", there is _with_the_proposed_rule, an increased risk for using infantry to pin-down a mech. Now, that duty can shift to the light, fast vehicles that have been relegated to underuse. Infantry-swarming will suffer from the large build and fewer order environment with the proposed 3 order-450 pt. standard game. Other support can now be squeezed in the extra 150 pts. of build. I'd love to play some of the cool looking tanks like the Republic Regulator. In the tourney environment with artillery (that I also use liberally), the move once with infantry or vehicles and get a reply from an arty piece, there is no response but to play arty yourself. Play the games strengths and minimize the weaknesses for a given situation or scenario. So, I use arty only because it IS powerful. It also helps WK sell more plastice since to play effectively in the current environment, one must resort to the newer pieces. Arty is not everything, nor are VTOLs, but it the game of the moment.

It is too easy to become less creative as a gamer in a static rules environment. I'm game for the proposed rules! These changes will change the balance of power subtly and not so absurdly as these forum ramblings will. Let the 'mechs rule for once in a game that is after all, Mech Warrior.

I apologize to all of the faction-allegiant too. I never had the time on my hands to have discovered the myth behind the game. I prefer to play this as a game. I do respect the friends that consistently build faction-pure or allegiance-true armies and still win. Winning for the Gipper is cool too I guess. At 52, most any reason will do for gaming. Even "can I play 3 Atlases to crush your puny Mason Dunne, Dad" will do.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

With their higher defensive values, easier break away, and availability of Close Combat damage, they are already more difficult to capture.

Once again rewarding failure which is a flawed concept in any form.

which, I believe, is what we are trying to accomplish.

Which is the equivalent of allowing a Mech to charge starting in base contact, another bad precedent. Consider that the tape being used to show movement can be essentially bent and looped through a group of infantry several times before actually exiting the group out of base contact. By your logic, this could allow a Mech to look like the crew from Riverdance merrily tap-dancing through a group of infantry doing God know how much damage for free without rolling a single attack roll. We could then just re-name Infantry into "Peanuts" and make them an edible clix figure.

Simplify the rule by simply allowing the shake-off damage to occur only on a successful break away roll. No reward for failure. No free spin. No stomping through infantry (regardless of how "real" it is) by simply giving a Mech a move order and not a Close Combat order.

Panzerfaust

But your definition of "failure" is too broad.

'Mechs should NOT be stopped from moving by infantry, this just fixes it. And how is it "rewarding" failure when you're still stuck there?

Artillery over nerfed?
I think not my good man just to give you an example of why I'll tell you how my last battle in Mile High went. I dropped 7 pogs of artillery on top of my opponents mech/Infantry formation. This would do a total of 11 clicks of damage to his entire army. Now you might go he could have just moved out of the way. I say no because I was aligning in such a way with IT that I could drift the arty strike in any direction that he decided to move it in. Multipog artillery needs a good nerfing:)
________
Portable Vaporizers

Seriously. All this "reward" does is slightly decrease your Mech's chance of being completely ####ed when it misses a breakaway.

But, should it be "rewarded" for successfully breaking away also? I think that's the biggest issue here.

Mild changes are often the best changes...and by far the easiest to swallow. Break away damage being caused on both failure and success isn't as mild a change as it could (or should) have been.

And as such, it's difficult to accept in it's current form. Play testing will determine if it works well or not. Quite frankly, I think it's a bit much, but I'm not one of the designers :P

Maybe they should hire me ;)

Well, fairly standard procedure in balancing any game in beta testing is to adjust "too far" and then ramp back down slowly until the right point is found. If these were official rules, then yes, this is certainly too far a starting jump, whether it works or not, but since we were given them for testing, I would say they are pretty good starting point. The breakaway rule accomplishes the goal of making infantry fear 'Mechs. Whether or not it goes too far in doing so can only be determined by playtesting.

@panzerfaust
I fail to see the contradiction in my statement. I used your term "rewarding failure" to identify the concept I was talking about, but I explained earlier how it is not really a "reward", but a lesser effect. And secondly, I still fail to see how "rewarding failure" makes a dynamic automatically imbalanced regardless of how the actual rule performs. How things go in the game is what matters.

My biggest problem with having break-away damage only being on successes is that increases the power of Grapple infantry (Fa Shih) and makes them pretty much the order of the day. So there will now be a slightly more expensive formation pinning my 2-3 times its cost BattleMech until it overheats and shuts down. Neglecting reality completely (a bad idea in a wargame anyway), it still leaves the fundamental problem of a high point value unit being easily immobilized by a group of units half its value or less.

oh no!!! heaven forbid arty be worth their point value!!!! what a stupid idea...


and I haven't played any games yet, but has anyone used command vehicles?...I think they'll actually be 10X more useful w/ the 150 pt rule

I think panzerfaust has latched onto the idea of "don't reward failure" and gone insane.

In the first place... it's not failure to roll low on a 6-sided die. That's random. The only sense in which it's failure is that the 'Mech fails to escape.

Damage should be suffered anyway. If artillery "fails" to hit the specified spot, it still suceeds at exploding and damaging something (whatever's under the new radius). By the same token, if a 'Mech fails to escape, it still suceeds at stepping on a bunch of puny infantry.

It's not "rewarding failure". You're insane to keep suggesting that we're somehow messing with people's upbringing or moral sensibilities by still having damage result from a low die roll.

From reading the two arguments, I can honestly say that there is merit for both arguments over how shake-off damage should be dealt. After some consideration, here are some of my thoughts:

Infantry have different speed modes and SEs on movement. It naturally costs a lot more to field infantry with JJ. JJ infantry should be VERY agile and able to get off the ground with little effort.

Peasants however, do not have JJ, or any other ability that owuld allow them to get away. All they can do is run away from a 'Mechs stomping feet.

Would it not make sense to have shake off damage be dealt on different levels to different infantry? Also, trampling could be dealt with in the same way.

For instance: Atlas is breaking away. He has a Kage and a peasant in base contact. He is attempting to break away. Here is how damage could be dealt:
If he fails, only the peasant takes damage
If he succedes, then both the Kage and the Peasant take damage.

As for running over infantry during a 'Mech's move order, it just makes sense for infantry with hover or JJ to be able to get out of the way. "Hey look, that Cygnus is coming right for us!" *hits jump jets* "That was close." It makes sense that infs with jump jets would be able to dodge an oncoming 'Mech. To keep JJ infantry from becoming too powerful though, there could be a rear arc consideration. Say, if a Mech is moving through infantry and started in their rear arc, they would not have seen it, and would not have time to dodge. Also, I think that movement values should be taken in to consideration as well. Such as, infantry with a movement value of 7+ can dodge regardless of speed mode or SE.

As for trampling over and over through the same infantry in one movement order, (boy this would make Arnis an infantry's worst nightmare) that can be easily dealt with by saying: No more then one click of damage can be taken by an infantry in this fashion each turn by a single 'Mech.

I do have problems with the failed breakaway doing damage to all infantry in the 'Mechs front arc. This means that 'Mechs w/ 360 degree arcs can deal 7 damage, success or failure, and 'Mechs w/ 270 degree arcs can deal 6 damage success or failure. This is bad.

Now on to the subject of 'Mechs with JJ and evade. I think that if a 'Mech with JJ breaks away USING JJ, that no infantry should take damage. All it is doing is hitting the thrusters and flying off. Turning them off means they have a 66% chance of breakaway instead of an 83% chance of brekaing away. So the 'Mechs controller has two options, increased chance for break away, or possibly dealing damage. As for 'Mechs with evade, I have no logical argument for making their all too easy break aways less hurtful.

Besides me not knowing what to do about 'Mechs with evade, I think these are some credible ideas.

I agree with your points Kinra, and I am glad you mentioned artillery. I am surprised I did not think to mention that.

However, let us not venture into the realm of name calling and personal insults. Things will turn out much better in the end if we just work on improving the rules.

Philter451 the only problem I see is that your ideas would complicate things. It has been my experience the WK tries to keep the rules as simple as possible.

@ Irishrogue- you do have a point there, and perhaps it could be taken down a bit, but I think that infantry would be royally screwed under all of the proposed rules changes for shakeoff damage and 'Mech movement. Making infnatry useless would be just as bad as 'Mechs being left in their current condition.