Why people would still use Charge is simple - as a desperation move. A way to take out (or slow down) that pesky mech that's doing all that damage to your army. A kamakaze attack.

Take your pick. I use charge in this way now.

Chris, you know that I agree with your option #2 tweak. What I disagree about is your analysis.

In that option #2 you are essentially changing the cost/benefit equation of charge - and that was my point. It's not about making it harder to do, it wouldn't be. The consequences of charge would change, thus changing the tactics employed for using it. It would change it from a long-range, first strike attack to a banzai, "I'll see you hell!" type attack.

+1 to defense wouldn't change much at all, in a game where a single mech can be half your point total, that would still bring the game down to one dice roll.

Just one thingm, impact damage, would that only be in mech vs mech, then just leave the charge rules the way they are now for mech vs vechile? I can't see a mech taking as much damage when it's football punting a tank.

Bahoom, the thing is that a 'Mech does not "Football punt" a vehicle, sadly. I know it'd be cool, but... ;)

These vehicles can be as heavy as a 'Mech - the Schmitt and Behemoth II, I believe, are close to 100 tonnes!

Now picture this, if you will: let's take the ever-popular Dasher II, which I believe is a 45-tonner. It could be 50, but that matters little. OK, so the Dasher II charges an Atlas, a 100-tonner. He rams his 'Mech into the much larger machine at a speed of around 100 kph. There's a huge collision, and both pilots are knocked around some; the 'Mechs are severely damaged.

Same example, but with a 100-tonne tank: the Dasher II charges in, and one of two things can happen, depending on how high the tank is. If the tank is higher than the 'Mech's waist, then there's again a huge impact and both are severely damaged. If it's somewhat lower, the 'Mech tramples all over the tank. While this might seem better, it's actually hell on the 'Mech's legs, and probably heavily taxes its gyro. Plus any possible explosions in the tank directly hit the 'Mech's exposed legs. The damage might not be as evident, but it's there.

But the main balancing factors with vehicles, I think, are:

1. Many vehicles do less than 3 damage (so the impact damage would be 1 anyway).
2. Many of the more damaging vehicles have at least a 2" minimum range, which makes side-basing very attractive.
3. No vehicle has a close-combat attack.

Therefore you may really want to think twice about charging a vehicle, and rather consider simply side-basing then kicking the crud out of it while it can do nothing. Yes, it's not as quick as a Charge, but you can't have it all.

You can't get away from this "single dice roll" in Mechwarrior (or in any of the Wizkids games AFAIK). If you play a mech and are shot by a 4-5 damage ranged attack, you can say that is the single dice roll (that decided the game). When someone hits you with a 5 damage ranged attack and ends the effectiveness of your mech, no-one is complaining about that on the boards. Why? Because there are many ways to avoid such a shot (usually) and the player taking it probably outplayed you to even attempt said attack.

This is why I think we should slightly tweak the defense and add some tactical "nerfs" to charge, a la straight line charge/line of sight, so a player has some enhanced capability to avoid charges besides basing units and using agility and screening, etc. This will encourage tactical play without making charge a useless rule that is never used.

With the way Wizkids designed the figures for these games with the rapidly dropping stats, one solid attack will put most units into the proverbial scrap heap. I think 450 point games will help combat the "single die roll" sentiment, since most players will have additional units to retaliate with.

Originally posted by hakkenshi
Actually, my comments were not directed specifically at you, but it doesn't matter, really. Here's my response, bit by bit.

That's cool...like I said...I did it just to be safe. ;)

Yes, Arnis is a Medium, that was badly phrased. :) As for light 'Mechs, since this is something you brought up numerous times:

:)

No, A light 'Mech should not take down a fattie. However, an equivalent point cost of light 'Mechs SHOULD. Points are supposedly balanced, after all.

Why? Honestly. If you have a whole battlalion of infantry (current day mind you) and you run them up against an M1A1 Main Battle Tank and you don't equip them with the latest anti-tank technology (bear with me, just an analogy) then they will get mowed down. And that is what 4 Locusts bring to the table. They are not equipped to deal with an Assault Mech. Charge be-darned. They can't hurt it...all they can do is harass it and run like the dickens.

I'm not debating the usefulness of energy, that was sort of a side point which is in fact unimportant. I was merely pointing out one aspect of the holistic view of the game.

That's cool...there are lots of "side points" I've noticed. :)

Just because players aren't encouraged to field creative armies now, doesn't mean they shouldn't be.

Um...now you are confusing me. The very same thing can be said regardless of rule changes.

Punchback seems like a harder rule to swallow than it actually is. If you want to make it even MORE balanced, add this to the Agility rule on the SEC:

Methinks I need some additional info. Perhaps I missed something or misunderstand "Punch Back". Would you kindly explain it to me again...just so I have it straight? Thanks.

The rationale behind this being that if you're avoiding the attack, you're reducing the damage for all involved. Problem solved, Agility 'Mechs are less broken.

Ya see...I don't think Agility Mechs are broken. But due to the large amount of charging going on Agility is an SE those Chargers dislike.

I would NOT give a Kit Fox (or Uller, whatever) good odds against a Mad Cat. I WOULD give TWO Kit Foxes much, much better odds.

Better? I agree. Good? No.

And I'm trying to argue just that: that 'Mechs should not be able to take down a 'Mech many times their point cost alone. Arnis will still be great if Armour SEs reduce Charge. He'll just be more used against unarmoured enemies.

Here we agree.

I don't know where you're getting the "two attacks" schtick... can you explain?

Like I said...methinks my understanding of "Punch Back" is flawed.

And yes, right now the Jupiter DOES fear the Dasher II, considering the point-cost differential.

Right now...but if YOU were piloting a Jupiter (hypothetical) and a Dasher II took the field of battle...would you sweat it? I know I wouldn't.

And please, don't insult me by presuming I play tank-drop. I don't. EVER.

Hold up...no insult was EVER intended or implied. Where did I say you used it? All I said was that it is an option open to DF players...more so than other factions.

So no, DF does NOT really have AP units beyond a handful (though they are actually quite good). DF is not nearly so broken as everyone seems to think if tank-drop is banned.

C'mon now...I winked and everything!! :)

Tactics are great, but the whole reasoning behind the point-cost system is that equivalent point costs are evenly matched.

C'mon now...are you that naive'? No insult intended...Jonah Levin vs 300 points of infantry? Just as an example.

Right now they are not, and having Charge reduced by Armour SEs means that I couldn't hope to run the 500-point DF light lance against an equivalent force.

It would depend on that "equivalent force" now wouldn't it? And if you faced an assault mech or two should you considier your light force up to that task to begin with? A "light lance" isn't designed to fight it out...they are deisgned for scouting and recon.

Strategy is all well and good, but no "competitive" army would sweat to beat that.

Could you define "competitive" for me? Because, apparently, that means, Arnis, DF Donar, SC Donar, DF Maxim/Scmitt combo etc...;)

Yes, it would change the way charge is used and you point out an excellent alternative, as far as vehicles go.

Anyone who thinks Charge is broken, bad or just needs tweaked, is saying the same thing - it needs balanced. Collision (impact) damage is the best way to do this, IMHO.

Nothing should be done to reduce charging effectiveness vs. vehicles. Most mechs aren't viable in a competative game. Why would anyone want to make this situation worse?

NO DEFENSE BONUSES - APCs tend to have a 19-20 defense. Even a "small" +1 modifier drops your chance to hit significantly. Tank drops don't need any help at the moment.

NO "PUNCHBACK" DAMAGE OF VEHICLES - The idea isn't bad for mechs. It would make a whole slew of mechs palyable again and force players to use ranged combat. But don't give it to tanks. No one would charge a 4-5 damage tank and most mechs cannot win a shoot out against one.

Remember, this is MECHwarrior.

I agree wholeheartedly, ekarl. One of the biggest problems with charge (aside from its lack of logical sense and that it eliminates 90% of mechs from competitive play) is that it eliminates a lot of tactics from the game.

Charge ignores armor, goes around corners, nearly doubles most weapons ranges, and does more damage than conventional attacks. Because of all this, pretty much all you need to do is get a good chargemonkey partway down the field and suddenly it's a threat to everything on the board. You can't hide from a chargemonkey. You can't flank it or get behind it. You can't outrange it unless you've got your own chargemonkey with higher speed.

The best you can do is either turn your mech into an order hog AND arty-bait by ringing it with infantry, or chase the chargemonkey with infantry in hopes it sits still long enough for you to base it or field your own chargemonkey/agility mech. It degenerates the tactics of the game to the level where a monkey could play and win with the right units.

In this game, the devastating effect of first strike is unavoidable -- however, any ability that makes such a strike overly easy to land and reduces the strategy and manuevering within the game is bad. If my mech is going to be screwed by a 5 damage AP attack, I at least want my opponent to have worked for it and outplayed me for it.

I just hope charge wasn't want Kelly was referring to in her interview. The game designers intended only agility mechs/mechs with very high defense to be remotely competitive? They wanted most games to end up with every unit in a huge clump on one side of the board? Maybe that's how they wanted things to work initially, but I suggest they rethink that intention in light of all the units they've released since DA and the current state of the metagame.

Frankly, any tweak, even a minor one, that makes things more tactical and restores parity between non-chargemonkeys and chargemonkeys would be welcome (though I wouldn't cry if move/shoot were instituted or charge killed altogether, I'm not pushing or asking for such extreme measures).

My personal favorites (and I've debated whether to mention them, cause as I've said before, everyone has their own and thinks theirs is best):

1. Mechs charge normally against vehicles. Against mechs, their damage is capped at 3 (+1 for brawling -- and by capped I mean, that's max damage, so damaged/salvaged mechs would do less). This allows mechs to threaten tankdrop but means you could at least think about fielding high point/low defense mechs without agility, because most mechs are at least still viable after 3 clicks.

2. Mechs receive some sort of attack negative and/or lower damage (much like indirect fire) if charging a unit not in it's initial fire arc/range. This leaves charge devastating if you properly line yourself up for it, but less so against a unit across the board hiding behind blocking terrain. This increases the tactical situation of the game ten-fold, cause if you want that big damage move/attack to hit, you have to work for it or you're taking a risk. Heck, I think if this were applied it should apply to VTOLs and Tankdrop as well. This would reward manuevering to get units in range/fire arc and make the game much more tactical.

-Jim

Quote: "These vehicles can be as heavy as a 'Mech - the Schmitt and Behemoth II, I believe, are close to 100 tonnes!"


Well, the thing about a 45 ton mech ramming a 100 ton tank is I do believe (maybe some CBTer's can back me up on this) is that the weight class of a unit is determined by how much it can carry. REAL LIFE EXAMPLE: a 5-ton cube can doesn't weigh 5 tons, it can just carry that much.
So a 100 ton atlas and a 100 ton Behemoth wouldn't weigh the same, they'd just be able to carry the same amount of weapons.

And I'll still believe that mechs football punt vechiles, I wish they could do it to infantry with knokback, I'd spend games trying to punt infantry into the deployment zone.

Whatever is used has to be simple, elegant and somewhat intuitive. Charge is kind of mangled already and making it more so will not fly.

I say, ignore all heat except the run (and, of course, the push if applicable), which must in a straight line to represent maximum excelleration. On a hit: Chager inflicts his printed damage +1, and takes chargee's printed damage -1 (min. 1). On a miss, nothing except heat. No SE's are used at all - on either side!

Simple.

You see, if SE's are going to play a part then I have to argue that ALL SE's should - including armor SEs. So, leave 'em all out.

Sorry Bahoom.
I CBT a 100 tons is a 100 tons.
A 100 ton mech, tank, and aerospace fighter all wieght 100 tons.

As far a the core problem or the root cause of the problem with charge here are my thoughts.

Charge should be a very risky, last option, see you all in hell type of attack. But because it is so effective, and the cost/benefit ratio is so attractive it has become the first choice attack option.

Go and take a look at my LOOONNNGGGG post. Specifially option two. This is a textbook example of "punch back" or "impact damage" as I prefer to call it (because it is more accurate).

Take a close look at my option two then... if you note the impact damage the charger takes is "close combat damage -1 to a minimum of one." Since the close combat damage of a vehicle is always zero (it does not have a close combat attack) it will always default to one click of damage taken by the charger.

Am I the only one who played classic battletech?

I distinctly remember playing against a heavily modified Hatchetman once. It had MASC, triple strength miomer, an axe (obviously) and good speed. It charged me, swinging that nasty axe and shredded my Archer (70 ton mech) in one hit. Charging wasn't the best choice for all mechs, but sometimes it was undoubtedly the best choice (and had very little risk involved).

I haven't sighed in a while. <sigh>

-SYB

My idea is simple
just need a los and a straight clear line bewteen attacker and the target, and charge must move into the target in the shortest path. It will be more logic and increase the use of range attack

SYB umm your Archer had a point blank shot against the mech before it could even complete the charge. You probably also missed the whole no masc and triple strength myomer on the same mech thing. Now admitedly the archer is rather limited by its lrm racks with nasty minium ranges. (A hefty penalty to hit) but you could have still seriously damaged or even crippled a hatchetman. I have very seldom seen an effective charge against heavy and assualt mechs with a light or medium as most of the time said light or medium ends up in pieces before it can complete the charge.
________
Yamaha Diversion