>>The easiest way to lose a mech in this game is to fail the almighty breakaway die roll. All hell seems to rain down on you at that point plus you still end up getting an order token and possibly heat. All for doing nothing. Mechs should have some option for action after a failed breakaway.
<<

You've got it right there...there's no way to change the game so that mechs can reasonably fight when based by 3 or more infantry (at least, not without changing the numbers on the dials).

The only thing they can do in such a situation is run away...but infantry move so fast that they'll just get based again, making flight a delaying tactic at best.

All the shake off damage does is allow mechs to actually accomplish something whilst running away, or even failing to run away.

Metagame!

Take care,

Rick

What is it exactly that a vehicle or infantry is supposed to be doing when he fails his break away roll?

NOTHING.

It just sits there doing nothing. If break-away damage is appropriate for mechs than it is appropriate for infantry and vehicles too. Makes sense to me. The infantry improves his chance of running away by littering the field with mines behind him. When something tries to stop him, they hit a few mines. And vehicles obviously leave by sideswiping nearby mechs or infantry.

The inability for ANY unit to break away from a baser usually costs the game for someone. When my opponent needs a break with his mostly overheated mech, he usually bases one of my (not-hover) vehicles or (non-JJ) infantry. Then, if I fail the break, he gets a free turn (or more) to cool or vent. My failure to break prevents me from damaging his unit and may easily cost me the game. Obviously that makes ALL basing overpowered, so break-away damage should be given to all units against all units.

It isn't the USE of this ability that I am concerned about, it is the ABUSE. Because, shortly, almost everyone (who doesn't mind being "cheesy") will be abusing it. And everyone who hates cheese will be complaining about it and demanding that WK do something. Of the rules WK posted, this is the only one that I think is flawed in multiple ways and on multiple different criteria. Hey, out of six rules, one bad one is pretty good.

-SYB

Once again, someone else sees the light. It's the ABUSE of this proposed rule that people seem willingly blind to.

To all who dislike my opinions, well, you won't have me to kick around anymore. I expect I'll see threads started by you some time soon after the rule is accepted with the word "Cheese" somewhere in the title.

Band on Fred. Bang on SYB. Best of luck trying to educate *this* crew. I'm outta patience, and outta time.

Nickname, I expect your Battlemaster status will insure that you will be answering multiple questions and numerable complaints about this rule. Have fun.

Later all.

Panzerfaust

SYB,

Except that the mech costs 10x more than most of these other units. So when it sits doing nothing (and possibly taking heat for a run that it did not do) the loss of performance is much higher.

I was surprised by how much I liked this rule in playtesting. There was no abuse. The only issue I have is with salvage mechs. They should not do shake off damage.

Last try. Well, probably not, but I am getting tired of this.

Can anyone tell me why Arnis doesn't have AnP? Besides the fact that he is a SC unit, he doesn't have AnP because a 0-8" AnP shot (even for only 3 damage) would make him unquestionably the best mech in the game. Yeah, he would probably cost about 8pts more (assuming the AnP lasted 3 or 4 clicks), but he would still be the best mech in the game. Agility and evasion are already a killer combo, making a mech VERY good at fighting both mechs and vehicles. AnP would make him almost perfect against infantry. All mechs are supposed to have some weaknesses (though sometimes that weakness is just a REALLY high cost). Arnis' one true weakness is his inability to deal with infantry effectively. This rule might as well give him AnP (heck, given his stats, he is better off basing formations -- or at least parts of formations). There goes what little balance existed with that unit. It is amazing, all the people who were complaining about Arnis being overpowered are almost exactly the same people who are promoting this rule that makes him astoundingly overpowered.

Oh, and just in passing, mechs might be 10x the cost of some infantry, but are often only about 6-8x the cost (and even less for certain infantry), are only about 2-3x the cost of most formations, and usually aren't even 2x the cost of many tanks. So, based on your assesment, where is the break-away damage for my Schmitt (which is MORE expensive than about 20 mechs in the game)?

-SYB

I think you missed the paragraph I wrote before the section you quoted. I'll repeat it here:

Of course it should be playtested. I even doubt anyone will encounter any problems with it under the current rules. Again I see a little hole that may later become a big one. Playtesting is great, but it doesn't preclude having a little forsight as well.


Probably trying his best to remove several infantry from his body. And failing.
Now I will grant you that in the original rule proposed, it may be the intent that no infantry can go unscathed when a mech is intent on removing them. However, I do know that the proposed rule was not intended as a method for a mech to attack infantry, but rather as a deterrent for infantry basing mechs. Feel free to suggest an adequate solution that plugs this hole. I think infantry should have to pay dearly to capture mech, but again not at the cost of introducing a rule that may have abusable uses.

I just don't see the abuse here. Believe me, we tried last night. The fact of the matter is that in order to use this tactic offensively it is going to cost your mech 2 orders (one to base, one to shake), never do damage to more than 2 units at a time, open it up to a capture attempt (and possibly charge/ram/dfa) and eliminate the chance of being able to charge or act in any offensive manner. Does this really seem like a sound tactic? What's the payoff? Dealing 2 damage to 56 points (max) of infantry?

If your opponent is dumb enough to group his infantry in such a way that you can base more than two of them at a time, or rushes a bunch of low cost infantry at your fresh (read: not over-heating) mech, then they get what they deserve.

Battle Armor is another story. They can handle a shakeoff or two and not be completely useless. But then again, they're built to be able to take on mechs in swarms.

The new rules for infantry/mech interaction is simly going to force us to (God, I hate this term) think outside of the box. Up untill now, a mad rush for your opponent's mech with your infantry was the norm. Now, you are going to have to be a little more careful in doing so. Heat it up a little before you rush in. Take some heavier infantry. Force them to decide whether or not to try and break, for fear of shutdown.

Tony

i do understand what you're saying, i was just stating an example that would make the tactic of bringing a mech *specifically* to base and break away from infantry formations (to do the damage) fairly unworkable. if your goal is to bring a fast baser/breaker to use as AnP, you'll want a fast *cheap* mech to do it, not a slower, average mech. if you have a better mech to use, you can likely find better things to do with it than randomly basing infantry (at least, i'd hope so... heh).

after testing the rule a few times, it seems to work very well in discouraging peasant hordes from trying to grab captures with miracle rolls (which i've seen too often myself). overall, i haven't seen a case where it adds too much power onto a mech, instead making many more viable.

as for teh SW infantry... i love the SW Fenrir myself, and they're practically invulnerable to artillery under the new rules as well (not a big fan of the artillery 'fix' myself), and my opponents can expect to see them get a lot of play if all the changes go through as written currently.

I agree that Arnis just got better. What I'm not so sure about is the idea that you can make 'Mechs better without making HIM better as well. Obviously anything that benefits 'Mechs will benefit the extremely good ones as well; yes, it's a problem, but you can't solve it without nerfing a few specific units.

As for the shake-off rule, I consider that if Arnis is used against me to base-and-break repeatedly with my infantry, their point cost will have been worth it.

And that's the whole thing, isn't it? Those who are against the rule complain that it makes infantry useless. But if it means my infantry (say, maybe, 70 points' worth) have briefly contained Arnis, I say they've done their job admirably. Maybe they've even dealt a point of damage or two!

'Mechs, in the meantime, have been (by and large) unusable for so long that now that they're hitting their stride, people call them overpowered. The point is that whether this is CBT or MWDA, either universe clearly implies that 'Mechs are the ULTIMATE machines of war. Period. Why is it such a problem that they should be better than everything else???

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Most people have gotten use to mechs running away from infantry formations. Now it may be the other way around. Infantry may have to shoot their weapons instead of basing and the familiar "push to capture".

Mechs need to be better than everything else cause they cost so much. Just by putting one of these high cost units in your army makes it weaker.

The big question should be: Are these rules enough?? Can someone with enough money still put together a artillery/vtol/command army that can wipe the best combined arms force off the map? Or will these new rules just make cheesy armies cheesier?

That question hasn't been answered yet.

I'll tell you MY answer:

As long as 'Mech-based armies don't revolve around a single 'Mech or sculpt (e.g. Arbalest, Legionnaire, etc.), my opinion is that they cannot be considered cheese.

I'll wait for someone to disprove this.

Part of the problem with trying to do this (lots of arty/vtols + Command) is that Command is far from a sure thing...you'd have to include *6* units with Command to expect, on average, 1 extra order per turn...and that is NOT guaranteed, it's an average. Six units with Command is going to run you approx. 150 points out of your 450...so you'd have to devote *all* of the "extra" 150 points to things with Command. And one artillery piece or one vtol on the *other* side can easily put big hurt on your Command units...

Actually, I did! ;)

My VTOL/Arty army did handily beat one unbalanced mech army soundly (3 mechs). It also beat a more balanced force, but it was much more difficult. With the increased point total, partisans are now viable, which can be problematic for VTOLS (especially the SW with it's 28 range and the SS with the Armor Piercing). I know that some are going to say that the partisans have low attack values, but remember they have the same attacks as most VTOLS (8-9). It's no more difficult for a partisan to drop a DF Donar than it is for that Donar to drop a 21 defense unit. A moderate mix of Mech, Arty, VTOL, AA, command and infantry will be able to hold its own. I know that seems like a lot but many of those characteristics can be combined (Mechs w/command, AA toede arty, etc...). And if you really want to hinder the arty/vtol combo, play Liao. Awe is brutal.

Tony

Actually if you put 6 command vehicles in you would average two orders per turn. This would be excessive. 2-3 would be more cost efficient.

And yes, the command vehicles now are a priority target.

And from reading SWTony's post, it looks like the VTOL/artillery/command army is still on top. I'd like to see more responses like his. I'd test it myself but I lack the uber artillery units to make a game of it.

No offense SYB ... but look at his stats. He has what ... 3 target energy attack? Before the proposal by WK of these rule changes Arnis could STILL do damage to 3 infantry for 1 click a piece. A squad of infantry jumps up to him to base ... he free spins to put them all in his front arc. On his next turn he can flee, cc one infantry into submission ... or range combat 3 of them for 1 click a piece. So Arnis already had the capability of doing damage to multiple infantry all at once ... this new rule just expands it a little bit in his case.

But Arnis is just a goofed up unit ... period. Look at other units and compare. A Packhunter loaded with the same micro-lasers AND also a PPC does LESS damage than Arnis does. HUH?!?! By all rights Arnis should probably do 2 or 3 damage ... or the Packhunters all should do 1-2 clicks more than they currently do. It just doesn't seem like a lot of units keep to 'scale' compared to each other. One unit has a big weapon and does X damage while another unit with the same weapon does a totally different damage amount. Makes for quite a puzzle in trying to figure out how WK came up with the stats for the units.