Too true.

You know what? Wizkids is being forced into this since it has to make money for the new figures. If not, a lot of people would be unhappy. So, could someone call Bill Gates to tell him a card company is slaughtering a cash cow of his?

For all of those who are complaining about Warflail's tank min range rules, here is some information:

Of the 5 vehicles that will benifit most from this change (SM1, Behemoth II, JES II, JES III, and Marksman) 3 have machine guns, and the Behemoth carries SRMs.

SM1- 4 Series 2c Light Machine Guns
Behemoth II- 2 Holly SRM IV
JES III- 2 GM MiniGun Machine Guns
Marksman- 4 Bulldog Miniguns

I know that it is normally pointless to try and draw comparisions between CBT and DA, but weren't MG's and SRMs the bane of most infantry?

@ First and Only...

On artillery: Yup. Artillery (7-8 attack generally) is supposed to have trouble hitting 20+ defense. That is as it should be. But keep in mind that under this ruleset, with clear LOS, most arty has a 9-10 attack rating. That is also why we lowered it to +2 instead of +4, so that 7-8 attack didnt become 11-12 attack, which can easily hit average mechs and stands a good chance of still nailing fattys. The Point Defense thing was a clarification, not a modifier. Just tried to clarify which defensive modifiers did and did not work while checking defense. It represents the impression (that I got anyway) that PD represents "teamwork training" as much as anti-missile systems. The ability of a power-armored gnome to shove a peasant trooper onto the ground and cover him with his armor, the ability of infantry and vehicles to take cover behind a mechs foot during a barrage, etc. It does nerf artillery pretty significantly, although we took an active effort to make it a useful support weapon instead of making it totally useless. I think these rules succeed at that.

Tankdrop: Any units that become unplayable with tankdrop removed were only playable for artificial reasons before anyway. Admittedly these rules make towing a tank seldom worthwhile (as it should be, towing tanks across an active battlefield is idiotic in the real world). But at the same time, if you need to get a 5" moving Mars 20" away to where the fight is... you can take up the turns it takes to plod over there... or you can risk towing it with a much faster transport. On-board towing only, but not nerfing the move/attack of the drop doesnt do all that much good. Makes the combo more vulnerable, true, but a tankdrop combo vs any mech that cant charge 21" will still win a 1 on 1 fight. Which is not as it should be.

Minrange Tanks: The problem with just letting them indirect is that there are some energy-firing tanks that _cant_ indirect. Which is why we set things up the way we did. FWIW, if you _do_ want to give a defense bonus for being inside min range, I suggest you let the attack do full damage. Also, I dont think you are correct that the point balance for having a 3" minimum is as it is supposed to be. Look at the idiotic point cost on the Behemoths, for example. Then compare it to a tank that doesnt have minimum range issues. The point values and stats arent different enough to justify the uselessness of a 3" minimum tank under current rules.

Glad you are enjoying the discussion. Always nice having an opposing viewpoint that is courteous, polite, and well thought out.

@ lt_murgen...

Good lord, a JEBite agreeing with me? Better be careful, they'll revoke your membership for that if you make a habit of it. ;)

Just a little harmless teasing, of course. No offense intended. ;)

He's a more reasonable JEBite. One that doesn't look at the
game through rose-colored glasses and realizes that, yes,
there are problems that need to be addressed. Unlike the
others, he doesn't feel threatened by discussions of rules
changes. ;)

lt_murgen, I salute you, sir! :)

Actually I meant that I agree with that, I wasn't intending to say that artillery should easily hit units with 20+ defense.

I agree. But I think that tank drop is the only thing that can make tanks that aren't uber (read as 360 degree arc, no minimum, long range) possibly useful. It really does reduce the usable tank pool by a lot, to a very small and unacceptable number (not that it isn't unacceptable right now, but this'd really worsen the situation).


Hmm in the case of energy weapons, I see your point. We can just allow them to do it too, since I said it wasn't an actual indirect attack, but rather uses the same +3 defense modifier and max 2 damage rule. Energy weapons will only do 1 to infantry, which is fine since that's the price you pay for the advantage against mechs.

I disagree with allowing the tank to do anymore damage than this. Basing infantry should be a huge threat to tanks, I don't like giving the tanks with minimum range the ability to get rid of that infantry basing them within 1 turn, it should be a very big hassle. Those minimum ranges were put there to balance out the firepower of larger tanks, if those huge tanks effectively have no minimums, then infantry will be severely weakened in their usefulness, and it will be difficult to ever stop those tanks from firing.

As for the realism arguments, it does make sense that a tank is helpless against infantry in this case. A tank has MG's for infantry, however this is only useful at medium range. All tanks in the modern world are close to worthless when the infantry are in close quarters, which is what basing tanks with infantry represents. Imagine then, what it would be like with battle armor that can jump jet to close the distance or clamber all over the tank.

Hmm, I’ve looked through the list. A few I like a few I don’t care and a few I don’t like at all. Here’s my feedback
I’ll buy a +2 instead of a +4 for LOS. However I’d add that any unit with LOS to the target area would give LOS to the arty also
This is one I don’t like. VTOLs take arty damage like everything else.
Don’t like. Arty is an equal opportunity hitter. The difference is your armor protection and nothing more. Technically speaking an infantryman is less likely to get hit as a tank. The difference is the armor the crunchy has vs the armor of the tank. Heavy and Hardened armor take this into account.

If you really want to make arty “real” you would give units in hindering terrain a -1 to all arty damage.

There is nothing broken with the defensive equipment you mention. They simply make you harder to hit and perhaps force formation fire on you.

The tandrop rules I won’t comment on. I don’t find the current rules on it a huge issue and I don’t think your changes help/hurt it. I’d play the rules either way. However if you change the concept of an order giving you a token then you have changed a fundamental part of the game. In effect you are allowed to give disembarking vehicles two consecutive orders in the same turn. Where else this break in game dynamic takes us is yet to be seen.

No need. Decoy really isn’t broken so why change it?

You can only target the capturing unit with a close combat attack as it is so it is already like this. A unit that is based with a capturing unit is hit by AnP and the capturing unit is damaged. Arty can kill a capturing unit. In the end you’re not offering a change.

ECM already negates indirect fire and streaks. Having it negate improved targeting is overkill IMO. Improved targeting does not assure a hit but another possible shot at hitting. If I were to go with the intent I would say that improved targeting negates ECM.

Again fixing something that isn’t broken. While I see your point I don’t think it’s an issue that needs any tinkering with.

I like no ranged attacks while based. However I really don’t care about it too much. If you were going to allow it give the target a defense bonus of xx to account for the item(s) that are messing with the unit firing. Infantry may not make a mech or tank stop firing but they can sure ruin it’s aim.

I think there are some broken things in the game (salvaged mechs charging and taking no damage?) but on the whole I don’t know that dramatic changes with the current unit set is helpful. I see the game changing to account for the units they are creating and the rule changes or clarifications that are coming down the pike.

Personally I am not much for “house rules” that change the fundamental mechanics of the game. There are too many potential confusing issues that can arise when a player sits down and thinks the rules are standard but aren’t.

The change is that captured units can be damaged, period.

Instead of using artillery to sand off your captor and the mech emerging all clean and shiny, the mech now takes damage along with the infantry unit.

Unless you agree that capturing a unit erects some kind of force field that protects it from damage... (same force field transports use to protect towed vehicles?)

Actually Gryf If you truly wish to make Artillery real with regards to Hindering every unit but Infantry should get the -1 to damage while infantry get a +1 to damage. Why well lets just say after stories told by my Grandad about a place called the Hurtzagen Forest in Germany during WW2 and the fact that over 50% of all US Casaulties during the Battle of the Buldge were do to German Artillery they are more in danger from Arty than any other unit.

Nice rules by the way Warflail pretty close to what our group has been toying with lately. We are rule testing a new rule for mechs right now so I thought I would share it for you guys.
Since mechs seem to heat up pretty quick we decide that when you give a mech a walk order it does not push a mech. We think it helps mechs with both arty and fast basing units to help keep from shuting down just by walking them. Have a few others but would only post them on your thread if its ok with you since I have no intention of stepping on any toes :)

Feel free to post here. I want you to post here. In fact, it pisses me off that people are messaging me to discuss the ruleset in private because they dont want to post in the open thread because of the trolling.

Ah, I see the captured unit takes damage. I did miss that and you're right, the captured unit should take the damage.

I see a lot of these rules that tinker with basic game mechanics. I am more interested in how the game mechanics evolve and change. For example when you start letting units fire from base contact a fundamental part of the game gets changed and the impact is unpredictable. You might find it more fun with the units you play but it negates strategies that require you to get close to hit. That example would greatly aid the SC but devastate the DF.

I guess I'll just stick with the WK rules and see how they shake out.

Actually, we specifically tried to avoid new mechanics in this ruleset. Defense check? Just a regular attack role, for all intents and purposes. SE vs SE changes dont require new mechancis. Our tankdrop's towing mechanic isnt that fancy (basically 2 member pseudo movement formations, with faction being irrelevant, and a couple common-sense stipulations). The tank minimum range things, as we use it, doesnt require a new mechanic either (perhaps it would be best to word it as "vehicles can make melee attacks, I dunno).

Anyway, glad you guys like the ruleset. Anyone else played them any?

I'll be playing a game with them today, will let you know how they are received by my playgroup.

Idea on firing into base contact:

+2 defense to target, if you miss roll against the friendly unit's defense value.
Rear arcs apply.

Anything that changes how an attack is resolved is a basic game mechanic change. Yes in the case of artillery you're using a different mechanic but you're altering the basic artillery game mechanic. Doing away with minimum ranges for vehicles is a fairly serious change.

Ya'll can play as you please. I just don't see any real improvements but a lot of invalidations for current units. If your intent is to neuter tactics you don't like but the rules currently allow, then I think you'll succeed. However in your search for more "variety" and "fairness" I think you'll end up with even more specialized and staid armies. Eventually everyone will be playing more or less the same army.

Personally the only rule I feel strongly about would be the requirement that everyone has a mech in their army. I mean the game is "MechWarrior" right?

We havent found that to be the case at all.

@ Max...

How did your game go? We havent spotted any obvious brokeness in this ruleset, but are eager to know if anyone else spotted anything.

I like your rules set Warflail. Definitely some good thoughts here. It it makes you happy, do it. We have our own local unrestricted rules, too.