After perusing the thread, I still disagree with the "AP Problem."
I get the feeling that most people who post want to use their big assault mechs (i.e. Atlas, Jupiter, etc.) and are upset that they can't while still being competitive. It seems to me that Wizkids has already made several concessions to make mechs more playable, even the fatties. You can't play with every piece. Some are even designed to be !@#!@#. It's quite possible that Wizkids never intended huge mechs to make it into tournament play.

I still feel AP Artillery is not broken. It's counterable and speeds up the game. I enjoy playing with arty, and it's frustrating to play against. But it moves the game along. It prevents turtling. It prevents 23 and 24 defense mechs from being a giant turtle as is. It holds back infantry swarms (I remember those, does anyone else?). Some people may enjoy having to use loaded dice to hit high defenses or praying for luck. I prefer not to take those risks.

I feel changing AP is like changing a fundamental part of the game. It's not like adding extra damage on a charge. In my opinion, it's saying that we think the game needs to slow down and have less casualties. No AP, or nerfed AP means less damage and less hits (due to decoy). I prefer a fast paced mech action game that only takes an hour to play. With 450 point builds, and some of the proposed AP changes, nothing would happen for an hour. Then someone would get bored and go home. Games would be reduced to giant mechs jockeying for position while smaller units flitted around doing nothing or died on hail mary captures.

It would not be a problem if all the mechs with heavy and hardened armor had defenses that were hittable (i.e. like the poor longbow at 20). However, people still won't play those mechs if they could field a 23 or 24 defense hardened armor or decoy mech. Thus, competitive armies would become the slow maneuvering I just pointed out. I don't want to play chess.

I stand by all of my previous statements. I am against these "fixes." I am at least one dissenting opinion (although I've noticed a few others).

This is aimed at nobody in particular. I feel that many complaints do not take into account how the game would look after "fixes" were put into place. Think tournament. Think min/max. "Fixing" AP can only slow the game down and make it less interesting to those people who want a fast fun game to play. I'm thinking like a Battlemaster here. Keep the game as simple as possible (for a sci-fi game), and make sure a prospective player gets to see plenty of action.

Still my opinion,
Pickman

The ONLY effect that removing AP's immunity to decoy will have
on the game is to make AP units have to hit twice. Wow. What
a BIG change. :rolleyes:

Well, I'm opting for the "Let's take it slow approach" and opting for a pair of small tweaks. The one I like best actually came from a rather overlooked post by Weele, so credit where credit is due.

Change Armor Piercing to the following...
Armor Piercing: (Optional) When making a ranged combat attack against a single target, this unit ignores all armor special equipment.

Because it targets a single unit, it is no longer eligable for use in artillery attacks (or if it is useable it may only be used with a single pog). It also means that units with multiple attacks have to choose between ignoring the armor or hitting multiple targets (no more "I target the mech and three infantry units in case I miss"). Finally, by changing it from Defense SE's to Armor SE's you allow Decoy to work against AP.

From a logic standpoint it makes a certain degree of sense. When you look at most of the multi-target AP units you really only see one big gun (or a pair of linked guns like the DI Schmitt) that might be considered AP... the rest look like your standard non-AP missiles.

It's minor tweak, but since that's what we seem to be getting in the FAQ's I thought I'd include one that's more likely to actually be implemented.

No problem, ducky. I'm retiring from this thread, now.

Then why do it? :)

Pickman

Didn't you see the :rolleyes: at the end of my statement? I was
being sarcastic. YOU'RE the one making it sound like it would be
a big deal. Please, don't try to twist my meaning. :)

It was a direct question, any twist added was your own. Sarcasm is too easy to take the wrong way. It is by definition indirect. So I try to take people literally online.


Pickman

Pickman, I think in your purusing of this thread I think you missed the part where we were leaving AP interact with heavy and hardened armor as it does currently. The only proposed changes to AP that we made was to Decoy and to Reactive.

The assumption you made about people who participated to this thread was simply that, a assumption. The goal was to look at AP vs defence SE's to see if AP is a under costed ability. To my knowledge noone was trying to make all pieces playable.

AP arty was left out of this conversation as it has been covered time and time again in numerous other threads.

I do not believe that by making the two popular changes in this thread that they would slow down or cause less damage to be delt in a standard 450, 1 hour game of MW. With each change we suggested we provided a counter, a alternate way to damage the pieces with the affect SE's. To recap those energy defeats reactive armor already, and through discussion we decided that streak would be the best SE to defeat Decoy.

While a strategy game like MW does have parrallels to chess making a few changes to the game isnt going to bring it to a crawl. Past that AP never helped in hitting a 23 or a 24, it only helped to damage it once you got the roll. And again we decided that AP would work as it does currently against heavy and hardened.

I dont believe these changes complicate or slow down the nature of the game. Really all we are talking about is a few changes to the SEC. None of these changes are complex. None of these changes require additional die rolls. Effects of these changes were thought of and discussed. As to min/max ing in my opinion this opens some new units. More options more counters, I think that keeps it interesting.
Beyond it all, these are only theorys, and I appreciate the input you are providing on why AP should remain the same.

Well, as much a supporter of adjusting AP as I am, I've got to agree with some of Pickman's comments.

His opening argument, that there are several problems far more severe with the game than AP is right on target. If we're prioritizing problems with the game that need fixing, the absurdity of charge has to be number one on the hit parade, with the continuing trend toward the dominance of artillery probably being number two.

Secondly, Pickman's right that one of the the likely overall effects of adjusting AP would be a likely increase in the preeminence of assault 'mechs. Now, while I'll readily admit that might be desirable to those who'd like to see the heavy hitters out there wreaking their destruction (and I'm one of them), it would probably tend to decrease the role of maneuver and tactics in the game -- things would start to trend towards "he with the biggest guns, wins" and that can get dull. That's not to say that it wouldn't be more "realistic" (touchy word that), but it would tend to make the game less exciting -- unless, of course, you get to play against an idiot who fields zippies against your fattie and you get to watch them blow up in one or two shots...

*IF* changes are made to AP, then they should be small ones. Most of the stuff we've discussed here is on the edge of exceeding that limit -- and definitely so if taken in combination.

I fully agree, changing AP is definalty more than a few notches down the needs a fix list. Charge, AP arty certainly at the top.
As far as that goes if AP is never changed its not going to be that consequential, but if we are having the conversation we might as well look at all the options. Right? Now I still dont think that we would see a abundance of fatties if these changes did go through. Most big mech armor is Hardened/Heavy not decoy or reactive. I could be wrong.

How is 'he with the biggest guns win' differ from 'he with the biggest AP guns wins'?

I'd rather see more mechs than pogs in the game.

OTOH, I wouldn't want to do away with AP for normal ballistic attacks. You can move away from tanks, etc. But often I find myself facing 5 (or more) arty markers on EVERY turn, and my opponent isn't even pushing. I only have 3 orders here, come on.

@ foust: you know, in retrospect, I think you're right. If the only mod(s) that get instituted for AP are (#1) having Decoy require a re-roll even if AP applies, and/or (#2) having Reactive reduce AP damage by 2, then it will mostly not apply to Assault 'mechs but smaller ones -- most Assaults tend to have Hardened/Heavy which the change wouldn't affect.

@ StoneMason: fully agree that artillery with AP is something that needs to be closely looked at (particularly those with multiple pogs and damage greater than 1 with AP). It's far too easy to turtle and pummel your opponent with artillery from a relatively invulnerable position -- meaning that the real decision of who wins tends to be decided by an artillery duel (dull) or zippies charging the tortise (equally dull).

Oh foust, now I remember my point. If streaks were to kill off decoy, than decoy/ECM combo would be possible and unbalancing. ECM kills streaks. Thats why I suggested if decoy were changed to be a movement SE, then it wouldn't be possible to take both. But then I just realized that raises the issue of armor SE + decoy. So either way, I dont believe streaks defeating decoy would be balanced out. Just keep AP as defeating it, it keeps it simple even if common sense disagrees.

EC kills indirect fire entirely reguardless of streak. Right? So as long as you made a direct fire attack against a EC equiped unit its EC wouldnt matter. Am I wrong on this? I thought that was how EC read. I think it would make streak and decoy more useful really. It gives streak equiped units the ability to hit a decoy target without a re roll. and it makes decoy a bit more viable since there arent as many units with streak as there are AP.

There have been many ideas kicked around here, and some of them I like very much. Most of us agree that, at a minimum, AP should NOT negate Decoy. That's just a no-brainer.

Someome earlier said something about changing the wording for AP to use 'armor SE' instead of Defense. Unfortunately, there aren't any armor SEs. I know we talk about them here, but they are, in point of fact, Defense SEs. So, for that to work, the SEC would have to be reorganized. And how would that be done? It's organized to correspond to slots on the dials. I think the wording for AP would simply have to spell out what is was and was not effective against.

I think a compromise would be to allow any SE that reduces normal ballistic damage by 2, to reduce AP damage by 1. Other SEs would have no effect. That would be simple to implement and not that far reaching or game unbalancing, since no unit keeps those SEs for too long (generally speaking).

AP artillery is a different matter. I like the idea of declaring, when the marker is set, if the round is AP or not. I'm not quite sure how you resolve the AP arty, though. Since it would only target a single unit, would it have to be under center dot to hit? That would make sense. If it drifts, it misses - unless it drifts under the center dot of another unit. That would make it a single purpose surgical round, as it is meant to be, with no collateral damage.