MechWarrior: Continuing Strugle

[deusxmachina]

I had a great time playing MW again this week for the first time in over a year. It reminded me how much fun the game was and how much I love the story line. But it also remided me of the balance problems and the fact that the game is no longer supported. Any way I've been inspired to work on a set of rules modifications that would mix some of the best features of Classic Battletech with the streamlined skirmish rules of Mechwarrior. My thought is to create a game that plays pretty much like MW but without the clix bases, instead it would have a way of customizing units like CBT. If anyone would be interested in sharing ideas and inputs, or testing it out let me know.

[Zxqueb]

Sounds cool. I would love to help out once the school year is over.

[warlord1985]

Mechwarrior:Resurrection is the newest set coming out in 2013. Just after 2012 and we all die. It'll be Jordan Weisman and 3 thingyroaches.

In all seriousness, I would love to rewrite the mech rules that were busted and f**ked up. Unfortunately I may not be the best at rules interpretation.

[tjpandv]

I'd certainly like to see some sort of chit-pull command system in use that would make the turns far more interactive rather than "you go-I go".

Customising units can be done quite easily by using cards that denote special equipment or ablities that are bought for a certain PV for each game (tourny or one-off) or retained (for a campaign). Rather like SECs but they can be used for vehicles and infantry. Should be simple to make and cheap to produce.

[deusxmachina]

It's nice to see the interest in this topic. I'm happy to get all the input I can. Ideally I'd like to end up with a revised set of rules that takes the world by storm and starts a grass roots MW revival. Hopefully I'll at least get a few people who like it well enough to play it occasionally. I'm starting with the premise that MW rules were pretty solid and most of the brokenness in the game came from the unbalanced nature of the pieces which is part of the marketing strategy of most collectable games. That is a bit of an assumption on my part since I only played on and off casually since age of destruction came out. The competitive side of things may have uncovered more holes in the rules. I'd love to get feedback on what things people thought didn't work in the old rules.

The concept I've been rolling around in my head is to keep the rules pretty much intact, with a few exception. The big change would be completely scrapping the whole click base idea and coming up with a more Battletech like system that would allow players to design there own units with the stats they wanted and formulas to compute the point cost of those units. Right now I'm thinking just one set of stats per unit that would stay consistent until it is destroyed, with maybe some system for assigning negative effects near the end of a units life to add that element of desperation at the end. I want to get away from the old first hit wins system where after one good hit most units were at a severe disadvantage if not outright worthless. Of course this would necessitate a new ability to show how much damage a unit could take before it is destroyed. Armor would probably be a good name for it. The two things I'd like input on most right now are:

1) What rules need to change?
I'd personally like to throw tank drop out, but maybe replace it with an assault rule for all units types or at least vehicles. I'm also on the fence about pushing damage, break away and limiting the number of orders per turn.

2) What special equipment is really essential to the game?
Special equipment adds a lot to the complexity of the game and will make balancing points on units much harder, so I'd like to throw out any equipment that doesn't really add to the flavor (like close combat weapons) or strategy options (like jump jets)

[warlord1985]

Well, there are alot of rules that would need to be tweaked. I haven't played in forever but just off the top of my head from what you mentioned...

-Tank Drop: Tank drop worked, but not the cost of making them better than assault mechs. For round about 150 points I get a mobile assault cannon that shoots usually 4-6 damage armor piercing. My 300 point assault mech does the same thing, but the Tank Drop usually has better range and can get to do its thing faster and better. I was always under the idea that a transport should not be able to transport anything more than double its points. That would allow the 32 point Zahns to transport 3 good infantry, but NOT allow it to drop a Kelswa. Sorry Matt, Tank Drop is dumb, and makes mech suck. As long as mechs suck to this, it must be taken care of.

-Assault orders for non-mechs: You could always make it a base movement, half your movement rounded up. Allowing a 6 movement a 3" assault to get around buildings. However, I would give a penalty to this tho. Not allowing to use Pulse weapons would be something to consider. In 40k, a game I recently got into, Rapid Fire/Pulse weapons cannot be used on the move because of there recoil. Something to consider.

Special Equipment: I always liked Jump Jets, I just think it was never really finished. I always thought that Mechs should not have to roll for break aways from infantry unless the infantry had grapple. How am I and 4 friends stopping that 50 ton thing from moving. I'm not, so there. Close Combat weapons do happen in Mech, but I always thought that should be designated by a distinct melee attack weapon slot.

[thekaiser]

From the games my friend and I have had, the "first who hits wins" syndrome isn't as strong as it used to be in the earlier expansions. Most 'Mechs from Firepower up can take a good wallop from a similar weight class and have a chance to retaliate. I think this is mostly due to pilot cards though, with +1-+2 making a big difference on dials when applied.

I'd be happy to try out anything new the more experienced CBT players have to infuse into AoD, at any rate.

[deusxmachina]

Nice to hear break away troubles other people. It never really made any sense to me either. At least it's not as bad as it use to be when some little guy on a tricycle could not only keep my 100 ton giant robot from moving but shooting as well. I'd like to remove break away entirely, but I worry about how that would tilt the balance of the game. Maybe then light fast mechs would dominate, just running around shooting mechs in the back. But I guess since we're talking about letting people design there own units if we left in the option to put grapple on any unit (for some added point cost), and left breakaway only for grapple that might maintain the balance. Though for infantry with grapple against mechs or vehicles. I would think the infantry still would not prevent the unit from moving but would come along with it (stay based) where ever it went. I remember reading the first battletech novels when the clan battle armor first appeared. They really played up well the sense of fear a mech pilot felt when an elemental latched on, not because it slowed them down or prevented then from doing anything, but because they knew any second a shaped charge might blow there hatch followed by a really big guy with a really big gun.

I really like the idea of having a separate damage value for close combat attacks. It never really made sense to just use the primary attack value. Take for example a catapult sure it's missile launchers do a bunch of damage at range, but they probably don't make really effective clubs.