-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I once joked that I didn't need to be good at tactical combat strategy, because my presence on these forums posting detailed statistics and charts would make those who recognize me fear me... which I meant totally in jest, not at all seriously. But in today's match my enemy said this before we fought:
The psychological warfare was real! On the very first move of the first round he made a fatal mistake and walked a Medium scout right into the line of fire of my entire team, in perfect targeting range, no less! That medium scout was dead before it could move again. After that, between my Light 'Mech piloted by Arclight and my numbers advantage, I could force him to move first and have 2 'Mechs move at the end of every round without so much as giving him a chance to react to them. The fight was basically over after that initial mistake, it just snowballed from there and I won with all four 'Mechs intact and only one missing a single side torso. GG @Morfanos it was fun chitchatting with you during and after the match! On to the Elite 8 of the upper bracket!Morfanos said:I have to admit, you might already have the psychological advantage over me as I've seen you post quite a lot on the forums... me, I'm "no one", I don't believe a single person "predicted" I'd get anywhere past the first round.
Last edited:
I once joked that I didn't need to be good at tactical combat strategy, because my presence on these forums posting detailed statistics and charts would make those who recognize me fear me... which I meant totally in jest, not at all seriously. But in today's match my enemy said this before we fought:
Morfanos said:I have to admit, you might already have the psychological advantage over me as I've seen you post quite a lot on the forums... me, I'm "no one"
The psychological warfare was real! On the very first move of the first round he made a fatal mistake and walked a Medium scout right into the line of fire of my entire team, in perfect targeting range, no less! That medium scout was dead before it could move again. After that, between my Light 'Mech piloted by Arclight and my numbers advantage, I could force him to move first and have 2 'Mechs move at the end of every round without so much as giving him a chance to react to them. The fight was basically over after that initial mistake, it just snowballed from there and I won with all four 'Mechs intact and only one missing a single side torso. GG @Morfanos it was fun chitchatting with you during and after the match! On to the Elite 8 of the upper bracket!
The worst part is that my last opponent warned me about not doing that exact thing. Against him, it wasn't such a big deal, not because of a lack of skills on his part but simply because of the slightly different lance composition he had and a minor difference in positioning but against you, well, lets just say nothing beats learning from your own mistakes.
@GridLink, I failed to fully understand your teaching and I paid dearly for that mistake. Sorry.
@HonorKnight , I look forward to that rematch, I'd be very much curious to see the difference it would make to simply change who is the host and nothing else.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/272133145 and my round 3 match for those intrested gg wp to @Bassoonist I had fun
gg wp to @Bassoonist I had fun
I played my quarter-final top bracket match today with @Zakhodit and I was thoroughly crushed. The video should be available on his Twitch channel.
I brought a pair of Centurion AL’s piloted by Sumo and Wildfire, a Hunchback 4G with Mockingbird, and a Panther with Arclight. My lance was designed to: First, have extremely high armor on largely Bulwark-using pilots to blunt most enemy attacks; next to have long range dominance with sensor locking, large lasers and LRMs with truly massivie stores of ammo, along with a PPC on my Light; then, once the enemy closes, bringing to bear heavily focused “can opener” firepower from the 4G and respectable mixed firepower from the Centurion AL pair that is all nearly heat-neutral to not be overly vulnerable to firestarters. The panther was intended to remain at long range with evasive chevrons up to stay hard to hit, that way it could drop enemy evasion via sensor lock or take PPC pot-shots, all while helping to control turn order through the pilot’s master tactician ability.
@Zakhodit brought a lance he’s publically showcased, “Red Dawn”: two wolverine 6R’s a Jenner, and a Firestarter, a lance designed around mobility and hopping into close range with max evasive pips and Guard then backstabbing, which is a hard move to counter. There have been write-ups on this lance before, such as here: https://battletech.gamepedia.com/Multiplayer_Meta_Lance_Builds
Once we engaged, I decided my only chance against this backstabbing-specialist lance was to put my back to a wall, and since rocks and mountains don’t function well as walls in this game, I moved at a dead sprint for the nearest zone boundary wall, which was a couple turns away. I took some fire to my rear on the way before reaching my destination, at which point I spun around and guarded up for the upcoming brawl with him hot on my tail. I got a few shots in then Zakhodit jumped back behind a mountain. I continued firing with my nigh-unlimited LRMs, and he just kept pulling back until I couldn’t engage even with sensor lock from my light ‘Mech. At this point we had a stalemate, @Zakhodit indicated in no uncertain terms that my options were to walk forward and face him in the center of the map (where he had the clear advantage) or to conceed.
Nobody likes ultimatums or stalemates, but since I was being just as objectionable by essentially exploiting game mechanics in using the arbitrary impassible wall to flip the script and turn a losing lance pairing into a winning one, and in the spirit of sportsmanship I deferred to his request and moved forward into almost certain defeat. I then made a hail mary move with a Juggernaut melee to try to open a target up for multiple subsequent alpha strikes, but that only accelerated my demise as backstab after backstab tore up my team that had no non-exploitative way to counter such a tactic with my lance. In the end, he cordially thanked me for breaking the stalemate and suggested alternative lances that could counter his own in a more traditional way. I wished him luck on his future matches, and we parted ways.
I brought a pair of Centurion AL’s piloted by Sumo and Wildfire, a Hunchback 4G with Mockingbird, and a Panther with Arclight. My lance was designed to: First, have extremely high armor on largely Bulwark-using pilots to blunt most enemy attacks; next to have long range dominance with sensor locking, large lasers and LRMs with truly massivie stores of ammo, along with a PPC on my Light; then, once the enemy closes, bringing to bear heavily focused “can opener” firepower from the 4G and respectable mixed firepower from the Centurion AL pair that is all nearly heat-neutral to not be overly vulnerable to firestarters. The panther was intended to remain at long range with evasive chevrons up to stay hard to hit, that way it could drop enemy evasion via sensor lock or take PPC pot-shots, all while helping to control turn order through the pilot’s master tactician ability.
@Zakhodit brought a lance he’s publically showcased, “Red Dawn”: two wolverine 6R’s a Jenner, and a Firestarter, a lance designed around mobility and hopping into close range with max evasive pips and Guard then backstabbing, which is a hard move to counter. There have been write-ups on this lance before, such as here: https://battletech.gamepedia.com/Multiplayer_Meta_Lance_Builds
Once we engaged, I decided my only chance against this backstabbing-specialist lance was to put my back to a wall, and since rocks and mountains don’t function well as walls in this game, I moved at a dead sprint for the nearest zone boundary wall, which was a couple turns away. I took some fire to my rear on the way before reaching my destination, at which point I spun around and guarded up for the upcoming brawl with him hot on my tail. I got a few shots in then Zakhodit jumped back behind a mountain. I continued firing with my nigh-unlimited LRMs, and he just kept pulling back until I couldn’t engage even with sensor lock from my light ‘Mech. At this point we had a stalemate, @Zakhodit indicated in no uncertain terms that my options were to walk forward and face him in the center of the map (where he had the clear advantage) or to conceed.
Nobody likes ultimatums or stalemates, but since I was being just as objectionable by essentially exploiting game mechanics in using the arbitrary impassible wall to flip the script and turn a losing lance pairing into a winning one, and in the spirit of sportsmanship I deferred to his request and moved forward into almost certain defeat. I then made a hail mary move with a Juggernaut melee to try to open a target up for multiple subsequent alpha strikes, but that only accelerated my demise as backstab after backstab tore up my team that had no non-exploitative way to counter such a tactic with my lance. In the end, he cordially thanked me for breaking the stalemate and suggested alternative lances that could counter his own in a more traditional way. I wished him luck on his future matches, and we parted ways.
Last edited:
The link to the match is here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/276677435
I give credit to @HonorKnight for fighting rather than locking us in a stalemate. But it's a stalemate that I'd like @Prussian Havoc to make a ruling on.
IT could be argued that my lance is "Cheese" as it is mobile and takes advantage to destroy the back armor of any flat footed lance. I call it strategy and tactics.
IT can also be argued that backing up against the non existent "wall" of the map to keep from getting shot in the back is also strategy and tactics.
This stalemate could happen again. IF I assault with my lance (WVR-6R, WVR-6R, Jenner, Firestarter) with his lance against this false wall where I cannot flank the back, his lance (CN9-AL, CN9-AL, HBK-4G, Panther) would murder me. And with out this protection, @HonorKnight was easily over run and destroyed.
There is no way for @HonorKnight to play without the wall and have a chance to win. There is no way for me to win if he uses the wall.
I appreciate that @HonorKnight chose to come away from the wall knowing full well he was likely doomed. But how do resolve this is neither player is willing to engage in a fight that is obviously going to end in a loss? @HonorKnight could have thumbed his nose at me and I would have stayed away until we got fed up with the stalemate and... waited for the power to go out?
I would have argued that I had more control of the map, and thus won. @HonorKnight could argue that the victory conditions were to destroy the other lance.
How do resolve this in the future?
I give credit to @HonorKnight for fighting rather than locking us in a stalemate. But it's a stalemate that I'd like @Prussian Havoc to make a ruling on.
IT could be argued that my lance is "Cheese" as it is mobile and takes advantage to destroy the back armor of any flat footed lance. I call it strategy and tactics.
IT can also be argued that backing up against the non existent "wall" of the map to keep from getting shot in the back is also strategy and tactics.
This stalemate could happen again. IF I assault with my lance (WVR-6R, WVR-6R, Jenner, Firestarter) with his lance against this false wall where I cannot flank the back, his lance (CN9-AL, CN9-AL, HBK-4G, Panther) would murder me. And with out this protection, @HonorKnight was easily over run and destroyed.
There is no way for @HonorKnight to play without the wall and have a chance to win. There is no way for me to win if he uses the wall.
I appreciate that @HonorKnight chose to come away from the wall knowing full well he was likely doomed. But how do resolve this is neither player is willing to engage in a fight that is obviously going to end in a loss? @HonorKnight could have thumbed his nose at me and I would have stayed away until we got fed up with the stalemate and... waited for the power to go out?
I would have argued that I had more control of the map, and thus won. @HonorKnight could argue that the victory conditions were to destroy the other lance.
How do resolve this in the future?
So this wasnt a stalemate then. Its not an impossible win scenario either.
Only because @HonorKnight chose to move off the boundary
If he hadn't, I wasn't going to go into situation that I cannot win due to the boundary. No fight would have taken place. That's a stalemate.
Yeah it was a case where whoever moved forward was 99% likely to lose, and we both knew it. I didn’t want any bad feelings to come out of the tournament which should be about fun congenial competition. So I just walked forward to my death, effectively conceeding without actually throwing the game, by giving it the old college try for that 1% chance of a miracle.
Last edited:
So I watched the video in full, and I'm very glad there was a video of this battle.
Seeing it in full, I feel this tournament badly needs some rules and arbitration to stop this from happening again. Because the game is only Deathmatch, with no timer on round limit, and no way to decide a winner if neither sides engages each other, well situations like this are going to happen more and more because you tournament guys are playing to WIN the tournament, you are doing all you can for that big W.
So tournament organizers, put some rules in place in case this comes up again!
Now that aside, my thoughts on this battle.
1. HonorKnight used an imaginary wall to protect his back, the fake edge of the world. Well you know, that's also a valid tactic in the Boardgame BattleTech. You can be a map edge hugger and not get backstabbed. BUT in the boardgame, if you do that, you are in danger of being instantly killed by a single physical attack 'push' action. A unit that leaves play is instantly considered to be killed/defeat/whatever. If you use the map edge, you run that risk of instant death. That's why the rule is there, to prevent people from cheesy protection of their back against an imaginary wall. Without that rule, people can design a Mech with literally 0 back armor, and never worry about 0 back armor, because of imaginary wall protection. No, that's rubbish, there is a reason the 'push off map' rule exists, and it's to fight that behavior. The fact that it doesn't exist in this game, or this tournament, is an oversight that needs to be addressed to resolve exactly this situation.
2. With neither side engaging in combat, to look at the game from an unbiased standpoint, you have to consider the other factors.
2A. Did @Zakhodit take a lot of damage before he issued his ultimatum? No. If he had, I would rule against him, because he is trying to rule bend to get out of a bad situation where he is behind from bad scouting and taking too much damage. That's not what happened, neither side was seriously damaged in the scouting pre-stalemate phase.
2B. With damage metric meaningless, what else is there. Map control. Who has control of the center of the map, and who has not advanced on to the battlefield? A literal situation of 'king of the hill' and it's clear @Zakhodit is the king of the hill. He controls the vast majority of the map with his presence, and @HonorKnight only controlled the edge he was backed against.
3. The battle itself. Wow, what a game. 20 turns of running around, using an imaginary barrier to protect backs, and then 6 rounds of fast action. You guys say 'Honorknight advanced' into battle... but that's not really what I saw. I mean yes he absolutely did move forward away from the border of the map. But he didn't just blind rush Zak, he put his back to the BIGGEST ROCK ON THE BATTLEFIELD, (I like to call it Mt. Everest) and made his stand there. And that made all the difference. Instead of using an imaginary map boundary, that clearly has terrain rendered on it that Mechs can move on, but is blocked off by a yellow line tape, Honorknight used the actual map geography to protect his back. And well with Red Dawn being so jumpjet happy, that actually turned against Honorknight, because it just gave the light jumpers height shot advantages. That is the difference between using a fake map boundary to protect your back, and real map geography to protect your back. One is cheesy, the other is a significant obstacle, but one that can be overcome with game mechanics (see jumpjets) If Red Dawn didn't have so many jumpjets, putting your back to Mt. Everest and fighting from there is a perfectly valid tactic, it's not hiding and cowering, it's fighting on the board.
For what it's worth, to avoid future problems in this and other tournaments, I do suggest some rule arbitration is required:
If neither sides engages in combat for 20 or 30 turns (feel free to pick whatever arbitrary number) the match goes into Sudden Death. This means one person is a camper, and the other refuses to rush them because they have their back to a wall. Or both players are campers, literally neither moving from where they start on the map because they both are long range lances camped out on their excellent defensive positions. Or someone is being a jerk: The battle is over, it's 1 Spider jumping max range to stay out of range of fully armed but 1 legged Hunchback, who can never catch up to the Spider to end the game. Any situation like that where an extended amount of turns passes, the games goes to Sudden Death.
One player can declare, in chat very clearly '25 turns no weapons fire I declare Sudden Death'.
Sudden death determines the outcome of the game rapidly.
1. If neither player engages in weapons combat within 5 turns, where both players are engaged in sustained weapons firing engagement for at least a few turns (no jump in, take 1 medium laser shot, jump away for 20 more turns to reset Sudden Death nonsense!) then Sudden Death instantly ends the match.
2. The player who has taken more damage and lost more Mechs/Limbs/Armor/Everything instantly is declared the loser. So 1 Spider vs a fully armed but 1 legged Hunchback? Sorry Spider, the HB is worth more C-bills, so the HB is declared the winner.
3. If neither side has taken any damage (both players refuse to engage) the player with more map control wins. So the person who is closest to the center of the map is the winner. King of the Hill, simply put. If both players think they are closest to the center and there is an argument, well they're both stupid and disqualify them both. lol There's no way both players can somehow be occupying and controlling the center of the map, and yet they are not engaged in weapons range. Impossible.
That's all I can think of for necessary rules to resolve this issue in future, but if there is something I missed, I am open to suggestions!
http://muehlenweg.us/nicstuff/Battletech RPG/BattleTech 35101- Total Warfare.pdf
Right here, in BattleTech Classic Rules, Page 257.
And I quote
That is the exact rule that is in place to prevent players from sitting on the edge of the map in an attempt to protect themselves.
"ARE CONSIDERED DESTROYED" Is the most important line. So just like in the boardgame, if you are a map rim hugger, you are 1 physical attack from being instantly destroyed.
In fact, you guys should bake this into the tournament rules:
IF A UNIT IS ADJACENT TO THE EDGE OF THE MAP, AS DENOTED BY THE YELLOW BORDER LINE, AND THAT UNIT IS SUBJECT TO A PHYSICAL ATTACK THAT IS SUCCESSFUL, ON THAT UNIT'S NEXT AVAILABLE TURN, IT MUST EJECT BECAUSE IT IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY A PUSH PHYSICAL ATTACK THAT KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE MAP BOUNDARIES.
Failure to comply with required ejection results in instant match forfeit. I 100% suggest anyone trying to invoke this rule have a recording of the event. Don't anyone just say it happened, proved that it exactly happened.
There, now you have a rule for this situation. So people CAN use the map edge if they want to, but it puts them at risk of instant death through a single physical attack. Just like the boardgame rules dictate.
Right here, in BattleTech Classic Rules, Page 257.
And I quote
That is the exact rule that is in place to prevent players from sitting on the edge of the map in an attempt to protect themselves.
"ARE CONSIDERED DESTROYED" Is the most important line. So just like in the boardgame, if you are a map rim hugger, you are 1 physical attack from being instantly destroyed.
In fact, you guys should bake this into the tournament rules:
IF A UNIT IS ADJACENT TO THE EDGE OF THE MAP, AS DENOTED BY THE YELLOW BORDER LINE, AND THAT UNIT IS SUBJECT TO A PHYSICAL ATTACK THAT IS SUCCESSFUL, ON THAT UNIT'S NEXT AVAILABLE TURN, IT MUST EJECT BECAUSE IT IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY A PUSH PHYSICAL ATTACK THAT KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE MAP BOUNDARIES.
Failure to comply with required ejection results in instant match forfeit. I 100% suggest anyone trying to invoke this rule have a recording of the event. Don't anyone just say it happened, proved that it exactly happened.
There, now you have a rule for this situation. So people CAN use the map edge if they want to, but it puts them at risk of instant death through a single physical attack. Just like the boardgame rules dictate.
Last edited:
@Vorkaal you’d have to extend that rule to include impassible terrain *near* the yellow border line, as if you review the video or the map there are places to stand (I believe I was in or directly next to such a place) without technically being against the yellow line because the terrain behind the ‘Mech would have been impassible all the way back to the yellow line.
I’ve never played tabletop, how does approaching for a backstab compare? In this game it’s my understanding that jump distances are longer and line of sight shorter which both empower closing for backstabs disproportionately relative to tabletop. Are the jumping evasion bonus and the Guard 50% damage reduction after jumping, which allows the approach with near-impunity, also new relative to tabletop? And even once you do close, I think I once heard that in tabletop you get an accuracy penalty after jumping. These are just the rules I’ve heard in passing conversations on the forums, clearly there was an overall design goal in tabletop to mitigate this tactic, much of which didn’t make the trip into this game. There’s just a lot of bonuses and general lack of drawbacks from approaching and backstabbing in this manner relative to tabletop, so I would have to question the fairness of a blanket rule preventing defending ones self from backstabbers based on a tabletop rule if the risk of backstabbing is materially greater in this game than in tabletop.
I’ve never played tabletop, how does approaching for a backstab compare? In this game it’s my understanding that jump distances are longer and line of sight shorter which both empower closing for backstabs disproportionately relative to tabletop. Are the jumping evasion bonus and the Guard 50% damage reduction after jumping, which allows the approach with near-impunity, also new relative to tabletop? And even once you do close, I think I once heard that in tabletop you get an accuracy penalty after jumping. These are just the rules I’ve heard in passing conversations on the forums, clearly there was an overall design goal in tabletop to mitigate this tactic, much of which didn’t make the trip into this game. There’s just a lot of bonuses and general lack of drawbacks from approaching and backstabbing in this manner relative to tabletop, so I would have to question the fairness of a blanket rule preventing defending ones self from backstabbers based on a tabletop rule if the risk of backstabbing is materially greater in this game than in tabletop.
Last edited:
I would be fine to revise and refine the map edge rule.
You aren't totally wrong with your points. In ways it is easier to close the distance in this game over the boardgame. Level one is typically a PPC/LRM fest because Mechs are generally too slow in level 1 to be able to close the distance without getting pummeled in transit. Typically, unless you play/build very specifically and also rely heavily on speed and jumpjets. But that's the same in this game. In boardgame, you had a lot more protection from high speed movement, you cannot 'strip' evasion like you can in this game. A 5/8/5 who was jumping from cover to cover was impossible to hit. If you fought on a map like Heavy Woods or something ridiculous like that, all advantage goes to the jumper and none to the sniper. But generally, people didn't play maps like that on the boardgame, and PPC LRM snipers picked good maps with nice hills to camp on. But of course those who pick the map let the other player decide starting locations, so you had to use that to your advantage if you were a brawler needing to close the distance.
As for new mechanics in this game making the approaching lance unstoppable, I have to disagree. If it is so easy to be an advancing brawler/backstabber lance, I think we would see a ton more people using it. It's very hard to use, and I generally see most people are very happy with bigger, slower guns, and more armor (all those 4/6/0 medium Mechs) you get when you bring a 5.08 hunchback into battle against a 5.96 WVR 6R. HBG has more armor 800v720, more firepower, but trades away mobility. But on paper, man that Hunchback looks 100% better than the WVR!
So you are right there are new mechanics in this game that facilitate an aggressive, 4 evasion jump brace lance. But there are other mechanics in place to combat those abilities. You can't sensor lock to remove evasion in the boardgame. You can't breaching shot to ignore cover/defensive bonuses in boardgame. You can't call shot a non-prone target, and also penalize it's initiative at the same time (sup precision fury strike). Physical attacks in this game are WAY more accurate than they were in the boardgame. Physical attacks remove evasion, and brace, and if Sumo, also penalize initiative. (That's why everyone loves that Sumo Locust so much!) And so on.
Last edited:
For example, in the boardgame, Jenner was queen of the Battlefield.
7/11/5 movement made it extraordinary difficult to hit. And unlike this game, you can't slowly remove it's movement defense modifiers. And in boardgame, you can sprint and fire, unlike this game which forces you to walk(or jump) if you want to shoot. If memory serves... 7+ hex movement was a +3 modifier to hit, and with a run of 11, with turns, the Jenner could and would always have that +3 modifier to hit. Or higher, if it ended it's turn in cover. So your gunnery (average 4) + 4(jenner move, either +4 or +3 with cover) + your movement (unlike this game, your movement makes your shots less accurate) so you're looking at 9+ on 2D6 to connect to a Jenner, under IDEAL circumstances (optimal short firing range, no other penalties, no LOS obstruction, clear shot). And all those modifiers carry over to melee attacks. So you can't just 'kick' that fast mover like you can in this game, where every Melee attack is like 90% to hit, and DFA is 60% for each leg to hit. Those numbers are crazy high compared to the boardgame, because this game all evasion modifiers are IGNORED by physical AND support weapons. (This is what makes the firestarter flamers so damn accurate).
So if anything, I would say the toolbox to engage speedy targets in this game has greatly expanded over the boardgame/MegaMek, but they are tools you specifically have to use (pilot special skills especially). Whereas the boardgame, all pilots are created equal with no special skills. Only thing they had going for them was their gunnery and piloting numbers, and that it. And in any serious play, all pilots on both sides were equal. 4/5 IS pilots, 3/4 Clan pilots. And having a better than average pilot actually increased the BV of your Mech too. So that 0/2 pilot in an Archer costs more than an Assault Mech to deploy.
7/11/5 movement made it extraordinary difficult to hit. And unlike this game, you can't slowly remove it's movement defense modifiers. And in boardgame, you can sprint and fire, unlike this game which forces you to walk(or jump) if you want to shoot. If memory serves... 7+ hex movement was a +3 modifier to hit, and with a run of 11, with turns, the Jenner could and would always have that +3 modifier to hit. Or higher, if it ended it's turn in cover. So your gunnery (average 4) + 4(jenner move, either +4 or +3 with cover) + your movement (unlike this game, your movement makes your shots less accurate) so you're looking at 9+ on 2D6 to connect to a Jenner, under IDEAL circumstances (optimal short firing range, no other penalties, no LOS obstruction, clear shot). And all those modifiers carry over to melee attacks. So you can't just 'kick' that fast mover like you can in this game, where every Melee attack is like 90% to hit, and DFA is 60% for each leg to hit. Those numbers are crazy high compared to the boardgame, because this game all evasion modifiers are IGNORED by physical AND support weapons. (This is what makes the firestarter flamers so damn accurate).
So if anything, I would say the toolbox to engage speedy targets in this game has greatly expanded over the boardgame/MegaMek, but they are tools you specifically have to use (pilot special skills especially). Whereas the boardgame, all pilots are created equal with no special skills. Only thing they had going for them was their gunnery and piloting numbers, and that it. And in any serious play, all pilots on both sides were equal. 4/5 IS pilots, 3/4 Clan pilots. And having a better than average pilot actually increased the BV of your Mech too. So that 0/2 pilot in an Archer costs more than an Assault Mech to deploy.
Last edited:
@Vorkaal if you have access to the source material can you post the rules about torso twisting as it relates to backstabs? I only heard that info secondhand but it seemed like a significant effort to reduce the frequency and effectiveness of backstabs.
I know what you are thinking, but there is no rule to help against backstabbing, unless it's some kind of unofficial/house rule. The way torso twisting works in board game is you have 3 frontal arcs. You can 'twist' to shift these 3 frontal arcs. So something that is on your LEFT side, that you can normally only shoot with LEFT ARM weapons, you do a 'twist' and now you put it into front arc, and now fire all weapons. But because all firing is simultaneous in boardgame, torso twisting does NOT protect your back. Torso twisting changes out-going attacks. Incoming attacks are dependant on your non-torso twisted state (the direction your legs are pointed).
That's from memory, but I'm sure I can find the exact rule in the PDF I linked.
Last edited:
Page 119:
http://muehlenweg.us/nicstuff/Battletech RPG/BattleTech 35101- Total Warfare.pdf
And I quote:
Backstabbing in the boardgame was highly dangerous (you had to change your enemy, who could pelt you with fire during your advance), but highly rewarding if you could pull it off. When people starting putting their backs to the map edge, the rule makers saw how problematic this was, and created the rule of being pushed off the map would kill you, to prevent this method of rear armor protection.
And it's entirely different from using actual map terrain to protect your back. If you were fighting a backstabber lance without JJ (fast 5/8/0 movers example WVR K, KTO) your tactic of putting your back to Mt. Everest is 100% valid, and effective, and there is no recourse for complaining or demanding arbitration. But that's the price Red Dawn pays for, by having all Mechs with Jumpjets, they are not inhibited by terrain that a non JJ using lance would face. They spent their BV and cbills to get JJs, which means less armor/firepower/total tonnage in exchange for more flexibility when handling difficult terrain. The edge of the map is not difficult terrain, it's a magical boundary because the game world is not an infinite expanse of land. There's no reason a mobile JJ Mech can't get behind you. And if you argue that the edge of the map is a sheer face cliff/abyss into en empty void that any Mech would die if they jumped into, well... that's why the rule of 'push off map = kill' is a kill. Your mechs fall off the world when pushed backwards.
http://muehlenweg.us/nicstuff/Battletech RPG/BattleTech 35101- Total Warfare.pdf
And I quote:
Backstabbing in the boardgame was highly dangerous (you had to change your enemy, who could pelt you with fire during your advance), but highly rewarding if you could pull it off. When people starting putting their backs to the map edge, the rule makers saw how problematic this was, and created the rule of being pushed off the map would kill you, to prevent this method of rear armor protection.
And it's entirely different from using actual map terrain to protect your back. If you were fighting a backstabber lance without JJ (fast 5/8/0 movers example WVR K, KTO) your tactic of putting your back to Mt. Everest is 100% valid, and effective, and there is no recourse for complaining or demanding arbitration. But that's the price Red Dawn pays for, by having all Mechs with Jumpjets, they are not inhibited by terrain that a non JJ using lance would face. They spent their BV and cbills to get JJs, which means less armor/firepower/total tonnage in exchange for more flexibility when handling difficult terrain. The edge of the map is not difficult terrain, it's a magical boundary because the game world is not an infinite expanse of land. There's no reason a mobile JJ Mech can't get behind you. And if you argue that the edge of the map is a sheer face cliff/abyss into en empty void that any Mech would die if they jumped into, well... that's why the rule of 'push off map = kill' is a kill. Your mechs fall off the world when pushed backwards.
Last edited:
It's a been a very long time since I played the TT but from what I remember, back attacks were mostly a target of opportunity thing rather than a viable strategy as it was very easy to lose LOS or to protect the back side. I don't mean they never happened as a strategy but you would never see what @Zakhodit does with his Red Dawn lance as a real viable strategy.
At least, that from what I recall and from the point of view of a Clanner who almost exclusively played against IS opponents, meaning the numbers of units on the battlefield were often 2 to one in favor of the IS and still, I'd rarely see back attacks.
At least, that from what I recall and from the point of view of a Clanner who almost exclusively played against IS opponents, meaning the numbers of units on the battlefield were often 2 to one in favor of the IS and still, I'd rarely see back attacks.
Sounds like you fought like a very honorable Clansman. I got so sick of unhittable 6/9/6 Pulse Laser ($%^& you Wraith, you are the worst kind of modded Mech that someone decided to make a real canon Mech) boats doing jump backshots, I gave up on playing level 2 games seriously. I went back to level 1.
I tried my best to play them as intended. I was designated as the Clan player by the others quite early on(they wanted to keep playing with the IS mechs they knew so well) so I adapted to both their tactics and honor as depicted in the lore.
Later, we played level 3 most of the time but made sure to agree to avoid any "cheap" tactics that wouldn't normally be usable with standard mechs or level 2 rules.
I still have a mech sheet somewhere of a mech I made for fun, it was able to destroy any 100 tons IS mech using XL engine in a single turn at the rate of one by turn. The BV on that thing was something like 3 times the value of a Dire Wolf Widowmaker. Lets just say we only played once with that mech
.
Last edited: