A successful TAG designation also lets you spot for indirect fire without incurring the +1 hit penalty on the spotter, so it’s not totally useless without artillery backup.
@@KageRyuu6 TAG works for spotting plain LRMs as well without the penalty to the spotter, and semi-guided LRMs are Inner Sphere only according to the Tech Manual. And as far as narratively, TAG would only be useful if your opponent isn’t dishonorably hiding behind terrain, so there’s no loss of honor in using it. Fire Falcon is an Omnimech so it’s not like you’d have one sitting around in this configuration if you didn’t expect to be going against Inner Sphere filth anyway.
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming That is true of “rules” in general for…well, everyone. Heads I win, tails you lose is what most people think of as fair. The bidding and honor rules only really make sense in the meta. When FASA dropped the clan invasion on everyone, clearly the clan mechs were every munchkins favorite. So, the bidding rules were an in game explanation for the actual bidding between players to determine who was playing the clan side. The honor rules forced the clan player to make tactically unwise decisions, and that was the in game explanation for the penalty to the clan side, in scenario scoring if they were broken. But, since then, the game has changed. Clan technology isn’t exclusive to the clans. How a scenario is balanced is by BV. So, the concept of bidding away units is really only needed to explain why the Clan warships aren’t blasting the IS force from orbit with kinetic-kill projectiles. If you balance a scenario by BV, a player using clan faction units can’t afford to fight according to the honor rules anymore.
This thing looks like the evolution of what the Locust could become. For just 800 BV, this is quite a bargain to squeeze into your list. It's not a big damage powerhouse, but fill those SRM launchers with infernos and it's a nice scout and skirmisher with decent anti-infantry capabilities. The low cost means it's not the end of the world if it's lost. As far as the TAG goes, I suppose it's to show that even some clanners are capable of learning from their mistakes lol!
The Fire Falcon is a great light Clan design. It's what the Koshi wanted to be but never could. As for Narc and TAG, the Clans use them in battles as honor allows. They use them on vehicles and infantry, both targets they don't really care about, or on fortifications such as during the Jade Falcon battle during the Clan Invasion on Von Strang's World. As time advances, the Clans' honor becomes more and more flexible to where IS opponents aren't given honor anymore. That's why you have Mechs or tanks like the Naga or the Huitzilopochtli artillery tank.
As others have stated. Clanners learned after getting spanked at tukkayid that honor goes into the trash vs IS. love this mech, wish it was in a game its a deadyly sleek future locust. :(
The Fire Falcon D is a support unit more than anything else - it's designed to spot for indirect fire with TAG and hunt lights, but if you're not using the TAG and can spare the BV, the Prime is considerably more expensive but also an order of magnitude more lethal due to upgrading the SRM4 launchers to Streak models, adding a second ER medium laser, and then throwing in a medium pulse with some ER smalls to boot. Again though, different use cases.
Agreed, this is not a duelist configuration. It's a support config for a LRM heavy or Arrow IV star. It let's the boys do some can opening, then it comes in for crit seeking and to finish off heavily damaged opponents.
Clans do think arty is dishonorable but if you break their honor rules they are more than happy to break them right back. I run this and/or a Jenner IIC 3 in a lot of my lists cause narcing people is really funny.
So TAG is actually pretty important in clan warfare. The clans DO use arrow, just they use it against honorless targets like fortresses. There are lots of those. The clans also hate waste, and even the crusaders dont use unguided artillery as the scatter into a civilian structures is distasteful/wasteful. So when a fortress is being annoying, they swap the heavy/assaults into arrow configs, but only use guided rounds. The NARC+TAG combo let the clans plant indirect homing beacons for indirect LRM strikes with NARC lrms, and TAG for massive missile strikes--since everything is guided and guided Arrows that miss do no damage, it is a bloodless way to bombard targets even in populated cities. The Turkina Keshik, the honor guards of clan jade falcons who always fight with strict honor, do this to defeat the castle Brian on Apollo.
Love this. Makes sense from a lore perspective - but if I am being cheeky, why do the greatest warriors in the galaxy need TAG to hit a stationary, massive target 😄
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming Because of efficiency. Wasting time is still wasteful, and using 'Mech-scale weapons on a hardened target like a military fortification is a prime example of that. Artillery circumvents this ideal.
Great video like always! Now I am sure you may have seen this already, but yes Clans do use Artillery when needed and also for dishonorable foes. But it is on a Clan to Clan basis on that bit for the Zelbringen since there are some who are absolutely rigidly following it, then some are opportunistic and some even leave it to very open interpretation... Now post Tukayyid Clans sort of started to question their code of honor to a point where some did suggest that it remains between them and that when they engage IS forces the just go full on in. Now this imho is a great scout and harasser, this config would be to tag enemies and have your bigger launchers rain death from above with the Arrow missle system and any other systems... I definitely see this mech being a synergy loving mech aka a true team player, on its own, it'll do okay... But when teamed with the right mechs, it can do more than you think, at least that is how I am theorizing it. Keep up these reviews! They are extremely useful! Also question! Will you do a review of the Warhammer IIC?
The TAG is for static defenses and turrets. Its also used for Air Strikes. It is never dishonorable to spot static positions to have it destroyed by warships in orbit or bombs or arty missiles. It is dishonorable to fail to take them out. As your going to gain more honor by accomplishing the objective. Some clans like Jade Falcon also have no restrictions vs IS players and Dark Cast aka Bandits. Maybe the prime would be a better example as your able to run a 4/5 pilot. I think of the Fire Falcon much like the Talon. It dances around a mechs rear ark at 2 to 3 hex's or inch's.
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming Yes when TAGing for bombs. TAG the hex. Its not a direct attack. Clan curve ball. The side arcs are as good at the rear arc's. Move the Fire Falcon last and back off when your unable to move last. For a better idea play two Talon's and a Lynx. Then the mechs Fire Falcon and Black Lanner. They play the same.
From Total Warfare (2019) pg142: "When firing semi-guided missiles at any target in range successfully designated by a friendly TAG (below), the attacker ignores the target movement modifier (if firing indirectly, also ignore indirect fire, terrain and spotter movement modifiers). Once a successful to-hit roll has been made, use the rules for standard LRMs to determine the number of missiles that struck the target, hit locations and so on." With that in mind, I would say the perfect companion mech for this is the Cougar prime - capable of opening up holes to be filled with SRMs, and if heavily targeted or overheating it can hide behind a hill and take advantage of the easy indirect fire.
@@WrenTheWreckless True, but I myself and my playgroup are currently playing in the Clan invasion. Also, while I have exactly zero evidence to back this up, I had always assumed semi-guided LRMs were available for the star league. Come to think of it, wasn't Ulric killed by guided LRMs?
I love the analyses and the thought that goes into them. DFA has helped revive my interest in playing my favourite game universe over the last year after many years of hiatus. But as a constructive criticism, I think you sometimes forget the assumptions that go into your models and your group's play style. 1) If memory serves, all simulations are carried out at gunnery 2. That crushes evasive mechs and rewards armour boats. Many of these lighter mechs will fare much better if they are being shot at by gunnery 4 (or even just 3). That is influenced by the group feeling that G2 is best and choosing to play with those gunners regularly. But that is still an assumption that goes into the model and not a universal fact (the principle holds for the proliferation of higher accuracy weapons and equipment as tech levels rise.). 2) Aaron recommends every mech swap short range weapons for long range weapons. The big lumbering monsters like the King Crab? Too slow to get the AC/20s into range. The fast zippy mechs like the Fire Falcon? Use that speed to hold open range and get damage in early and from greater safety. Again, I feel it is helpful to remember the assumptions that go into these judgements. When I compare the game tables to the mapsheets, not that they should ever really line up too closely, I observe a trend for DFA to have abundances of very open areas. Hills and forests are mostly (I do not wish to imply always) dominating features and often shoved to a side or corner. They look great, but it is hard to dart from cover to cover to break LoS or grab a couple points of wood concealment to make shots much harder even when possible. With this environment, I too would advocate range and size over speed. (As an aside, my pet hypothesis is that this partly comes out of using 1:1 instead of 1:2 hex:inch conversion. The tables are set up wonderfully and look good in proportion to themself and the mechs. But then the mechs cannot get very far and find themselves in the open a lot.) Related to this, Battlytics is structured to reward long range fire. As I understand it, every round, regardless of movement ratings, the mechs are brought one hex closer. So, a 3/5 juggernaut will close just as fast (or slowly) as a 10/15 Fire Moth. As the Fire Moth cannot choose to seek cover and avoid fire for rounds, waiting to make a dash to close range or a more favourable position, it just "stands" there taking G2 fire while returning little or none for a large number of turns. Meanwhile, the G2 assault is allowed to bang away at the target accruing damage points. This disadvantages fast/short range mechs compared to the 'bigguns.' 3) The choice of target dummy and turret. The Fire Javelin has a 10 point head. That seems important when giving mechs with PPCs and clan large lasers high credit for killing it so frequently (and even IS large lasers for getting a free crit chance). And its lack of ammo undersells shotgunners slightly. Not a huge deal, but there is a strong preference towards single punchy blows and this kind of creates a positive feedback loop by saying those weapons are better). The Awesome has 3 PPCs that each do 10pts of damage. By only using 10 pointers, having 9 or 19 armour means nothing over having 0 or 11 on a location (unless that gets you above another interval of 10 when combined with the structure. i.e., 19 armour + 12 structure is >>>> 18 armour + 12 structure). A lot of designs, when being scored by Battlyitcs, have effectively wasted armour because of this effect. And mechs with vulnerable explosive bits may be getting off a bit easy since there are so few hits. This may be informed, again, by the group's preferences, but the play environment could change the results. For example, back in my high school /uni days we used tons of clan tech and medium lasers were kind of king. When building cutom designs (which we did a lot back in those days, as teenagers are wont to do) I found it often more efficient to armour my rear in units of 7 (and when in doubt frontal facings, too). Again, not a huge deal, but it can shift some of the conclusions here and there (or their severity) when coming to a judgement. (As a side note, the Fire Falcon is listed as having 10 leg armour and 6 structure. I wonder if that degradation in mobility score is actually a bunch of leggings dragging it down whenever 2 PPCs stacked, rather than actuators being critted?) I don't say any of this to cast aspersion on DFA, Aaron, or Battlyitcs. All are great services to the community. Nor do I have great answers to improve the models easily to hand. I just feel there is room to gain a little more nuance and appreciation in the analysis from keeping the assumptions in mind when evaluating the quality (or lack thereof) of many designs.
Great stuff - some of this stuff I agree with and are just limitations in designing a benchmark that doesn’t cater to one mech or another. Some I don’t agree with. Big punch long range weapons *are* the best, period. There is no environment - urban included - where a longer range loadout loses to a shorter range loadout. Smart players will always find and cover firing lanes … but even factoring that out for a second: If you want to spend 8 turns running a fast mech from heavy woods to heavy woods, they’re effectively out of the fight and you’ve give me a 1 mech advantage. I’ve played on paper for many years, and unless there is some great reason for me to close on the King Crab, it’s definitely not ever getting in 9 hexes of me unless something has gone horribly wrong or there are too many massed AC/20s to bring down. 😆 This is why the Gauss was a massive game changer - like 15 damage at massive ranges? Yes please. But, to be clear, I am not disagreeing that the benchmarks lack a full “360” of a mechs capabilities … but that is not possible to simulate in a way that can be compared in a meaningful way across units. If you figure that one out, let me know! Your point on the PPCs and Jav head armor is noted. I addressed this in the past but the short form is: it’s on purpose and I know how it affects the numbers. Anything else does not give you decent convergence in a reasonable number of turns. I don’t think I agree with a positive feedback loop… crit chance and other metrics are captured, but crits don’t win games - blowing out their torso does. This is why the Atlas sucks and the Banshee and Awesome are so great. In traditional classic where every weapon rolls individually to hit and individually for location, taking big chunks from far away is a winning strategy. If your really playing the game at G4, it makes sense why your engagements end up at close range. Style difference, but to me G4 is awful and not fun to miss 70% of your shots. MLas are good but still build 3 heat, so massing them only gets you so far. Especially when you are darting through woods and a Longbow is standing on a level 2 hill and ruins your day from 21 hexes away. Battlytics isn’t meant to be perfect, but I do think it’s a reasonable “law of averages” representation of bang for buck. Still, love and appreciate the comments! Just my 2 cents back. I think a lot of your position is based on the notion that short range weapons are more useful than long range ones because line of sight on paper maps is not as open. I would say take a look at the paper maps and all the level 2+ hills that lets ‘mechs see clear over forests and other hills, and consider the number of firing lanes that can be traced. I would say it is not as congested as you might think. But again, always love a good debate on giant robot game theory and appreciate the comment 😀
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming I am not sure if Aaron is behind the DFA responses...but I am just going to assume it is Aaron and use the 2nd person. Although, it would be an awesome reveal if Kevin had secretly retuned and was philosophising on BattleTech in cognito. I do not know if taking a few days to respond means this will get buried. Hopefully not. I am quite happy to discuss the philosophy and mechanics of BTech. I also love it when someone knowledgable disagrees: it means one (or both!) of us has the chance to learn something interesting. I think my reply grew too long and TH-cam is making me break it up, so see below for a 2nd part. Going by your response, I think my intent and spirit came through. But just to reiterate (since this is a poor medium for nuance) I do not think there is anything wrong or bad with Battlytics. As the maxim goes, "all models are wrong. But some are useful." And your engine is most definitely useful. My points regarding it is more in how its outputs are interpreted. Maybe I am misremembering or making things up in my subconscious, but early in the series it felt a lot like you would frame your analysis as "here is this model I built. The model gives these results. I interpret these results this way." Over time it feels to me that the analysis has drifted a little more towards (not all the way mind, I am not trying to imply a radical change) "the results are this and that means design X is good/bad/etc." The interpretation / analysis is filtered through the assumptions that went into the model and how you and DFA like to setup your games and play them. They are 100% valid, but they are there and may not apply 100% to other ecosystems where different assumptions / playstyles / etc. were made. It is easy for me account for this as I have now watched the entire back catalogue and thought about your (and others') styles and how that interacts with the mecahanics. It might not be so easy for others. Okay, now that I reframed my core conceit, I am happy to do the fun stuff and discuss some of our philosophical differences and specific points. "I think a lot of your position is based on the notion that short range weapons are more useful than long range ones because line of sight on paper maps is not as open." Maybe, but I am doubtful. I learned to play on mapsheets as a middleschooler. And I played that way for a number of years. But I count 3 distinct phases in my BTech history (not counting my revival over the past 12-18months) and only the first used the printed mapsheets. The 2nd was mostly hexmaps made from heroclix terrain (the host did an astonishing job buying sets on ebay like a madman) and then straight hexless-miniature rules for several years after university. In each of these environments I found a good battery of short range weapons was a highly valuable part of a well-balanced lance. Indeed, there was some consensus among the miniatures group that forces randomly rolled on a table that had more emphasis on short range weapons tended to have an advantage over those with a higher proportion of long range. Anecdotal, but an interesting datapoint. My reference to mapsheet terrain density was meant mostly as a convenient reference point that might hold meaning for most readers. I actually feel that many of those maps were impractically and fun-inhibitingly dense (looking at you Dense Woods #1 & 2). I played the most with the Open Terrain and 4th ed starter box maps because they allowed long range weapons to fire at long range with some regularity. "If your really playing the game at G4, it makes sense why your engagements end up at close range. Style difference, but to me G4 is awful and not fun to miss 70% of your shots." This really hits close to my thesis. I am not playing at G4 regularly. I have played many games with a wide range of pilot skills. Although really never 5+. They are hard to stomach despite the in-universe expectation that they should be somewhat common... But back on point, it is a style difference. And style is an assumption in our models (mental or computational) of how the game should play out. If I assume G4 is "the way" or "the best way" to play, then many of the conclusions about which mechs and gear are best/worst change. Fast mechs become viable because speed really would be armour. Ranges do become (claustrophobically) tight. You even mention in some of your earlier Battlytics that you would take G4 pilots on Clan mechs with lots of pulse lasers. So in a G4 environment all pulse lasers (even those really bad IS ones) would be even more valauble than in a G2 environment. I do not disagree that missing 70% of our shots is not much fun. Seeing your reactions to needing 9s in the videos - and doubly so when you miss a couple - I know you want hits, hits, and more hits. But we are making an assumption that may not be correct for others. I do not meant to even hint that DFA having these assumptions is bad or wrong or in any way invalid. Only that they are assumptions and not truths. You guys put on great games that are clearly a lot of fun. And that is what matter inside your group. To reframe this part of my argument: DFA has built its BTech ecosystem around long range fire. Most, or maybe all of its "deviations" from classic Btech orthodoxy (RAW. I am not making a value judgement, only what I think is an amusing way of phrasing it) facilitate long range accuracy: 1) Your BTech Destiny uses the Alpha Strike movement rules where everyone is effectively 1 gunnery better. 2) You previously used the +1/+2/+3 instead of +0/+2/+4 range mods. 3) You used extreme range (and at only +4) 4) Standing in woods does not grant a +1, only shooting through 5) Partial cover (at least in BTech Destiny - cannot recall for the Classic videos) grants the +1 from miniatures rules but no hit locations are ever lost. 6) An interpretation of elevated fire and cover* that strikes me as at least debatable compared to the Total Warfare and/or miniature rules (I am thinking of a recent game where Aaron's...Crusader? climbed a hill near the end and shot his oppoennts mech that was deep in woods at zero penalty. I perhaps should not open this can of worms. I am not convinced that any member of any play group I have been part of, myself included, ever realllly understood the hex LoS rules. We apparently used an intuitive true LoS adaptation. When one guy opened up MaxTech and suggested using their true LoS rules we look ed at the rule and asked "how does this add anything?") 7) And of course there is the abundance of G2 If I were coming around for a game knowing this (would that I were still in Philly and not Auckland, NZ!) I would be stocking up on long range bruisers without much investment in speed, too. Speed would be no real armour. Armour would be my armour. The ease of hitting at range would de-incentivise closing to medium laser range, despite their enormous efficiency once in range. It is not that I dislike long range or like short range. I personally dislike the style of play where mechs optimise for literal brawls and run forward to launch physical attacks while whaling on each other with AC/20s and massed MLas, SLas, and SRMs. My personal aesthetic is more mid-long range fighting with lots of tactical movement to control range bands and optimise cover / movement mods. But those are different assumptions and I need to take them into account when deciding how I would play at a DFA-style table.
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming Part 2: "Big punch long range weapons are the best, period." They certainly are the coolest and most fun! This seems to be sort of a second point, hybridising from my one about you liking long range and not appreciating crit-seekers in the engine. I will defer to my above about range and leap into next quote: "MLas are good but still build 3 heat, so massing them only gets you so far." I like big punch weapons quite a bit, just perhaps not quite as much as you and DFA. I find the raw tonnage x heat x damage efficiency of most lighter shorter range weapons hard to overcome. Doubly so, because they insulate one from the risks that come with relying on a single roll. For example, I am no huge fan of the King Crab. After struggling to close to within 6 hexes for 4,5,6+, I do not want to now have to pin all of my hopes on a couple of rolls that *NEED* to connect and *NEED* break something after all the armour I lost on the way in. I would be happier if the design had more secondary weapons (that it had the heat to use) so that it could really deliver the hurt, and do so with more reliability. MLas do build 3 heat. And sure that AC/20 delivers 20 damage off of 7 heat and two lasers only get to 10. But those lasers left you...14 tons to mount more stuff? I reckon this is not much of a thing at DFA, but in the play groups I was part of there was a legitimate tactic of angling for knockdowns. It applied best when we were not using lots of elite pilots but still held up well with mostly 3/4s. At its core, when faced with a situation one tried to put out the most damage they could (usually by taking the easiest targets) and then adjusting to get the best combination 20 point results (using the MaxTech stacking 20s rules; but it works without it). I.e., force the most targets to take piloting checks with (hopefully) the least damage over their given 20 point thresholds (20 or 40. Not 35). As a side-benefit, most of these lighter weapons doubled as decent crit-seekers for when you opened up holes. The main limitation to these lighter close range weapons is if the game and rules are set up to make it harder to reach range and less rewarding when you do. "crits don’t win games - blowing out their torso does." They are a less reliable path to victory. But they often make the path far easier to traverse. Obviously, blowing out an unprotected ammo bin will also blow out their torso. And not allowing a bin to blow out means that can never happen. But lots of other criticals add up very quickly. A personal favourite is damaging (or destroying) the Gyro. Almost auto fall (extra damage + possible pilot hit). Mech then will struggle to stand, can only run or jump a great risk, and may not jump at all the turn after it fell. I will know almost exactly where it will be next turn, and probaly the turn after. Weapon hits. Some are dull and barely matter. Others are those big, exciting, weapons that make the target damgerous. Dent the engine shielding and spring an obnoxious 5 extra heat that turn, and going forward (this one is more devastating before the advent of double heat sinks...but it is still a major impediment to many designs). Arm actuators. We all laugh at them until we realise or gunnery 2 gauss rifle is now firing as if the pilot were a genetic reject gunner 4. Damaging the target dummy does nothing to add to the survival stats of the testing mech. And choosing a dummy with nothing worth critting risks undervaluing crit-heavy weapons, and tacitly promotes the value of big thumpy weapons. "If you want to spend 8 turns running a fast mech from heavy woods to heavy woods, they’re effectively out of the fight and you’ve give me a 1 mech advantage." This is a bit of hyperbole, no? Very few DFA videos go 8 turns. Few of my personal games (lance on lance scale, at least) went this long before breaking down into special circumstances like chasing down that last fleeing unit or "are you not conceding just because you are grumpy?" If I outright hid a mech for 8 turns, that would be a bad choice. Breaking LoS (or tacking on a big cover modifier, such that they might as well be out of sight compared to easier targets) here and there while moving to effective range would only "remove" the mech for a round or two. And mostly in the opening turns, when fire is often impossible or at poor odds, anyway. To kind of circle back to what I think spurred you to write this, the fast mech taking fire in Battlytics. I think part of my argument that may not have come through is how much the cumulative damage is stacked onto these faster designs. I see two points: One is the rate at which the mechs close. The second is the cumulative chances to hit. 1) The fast mech (Fire Moth, Spider, even Wolverine, etc.) closes unrealistically slowly and performs worse for it. Lets pretend it is a Spider. In the engine it takes 9 rounds of PPC fire (I believe it is 3-3-2 from previous videos?) before its lasers even get a chance to shoot (in a hypothetical duel). In any actual game it would close ~9 hexes per round (running while out of range; Awesome backs up 3 hexes) on a billiard table. So what? Matt was just banging on about the model being made of assumptions, and here is another one. Why does this affect interpretation? It does because the Spider takes ~8 extra volleys of PPCs. They may kill the mech if they get a bit lucky. They may not. But the damage still counts and is already there when the Spider reaches 9 hexes (when it arguably should be receiving only its 2nd volley and not the 10th. And especially 6, when the to hit numbers become optimal). By this point the Spider (if surviving) will have multiple extra weak points. Exploitation of these will reduces the number of turns it gets to deal damage (by penalising the target dummy simulation results). This hurts its final score. 2) High evasion, and doubly those high evasion mechs with short-range weapons, is hurt unduly by slowly walking up to the Awesome, one hex at a time. I ran the numbers on the Spider against a clanner-reject Awesome (G4). Despite a +4 TMM and a starting at 12s to hit and then moving to 10s for 3 hexes, the Spider takes ~3 hits before entering MLas range. This is an ideal scenario for a high evasion specialist. But the volume of fire thrown at it, far more than I would expect to ever exist in typical game, has basically used up all of its ability to absorb PPC fire (and could have killed it a small percentage of times and legged it ~3%). As the Spider finally is allowed to fire its weapons 10 rounds into the game, it takes hits at a higher rate can be expected to keel over and die within a couple more volleys...certainly when it reaches range 6. This deprives it of most of its offensive benchmark value and makes it look like a worse design than it deserves. This line of reasoning is not to say that Battlyitics sucks. But I think the assumptions that went into it undervalue (or over penalise) many lighter and quicker designs. The defensive benchmark is set up for armour to be your armour and speed to be your demise. Well, that got long! Hopefully, it all makes sense and gets my positions across in a non-hostile fashion.
Fair points! But tell me more on the Crusader. I dont have rules handy, but I am fairly certain it says if you are above the woods, you see over them. The +1 for being in woods exists in Classic but not in AS. Unless I misread! It’s sometimes clear as mud in the rules. And yes you summed it up on the Gunnery side. It seems ridiculous to me that soldiers licensed to pilot an extremely expensive ‘mech are going to miss 8 out of 10 shots - when they are shooting a house sized object only a handful of football fields away. So guilty as charged 😁
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming I debated leaving the Crusader example out. But it seemed to encapsulate the idea that the terrain rules are not for emphasizing blocked shots. I don't have a copy of Total Warfare in this hemisphere. And as I said, I am not sure any of my playgroups ever really grokked the RAW for hex LoS. I am "pretty sure" (again no book and it has been years) that the miniature rules would have had you draw a line from the torsos of the firer to the target in three dimensions with models for tree height included to show how many hexes of trees intervened (this was basically saying use real LoS with some allowances for trees being area terrain and not solid rock. The upshot was, as we understood it, that it was "hard" to completely see over hill crests and woods to completely negate cover, which it sometimes seemed to be in hex rules. But all of this might be peculiarities to my group(s) rather than RAW. So grains of salt! Yeah. It is hard not to want good gunners for a weeknight game. Most of my groups tended to settle around G3 as the go to. It tended to leave 5/8/(5) movers with enough dodged shots to be worth it while still bringing lots of hits. Sadly, most proper light mechs were still too easy to hit (or invested so much in speed that there were no weapons left) and rarely made appearances. I have been starting to wonder if Ash at Guerrilla Miniature Gaming is right and the heresy of d12s might actually be a better approach.
Great analysis :-) a couple of these being used to tag and narc targets at the same time would make it viable but I agree with those srms its not the light mech I'd pick.
The other thing I could see this as, would be an Elemental Party Bus delivery system, or a quick objective control in the same vein as a Smash and Grab mission. Though it would not be as fun as using a Fire Moth G to do the same thing. The Fire Falcon is not a...terrible Omnimech, buuuut....If I was going to go Tonberry with it in such a way, I would most likely dump the NARC and NARC ammo, swap out the ER Medium for a Heavy Medium Laser or pair of Heavy Small Lasers. It does seem that twin LRM-5s would offer better range synergy to the ER Medium, and a ton of ammo gets you 12 full strikes with the LRMs, though you would do slightly less damage than a pair of SRM-4s.
As for the Battlelytics analysis: This is a devoted scout and electronic targeting configuration of the Fire Falcon. I would suggest reviewing the prime or the H if you want a better idea on the Fire Falcon's capabilities as a mech killer.
Was looking at this one intentionally because of the cost - hard to fill out clan lists with small point mechs so was curious to see how this would perform.
Clan “Honor Rules” vary from clan to clan and also by period. But, regardless of the exact details, they always dictate some kind of “fair fight” between alike units, usually mechs. In addition, for the Crusader clans 3050ish, there were no clan combat vehicles, only omnimechs and battlearmor infantry. For a Clan mech pilot to attack IS infantry would be dishonorable IF the Clan side had battlearmor in the field. It would be negating the honorable combat between infantry units. But, is wasn’t unusual for the commander to have “bid away” combined arms assets to secure the right for their unit to fight at all. If a Clan commander suspected the opposition was fielding a large number of infantry and combat vehicles - using artillery (and therefore TAG) against those foes is probably honor-neutral. In addition, some clans assumed that the IS was going to fight “dishonorably” and would suspend their own honor rules the moment the IS violated them. A pilot in one of those clans might bring TAG into the field because it wasn’t too much weight/space if it didn’t get used…and it was probably going to get used. Artillery is also often used countervalue. If a clan unit needs to destroy a particular set of buildings and/or support vehicles…countervalue attacks against non-combatants are, ironically, honor-neutral. In that case, running a light mech with TAG is one way of winning a “King of the Hill” scenario…presuming the Clan side just needs to eliminate the “Hill”.
Fire Falcon is great, and it's Clan Invasion configs are mostly useful except the B. Prime - 2x SSRM4, 2 ERML, 1 MPL, 2 ERSL = good close range knife fighter/duelist A - UAC2 & LRM10 = weak sniper B - 2x ERLL + TC = amazing sniper C - Probe and MGs = good Anti-infantry platform D - TAG, NARC, ERML, 2x SRM4s = decent LRM/Arty support spotter (best paired with another brawler who can soak fire)
IMO Clan-tech fast lights should not be built as knife fighters. They're better off bringing one or two longer-ranged guns and stacking their TMM with range penalties to stay unhittable. It's a similar argument to the Locust LRM variant. For trials in a circle of equals, though, assuming a pilot is sticking with whatever ride he normally drives, I can see the necessity for a short-ranged configuration. The Prime is loaded with short-range punch. I see it as a trial configuration for hunting other lights. The A and B both feel more like battlefield configurations with their long-range payloads. The C does exactly what it says on the tin, butchering conventional infantry that are dug into a city. The -D, being a spotter/NARCer, feels kind of like a high-risk-high-reward ride-or-die build for a would-be Ristar who is looking for risky fire missions in Zell-free scenarios that he can use to build some rep. The rest look like test-bed configurations that were whipped up when somebody decided they wanted to use some of the new toys that the scientists were pushing out. Of all of them, the B and the L are the ones that appeal the most to me, which is probably not surprising as they both follow the long-range fast-mover doctrine I mentioned in my opening paragraph. They both also have targeting computers, making for effective sniping at long range while moving quickly, as I see it the ideal role for 'Mechs like this.
The clans have a code of conduct, sure, but they aren't stupid. If everyone agrees to play by zellbringin, then they play by zellbringin. If the opfor wants total war however, they're more than capable of bringing the pain. *Caveat, some clans are more hidebound than others. I mean, Steel Viper went nuts because they could not reconcile losing to honourless, freebirth scum with their sense of moral superiority after all. Then you have Clan Wolf and Diamond Shark, who see zell as a 'loose guideline' at best.
The Jade Falcons in particular are perhaps the most schizophrenic Clan, because they have a strong traditionalist streak, but they are also very pragmatic. So their pragmatism and their traditionalism often butt heads, which leads to very interesting, twisty, some would say hypocritical, ways of dealing with that conflict. Also, as the Clan invasion progressed the Jade Falcon outlook on warfare and honor progressed to the point that by the 3060s they were a Clan becoming known for their use of artillery even in Clan vs. Clan warfare. It is one of the reasons the Steel Vipers targeted the Jade Falcons as tainted during the Wars of Reaving. Also, we shouldn't forget that Ulric Kerensky only died in the Refusal War, because Vandervaun Chistu ambushed him with a Star of Summoner Bs and Mad Dogs and rained missiles down on Ulric and his Star before he could even get a shot off. In the case of the Fire Falcon specifically the lore states that the Fire Falcon and Black Lanner were designed to work in conjunction with each other and support one another, which demonstrates that even early in the Clan Invasion the Jade Falcon mind set was changing, because prior to fighting the Inner Sphere any suggestion to the Jade Falcons that they should work together or support one another would be rejected fairly quickly. The Fire Falcon D would actually make a great observer for a Star of Summoner Bs or similar missile Mechs.
I'm not a fan of SRMs in general. Streak 6s are good or banks of Streak 2s for a low gunnery pilot but that's about it. Sure, building a mech to just be a giant shotgun is great for the lulz but honestly a bit meh in practice. I'm not a great fan of single medium lasers either. Even clan ERs. You need a bunch of them to really do anything. This, to me, is a narc and run mech. Out flank the enemy at high speed and land a narc on something that isn't too dangerous (or is dangerous but distracted), preferably from cover. And then really only engage targets of opportunity or attempt to complete mission objectives. I wouldn't consider this a combat machine. But I wouldn't consider anything built for recon to be a combat machine either. Which is most light mechs, the odd medium mech. And the Charger. Sometimes the most useful thing you can do is spot for something that actually does damage. And that's ok if you're cheap as chips.
I like the way the Fire Falcon looks, but a 25-tonner, even with Clantech, id never going to be all that impressive. Also the lack of jump-capable configurations hurts its utility. Though at least it's very cheap for a Clan mech. As for artillery, it's true that using artillery is considered dishonorable, but there are cases where the Clans will disregard their honor rules like when fighting pirates (and by the Jihad they've largely disregarded zellbringen against IS forces in general since they know they're not going to follow it anyway). Plus they might need to occasionally deal with static defenses and fortifications, in which case calling artillery or air-strikes is acceptable as you can't really 1v1 duel a fortress anyway.
This comment has nothing to do with this video. I have a question for Aaron about the Supply Chain mission from the 4.1 update of the DFA Mission Pack. The Price of Retreat rule came up yesterday in a battle, and we were all really confused by the wording of that rule. It is my assumption that the Price of Retreat rule is there to make it inconvenient for a player to simply "give up" when they have a points lead but are about to lose their last 'mech. And we are aware of the general rule on Retreating - if that player had retreated it would have been a loss for them, and we're just using points to determine if the remaining force scores a Major or Minor Victory. So with all that said, on to the main question - How is that math supposed to work? Could you write it out using math symbols and parenthesis to make it clearer for me? It seems to me that no matter what you're multiplying by a negative, so the Price of Retreat always penalizes the remaining player?? My reading of it is ( 11 - (current turn)) x (1 - (scoring units non-retreating player has remaining)). In the situation from our battle yesterday, it would be (11-7) x (1-5) = 4 x -4 = -16...? So the other guy retreats and the one holding the field gets dinged for 16 points?? That can't be right, can it? Perhaps if the last two clauses were reversed, it would then be 5-1 rather than 1-5, it would then be a positive number, and the non-retreating force actually gets an increase in points for holding the field? But I'm not sure quite what your intent is here.
Its like “if you put the remaining mechs you had on any objective, how many points could you score? Now multiply that by the number of turns left.” Insider tip: we are coming out with a revision on this for all missions to really simplify this though 🙂 should be out soonish.
Most passive aggressive thing you can say about a mech, "It's not even a glass cannon" roflmao. As for the TAG, idk, clanners are hypocrites? I mean, they're all about their mad skillz and yet they love targeting computers, pulse lasers, NARCs, orbital bombardment, and anything else they can find in the munchkin box.
A successful TAG designation also lets you spot for indirect fire without incurring the +1 hit penalty on the spotter, so it’s not totally useless without artillery backup.
Losing is more dishonorable than using Artillery clearly, that or Semi-Guided LRMs?
@@KageRyuu6 TAG works for spotting plain LRMs as well without the penalty to the spotter, and semi-guided LRMs are Inner Sphere only according to the Tech Manual. And as far as narratively, TAG would only be useful if your opponent isn’t dishonorably hiding behind terrain, so there’s no loss of honor in using it. Fire Falcon is an Omnimech so it’s not like you’d have one sitting around in this configuration if you didn’t expect to be going against Inner Sphere filth anyway.
Clan honor rules are so flexible when they want them to be 🧐😁
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming That is true of “rules” in general for…well, everyone. Heads I win, tails you lose is what most people think of as fair.
The bidding and honor rules only really make sense in the meta. When FASA dropped the clan invasion on everyone, clearly the clan mechs were every munchkins favorite. So, the bidding rules were an in game explanation for the actual bidding between players to determine who was playing the clan side. The honor rules forced the clan player to make tactically unwise decisions, and that was the in game explanation for the penalty to the clan side, in scenario scoring if they were broken.
But, since then, the game has changed. Clan technology isn’t exclusive to the clans. How a scenario is balanced is by BV. So, the concept of bidding away units is really only needed to explain why the Clan warships aren’t blasting the IS force from orbit with kinetic-kill projectiles. If you balance a scenario by BV, a player using clan faction units can’t afford to fight according to the honor rules anymore.
This thing looks like the evolution of what the Locust could become. For just 800 BV, this is quite a bargain to squeeze into your list. It's not a big damage powerhouse, but fill those SRM launchers with infernos and it's a nice scout and skirmisher with decent anti-infantry capabilities. The low cost means it's not the end of the world if it's lost. As far as the TAG goes, I suppose it's to show that even some clanners are capable of learning from their mistakes lol!
The Fire Falcon is a great light Clan design. It's what the Koshi wanted to be but never could. As for Narc and TAG, the Clans use them in battles as honor allows. They use them on vehicles and infantry, both targets they don't really care about, or on fortifications such as during the Jade Falcon battle during the Clan Invasion on Von Strang's World. As time advances, the Clans' honor becomes more and more flexible to where IS opponents aren't given honor anymore. That's why you have Mechs or tanks like the Naga or the Huitzilopochtli artillery tank.
The clans are an enigma to me!!
Another great video, always look forward to the detailed breakdown & scenario battles. Thank you.
Thank you for watching and leaving a comment!!
It's like the Jade Falcons got tired of being lit up by Ravens and went "Yes, we shall have one of our own," but forgot the EW kit.
hahaha fantastic! Raven is a great design for sure.
Another great review Mr. Aaron. Thanks!
In the 3050s clans lost the drive to Sol. Some learned that there was a time and place for Artillery. Thus mechs made in that era needed Tag.
I fully agree that LRM5s would be a sensible replacement for the SRM4s, especially for a harassment role.
As others have stated. Clanners learned after getting spanked at tukkayid that honor goes into the trash vs IS. love this mech, wish it was in a game its a deadyly sleek future locust. :(
The Fire Falcon D is a support unit more than anything else - it's designed to spot for indirect fire with TAG and hunt lights, but if you're not using the TAG and can spare the BV, the Prime is considerably more expensive but also an order of magnitude more lethal due to upgrading the SRM4 launchers to Streak models, adding a second ER medium laser, and then throwing in a medium pulse with some ER smalls to boot.
Again though, different use cases.
Agreed, this is not a duelist configuration. It's a support config for a LRM heavy or Arrow IV star. It let's the boys do some can opening, then it comes in for crit seeking and to finish off heavily damaged opponents.
Imagine pairing it with the Night Gyr D? Four LRM 20s
Clans do think arty is dishonorable but if you break their honor rules they are more than happy to break them right back. I run this and/or a Jenner IIC 3 in a lot of my lists cause narcing people is really funny.
So TAG is actually pretty important in clan warfare. The clans DO use arrow, just they use it against honorless targets like fortresses. There are lots of those. The clans also hate waste, and even the crusaders dont use unguided artillery as the scatter into a civilian structures is distasteful/wasteful. So when a fortress is being annoying, they swap the heavy/assaults into arrow configs, but only use guided rounds. The NARC+TAG combo let the clans plant indirect homing beacons for indirect LRM strikes with NARC lrms, and TAG for massive missile strikes--since everything is guided and guided Arrows that miss do no damage, it is a bloodless way to bombard targets even in populated cities. The Turkina Keshik, the honor guards of clan jade falcons who always fight with strict honor, do this to defeat the castle Brian on Apollo.
Love this. Makes sense from a lore perspective - but if I am being cheeky, why do the greatest warriors in the galaxy need TAG to hit a stationary, massive target 😄
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming Because of efficiency. Wasting time is still wasteful, and using 'Mech-scale weapons on a hardened target like a military fortification is a prime example of that. Artillery circumvents this ideal.
Running an expensive omnimech into a few hundred meters of a hardened fortification doesn’t sound efficient to me. Thing doesnt even have ECM on it!
Great video like always! Now I am sure you may have seen this already, but yes Clans do use Artillery when needed and also for dishonorable foes. But it is on a Clan to Clan basis on that bit for the Zelbringen since there are some who are absolutely rigidly following it, then some are opportunistic and some even leave it to very open interpretation... Now post Tukayyid Clans sort of started to question their code of honor to a point where some did suggest that it remains between them and that when they engage IS forces the just go full on in.
Now this imho is a great scout and harasser, this config would be to tag enemies and have your bigger launchers rain death from above with the Arrow missle system and any other systems... I definitely see this mech being a synergy loving mech aka a true team player, on its own, it'll do okay... But when teamed with the right mechs, it can do more than you think, at least that is how I am theorizing it.
Keep up these reviews! They are extremely useful! Also question! Will you do a review of the Warhammer IIC?
Thanks! And yes I am sure we will get around to that one…
The TAG is for static defenses and turrets. Its also used for Air Strikes. It is never dishonorable to spot static positions to have it destroyed by warships in orbit or bombs or arty missiles. It is dishonorable to fail to take them out. As your going to gain more honor by accomplishing the objective. Some clans like Jade Falcon also have no restrictions vs IS players and Dark Cast aka Bandits. Maybe the prime would be a better example as your able to run a 4/5 pilot. I think of the Fire Falcon much like the Talon. It dances around a mechs rear ark at 2 to 3 hex's or inch's.
Really? This thing has paper for armor… I’d be amazed if an opponent couldn’t divert an arm-mounted PPC to cripple it.
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming Yes when TAGing for bombs. TAG the hex. Its not a direct attack. Clan curve ball. The side arcs are as good at the rear arc's. Move the Fire Falcon last and back off when your unable to move last.
For a better idea play two Talon's and a Lynx. Then the mechs Fire Falcon and Black Lanner. They play the same.
Great video, and I'm have to run it next time I play.
I have to investigate this Mech further...
From Total Warfare (2019) pg142: "When firing semi-guided missiles at any target in range successfully designated by a friendly TAG (below), the attacker ignores the target movement modifier (if firing indirectly, also ignore indirect fire, terrain and spotter movement modifiers). Once a successful to-hit roll has been made, use the rules for standard LRMs to determine the number of missiles that struck the target, hit locations and so on."
With that in mind, I would say the perfect companion mech for this is the Cougar prime - capable of opening up holes to be filled with SRMs, and if heavily targeted or overheating it can hide behind a hill and take advantage of the easy indirect fire.
I had thought semi-guided special ammo was IS only, but I very well could be wrong there! So many rules to lose track of 😆
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming Hmm, I have never heard of it being IS only, but as you say, a lot to keep track of so am open to being wrong too >.
Post 3100 now, with the Protectorate, the Ras Dominion, and mixed tech designs, can anything truly be IS only anymore?
@@WrenTheWreckless True, but I myself and my playgroup are currently playing in the Clan invasion. Also, while I have exactly zero evidence to back this up, I had always assumed semi-guided LRMs were available for the star league. Come to think of it, wasn't Ulric killed by guided LRMs?
You could be right on that.
I love the analyses and the thought that goes into them. DFA has helped revive my interest in playing my favourite game universe over the last year after many years of hiatus.
But as a constructive criticism, I think you sometimes forget the assumptions that go into your models and your group's play style.
1) If memory serves, all simulations are carried out at gunnery 2. That crushes evasive mechs and rewards armour boats. Many of these lighter mechs will fare much better if they are being shot at by gunnery 4 (or even just 3). That is influenced by the group feeling that G2 is best and choosing to play with those gunners regularly. But that is still an assumption that goes into the model and not a universal fact (the principle holds for the proliferation of higher accuracy weapons and equipment as tech levels rise.).
2) Aaron recommends every mech swap short range weapons for long range weapons. The big lumbering monsters like the King Crab? Too slow to get the AC/20s into range. The fast zippy mechs like the Fire Falcon? Use that speed to hold open range and get damage in early and from greater safety. Again, I feel it is helpful to remember the assumptions that go into these judgements. When I compare the game tables to the mapsheets, not that they should ever really line up too closely, I observe a trend for DFA to have abundances of very open areas. Hills and forests are mostly (I do not wish to imply always) dominating features and often shoved to a side or corner. They look great, but it is hard to dart from cover to cover to break LoS or grab a couple points of wood concealment to make shots much harder even when possible. With this environment, I too would advocate range and size over speed. (As an aside, my pet hypothesis is that this partly comes out of using 1:1 instead of 1:2 hex:inch conversion. The tables are set up wonderfully and look good in proportion to themself and the mechs. But then the mechs cannot get very far and find themselves in the open a lot.)
Related to this, Battlytics is structured to reward long range fire. As I understand it, every round, regardless of movement ratings, the mechs are brought one hex closer. So, a 3/5 juggernaut will close just as fast (or slowly) as a 10/15 Fire Moth. As the Fire Moth cannot choose to seek cover and avoid fire for rounds, waiting to make a dash to close range or a more favourable position, it just "stands" there taking G2 fire while returning little or none for a large number of turns. Meanwhile, the G2 assault is allowed to bang away at the target accruing damage points. This disadvantages fast/short range mechs compared to the 'bigguns.'
3) The choice of target dummy and turret. The Fire Javelin has a 10 point head. That seems important when giving mechs with PPCs and clan large lasers high credit for killing it so frequently (and even IS large lasers for getting a free crit chance). And its lack of ammo undersells shotgunners slightly. Not a huge deal, but there is a strong preference towards single punchy blows and this kind of creates a positive feedback loop by saying those weapons are better).
The Awesome has 3 PPCs that each do 10pts of damage. By only using 10 pointers, having 9 or 19 armour means nothing over having 0 or 11 on a location (unless that gets you above another interval of 10 when combined with the structure. i.e., 19 armour + 12 structure is >>>> 18 armour + 12 structure). A lot of designs, when being scored by Battlyitcs, have effectively wasted armour because of this effect. And mechs with vulnerable explosive bits may be getting off a bit easy since there are so few hits. This may be informed, again, by the group's preferences, but the play environment could change the results. For example, back in my high school /uni days we used tons of clan tech and medium lasers were kind of king. When building cutom designs (which we did a lot back in those days, as teenagers are wont to do) I found it often more efficient to armour my rear in units of 7 (and when in doubt frontal facings, too). Again, not a huge deal, but it can shift some of the conclusions here and there (or their severity) when coming to a judgement.
(As a side note, the Fire Falcon is listed as having 10 leg armour and 6 structure. I wonder if that degradation in mobility score is actually a bunch of leggings dragging it down whenever 2 PPCs stacked, rather than actuators being critted?)
I don't say any of this to cast aspersion on DFA, Aaron, or Battlyitcs. All are great services to the community. Nor do I have great answers to improve the models easily to hand. I just feel there is room to gain a little more nuance and appreciation in the analysis from keeping the assumptions in mind when evaluating the quality (or lack thereof) of many designs.
Great stuff - some of this stuff I agree with and are just limitations in designing a benchmark that doesn’t cater to one mech or another. Some I don’t agree with.
Big punch long range weapons *are* the best, period. There is no environment - urban included - where a longer range loadout loses to a shorter range loadout. Smart players will always find and cover firing lanes … but even factoring that out for a second:
If you want to spend 8 turns running a fast mech from heavy woods to heavy woods, they’re effectively out of the fight and you’ve give me a 1 mech advantage. I’ve played on paper for many years, and unless there is some great reason for me to close on the King Crab, it’s definitely not ever getting in 9 hexes of me unless something has gone horribly wrong or there are too many massed AC/20s to bring down. 😆 This is why the Gauss was a massive game changer - like 15 damage at massive ranges? Yes please.
But, to be clear, I am not disagreeing that the benchmarks lack a full “360” of a mechs capabilities … but that is not possible to simulate in a way that can be compared in a meaningful way across units. If you figure that one out, let me know!
Your point on the PPCs and Jav head armor is noted. I addressed this in the past but the short form is: it’s on purpose and I know how it affects the numbers. Anything else does not give you decent convergence in a reasonable number of turns.
I don’t think I agree with a positive feedback loop… crit chance and other metrics are captured, but crits don’t win games - blowing out their torso does. This is why the Atlas sucks and the Banshee and Awesome are so great. In traditional classic where every weapon rolls individually to hit and individually for location, taking big chunks from far away is a winning strategy.
If your really playing the game at G4, it makes sense why your engagements end up at close range. Style difference, but to me G4 is awful and not fun to miss 70% of your shots.
MLas are good but still build 3 heat, so massing them only gets you so far. Especially when you are darting through woods and a Longbow is standing on a level 2 hill and ruins your day from 21 hexes away.
Battlytics isn’t meant to be perfect, but I do think it’s a reasonable “law of averages” representation of bang for buck.
Still, love and appreciate the comments! Just my 2 cents back. I think a lot of your position is based on the notion that short range weapons are more useful than long range ones because line of sight on paper maps is not as open. I would say take a look at the paper maps and all the level 2+ hills that lets ‘mechs see clear over forests and other hills, and consider the number of firing lanes that can be traced. I would say it is not as congested as you might think.
But again, always love a good debate on giant robot game theory and appreciate the comment 😀
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming I am not sure if Aaron is behind the DFA responses...but I am just going to assume it is Aaron and use the 2nd person. Although, it would be an awesome reveal if Kevin had secretly retuned and was philosophising on BattleTech in cognito.
I do not know if taking a few days to respond means this will get buried. Hopefully not. I am quite happy to discuss the philosophy and mechanics of BTech. I also love it when someone knowledgable disagrees: it means one (or both!) of us has the chance to learn something interesting.
I think my reply grew too long and TH-cam is making me break it up, so see below for a 2nd part.
Going by your response, I think my intent and spirit came through. But just to reiterate (since this is a poor medium for nuance) I do not think there is anything wrong or bad with Battlytics. As the maxim goes, "all models are wrong. But some are useful." And your engine is most definitely useful. My points regarding it is more in how its outputs are interpreted. Maybe I am misremembering or making things up in my subconscious, but early in the series it felt a lot like you would frame your analysis as "here is this model I built. The model gives these results. I interpret these results this way." Over time it feels to me that the analysis has drifted a little more towards (not all the way mind, I am not trying to imply a radical change) "the results are this and that means design X is good/bad/etc."
The interpretation / analysis is filtered through the assumptions that went into the model and how you and DFA like to setup your games and play them. They are 100% valid, but they are there and may not apply 100% to other ecosystems where different assumptions / playstyles / etc. were made. It is easy for me account for this as I have now watched the entire back catalogue and thought about your (and others') styles and how that interacts with the mecahanics. It might not be so easy for others.
Okay, now that I reframed my core conceit, I am happy to do the fun stuff and discuss some of our philosophical differences and specific points.
"I think a lot of your position is based on the notion that short range weapons are more useful than long range ones because line of sight on paper maps is not as open."
Maybe, but I am doubtful. I learned to play on mapsheets as a middleschooler. And I played that way for a number of years. But I count 3 distinct phases in my BTech history (not counting my revival over the past 12-18months) and only the first used the printed mapsheets. The 2nd was mostly hexmaps made from heroclix terrain (the host did an astonishing job buying sets on ebay like a madman) and then straight hexless-miniature rules for several years after university. In each of these environments I found a good battery of short range weapons was a highly valuable part of a well-balanced lance. Indeed, there was some consensus among the miniatures group that forces randomly rolled on a table that had more emphasis on short range weapons tended to have an advantage over those with a higher proportion of long range. Anecdotal, but an interesting datapoint.
My reference to mapsheet terrain density was meant mostly as a convenient reference point that might hold meaning for most readers. I actually feel that many of those maps were impractically and fun-inhibitingly dense (looking at you Dense Woods #1 & 2). I played the most with the Open Terrain and 4th ed starter box maps because they allowed long range weapons to fire at long range with some regularity.
"If your really playing the game at G4, it makes sense why your engagements end up at close range. Style difference, but to me G4 is awful and not fun to miss 70% of your shots."
This really hits close to my thesis. I am not playing at G4 regularly. I have played many games with a wide range of pilot skills. Although really never 5+. They are hard to stomach despite the in-universe expectation that they should be somewhat common...
But back on point, it is a style difference. And style is an assumption in our models (mental or computational) of how the game should play out. If I assume G4 is "the way" or "the best way" to play, then many of the conclusions about which mechs and gear are best/worst change. Fast mechs become viable because speed really would be armour. Ranges do become (claustrophobically) tight. You even mention in some of your earlier Battlytics that you would take G4 pilots on Clan mechs with lots of pulse lasers. So in a G4 environment all pulse lasers (even those really bad IS ones) would be even more valauble than in a G2 environment.
I do not disagree that missing 70% of our shots is not much fun. Seeing your reactions to needing 9s in the videos - and doubly so when you miss a couple - I know you want hits, hits, and more hits. But we are making an assumption that may not be correct for others. I do not meant to even hint that DFA having these assumptions is bad or wrong or in any way invalid. Only that they are assumptions and not truths. You guys put on great games that are clearly a lot of fun. And that is what matter inside your group.
To reframe this part of my argument: DFA has built its BTech ecosystem around long range fire. Most, or maybe all of its "deviations" from classic Btech orthodoxy (RAW. I am not making a value judgement, only what I think is an amusing way of phrasing it) facilitate long range accuracy:
1) Your BTech Destiny uses the Alpha Strike movement rules where everyone is effectively 1 gunnery better.
2) You previously used the +1/+2/+3 instead of +0/+2/+4 range mods.
3) You used extreme range (and at only +4)
4) Standing in woods does not grant a +1, only shooting through
5) Partial cover (at least in BTech Destiny - cannot recall for the Classic videos) grants the +1 from miniatures rules but no hit locations are ever lost.
6) An interpretation of elevated fire and cover* that strikes me as at least debatable compared to the Total Warfare and/or miniature rules (I am thinking of a recent game where Aaron's...Crusader? climbed a hill near the end and shot his oppoennts mech that was deep in woods at zero penalty. I perhaps should not open this can of worms. I am not convinced that any member of any play group I have been part of, myself included, ever realllly understood the hex LoS rules. We apparently used an intuitive true LoS adaptation. When one guy opened up MaxTech and suggested using their true LoS rules we look ed at the rule and asked "how does this add anything?")
7) And of course there is the abundance of G2
If I were coming around for a game knowing this (would that I were still in Philly and not Auckland, NZ!) I would be stocking up on long range bruisers without much investment in speed, too. Speed would be no real armour. Armour would be my armour. The ease of hitting at range would de-incentivise closing to medium laser range, despite their enormous efficiency once in range. It is not that I dislike long range or like short range. I personally dislike the style of play where mechs optimise for literal brawls and run forward to launch physical attacks while whaling on each other with AC/20s and massed MLas, SLas, and SRMs. My personal aesthetic is more mid-long range fighting with lots of tactical movement to control range bands and optimise cover / movement mods. But those are different assumptions and I need to take them into account when deciding how I would play at a DFA-style table.
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming Part 2:
"Big punch long range weapons are the best, period."
They certainly are the coolest and most fun! This seems to be sort of a second point, hybridising from my one about you liking long range and not appreciating crit-seekers in the engine. I will defer to my above about range and leap into next quote:
"MLas are good but still build 3 heat, so massing them only gets you so far."
I like big punch weapons quite a bit, just perhaps not quite as much as you and DFA. I find the raw tonnage x heat x damage efficiency of most lighter shorter range weapons hard to overcome. Doubly so, because they insulate one from the risks that come with relying on a single roll. For example, I am no huge fan of the King Crab. After struggling to close to within 6 hexes for 4,5,6+, I do not want to now have to pin all of my hopes on a couple of rolls that *NEED* to connect and *NEED* break something after all the armour I lost on the way in. I would be happier if the design had more secondary weapons (that it had the heat to use) so that it could really deliver the hurt, and do so with more reliability.
MLas do build 3 heat. And sure that AC/20 delivers 20 damage off of 7 heat and two lasers only get to 10. But those lasers left you...14 tons to mount more stuff?
I reckon this is not much of a thing at DFA, but in the play groups I was part of there was a legitimate tactic of angling for knockdowns. It applied best when we were not using lots of elite pilots but still held up well with mostly 3/4s. At its core, when faced with a situation one tried to put out the most damage they could (usually by taking the easiest targets) and then adjusting to get the best combination 20 point results (using the MaxTech stacking 20s rules; but it works without it). I.e., force the most targets to take piloting checks with (hopefully) the least damage over their given 20 point thresholds (20 or 40. Not 35). As a side-benefit, most of these lighter weapons doubled as decent crit-seekers for when you opened up holes. The main limitation to these lighter close range weapons is if the game and rules are set up to make it harder to reach range and less rewarding when you do.
"crits don’t win games - blowing out their torso does."
They are a less reliable path to victory. But they often make the path far easier to traverse. Obviously, blowing out an unprotected ammo bin will also blow out their torso. And not allowing a bin to blow out means that can never happen. But lots of other criticals add up very quickly. A personal favourite is damaging (or destroying) the Gyro. Almost auto fall (extra damage + possible pilot hit). Mech then will struggle to stand, can only run or jump a great risk, and may not jump at all the turn after it fell. I will know almost exactly where it will be next turn, and probaly the turn after. Weapon hits. Some are dull and barely matter. Others are those big, exciting, weapons that make the target damgerous. Dent the engine shielding and spring an obnoxious 5 extra heat that turn, and going forward (this one is more devastating before the advent of double heat sinks...but it is still a major impediment to many designs). Arm actuators. We all laugh at them until we realise or gunnery 2 gauss rifle is now firing as if the pilot were a genetic reject gunner 4.
Damaging the target dummy does nothing to add to the survival stats of the testing mech. And choosing a dummy with nothing worth critting risks undervaluing crit-heavy weapons, and tacitly promotes the value of big thumpy weapons.
"If you want to spend 8 turns running a fast mech from heavy woods to heavy woods, they’re effectively out of the fight and you’ve give me a 1 mech advantage."
This is a bit of hyperbole, no? Very few DFA videos go 8 turns. Few of my personal games (lance on lance scale, at least) went this long before breaking down into special circumstances like chasing down that last fleeing unit or "are you not conceding just because you are grumpy?" If I outright hid a mech for 8 turns, that would be a bad choice. Breaking LoS (or tacking on a big cover modifier, such that they might as well be out of sight compared to easier targets) here and there while moving to effective range would only "remove" the mech for a round or two. And mostly in the opening turns, when fire is often impossible or at poor odds, anyway.
To kind of circle back to what I think spurred you to write this, the fast mech taking fire in Battlytics. I think part of my argument that may not have come through is how much the cumulative damage is stacked onto these faster designs. I see two points: One is the rate at which the mechs close. The second is the cumulative chances to hit.
1) The fast mech (Fire Moth, Spider, even Wolverine, etc.) closes unrealistically slowly and performs worse for it. Lets pretend it is a Spider. In the engine it takes 9 rounds of PPC fire (I believe it is 3-3-2 from previous videos?) before its lasers even get a chance to shoot (in a hypothetical duel). In any actual game it would close ~9 hexes per round (running while out of range; Awesome backs up 3 hexes) on a billiard table. So what? Matt was just banging on about the model being made of assumptions, and here is another one. Why does this affect interpretation?
It does because the Spider takes ~8 extra volleys of PPCs. They may kill the mech if they get a bit lucky. They may not. But the damage still counts and is already there when the Spider reaches 9 hexes (when it arguably should be receiving only its 2nd volley and not the 10th. And especially 6, when the to hit numbers become optimal). By this point the Spider (if surviving) will have multiple extra weak points. Exploitation of these will reduces the number of turns it gets to deal damage (by penalising the target dummy simulation results). This hurts its final score.
2) High evasion, and doubly those high evasion mechs with short-range weapons, is hurt unduly by slowly walking up to the Awesome, one hex at a time. I ran the numbers on the Spider against a clanner-reject Awesome (G4). Despite a +4 TMM and a starting at 12s to hit and then moving to 10s for 3 hexes, the Spider takes ~3 hits before entering MLas range. This is an ideal scenario for a high evasion specialist. But the volume of fire thrown at it, far more than I would expect to ever exist in typical game, has basically used up all of its ability to absorb PPC fire (and could have killed it a small percentage of times and legged it ~3%). As the Spider finally is allowed to fire its weapons 10 rounds into the game, it takes hits at a higher rate can be expected to keel over and die within a couple more volleys...certainly when it reaches range 6. This deprives it of most of its offensive benchmark value and makes it look like a worse design than it deserves.
This line of reasoning is not to say that Battlyitics sucks. But I think the assumptions that went into it undervalue (or over penalise) many lighter and quicker designs. The defensive benchmark is set up for armour to be your armour and speed to be your demise.
Well, that got long! Hopefully, it all makes sense and gets my positions across in a non-hostile fashion.
Fair points!
But tell me more on the Crusader. I dont have rules handy, but I am fairly certain it says if you are above the woods, you see over them. The +1 for being in woods exists in Classic but not in AS. Unless I misread! It’s sometimes clear as mud in the rules.
And yes you summed it up on the Gunnery side. It seems ridiculous to me that soldiers licensed to pilot an extremely expensive ‘mech are going to miss 8 out of 10 shots - when they are shooting a house sized object only a handful of football fields away. So guilty as charged 😁
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming I debated leaving the Crusader example out. But it seemed to encapsulate the idea that the terrain rules are not for emphasizing blocked shots. I don't have a copy of Total Warfare in this hemisphere. And as I said, I am not sure any of my playgroups ever really grokked the RAW for hex LoS. I am "pretty sure" (again no book and it has been years) that the miniature rules would have had you draw a line from the torsos of the firer to the target in three dimensions with models for tree height included to show how many hexes of trees intervened (this was basically saying use real LoS with some allowances for trees being area terrain and not solid rock. The upshot was, as we understood it, that it was "hard" to completely see over hill crests and woods to completely negate cover, which it sometimes seemed to be in hex rules. But all of this might be peculiarities to my group(s) rather than RAW. So grains of salt!
Yeah. It is hard not to want good gunners for a weeknight game. Most of my groups tended to settle around G3 as the go to. It tended to leave 5/8/(5) movers with enough dodged shots to be worth it while still bringing lots of hits. Sadly, most proper light mechs were still too easy to hit (or invested so much in speed that there were no weapons left) and rarely made appearances.
I have been starting to wonder if Ash at Guerrilla Miniature Gaming is right and the heresy of d12s might actually be a better approach.
Great video! Aaron , do you plan to do any battlytics with any of the new Battletech packs ? Looking forward to more videos!
Maaaaaaaybe 😄
Great analysis :-) a couple of these being used to tag and narc targets at the same time would make it viable but I agree with those srms its not the light mech I'd pick.
Great video. As always!
The other thing I could see this as, would be an Elemental Party Bus delivery system, or a quick objective control in the same vein as a Smash and Grab mission. Though it would not be as fun as using a Fire Moth G to do the same thing. The Fire Falcon is not a...terrible Omnimech, buuuut....If I was going to go Tonberry with it in such a way, I would most likely dump the NARC and NARC ammo, swap out the ER Medium for a Heavy Medium Laser or pair of Heavy Small Lasers. It does seem that twin LRM-5s would offer better range synergy to the ER Medium, and a ton of ammo gets you 12 full strikes with the LRMs, though you would do slightly less damage than a pair of SRM-4s.
lol party bus so good
Here is the thing with Clanners and Tag/NARC...
Shut up, freebirth.
LOL! Another great comment!!
As for the Battlelytics analysis:
This is a devoted scout and electronic targeting configuration of the Fire Falcon. I would suggest reviewing the prime or the H if you want a better idea on the Fire Falcon's capabilities as a mech killer.
Was looking at this one intentionally because of the cost - hard to fill out clan lists with small point mechs so was curious to see how this would perform.
Clan “Honor Rules” vary from clan to clan and also by period. But, regardless of the exact details, they always dictate some kind of “fair fight” between alike units, usually mechs. In addition, for the Crusader clans 3050ish, there were no clan combat vehicles, only omnimechs and battlearmor infantry. For a Clan mech pilot to attack IS infantry would be dishonorable IF the Clan side had battlearmor in the field. It would be negating the honorable combat between infantry units. But, is wasn’t unusual for the commander to have “bid away” combined arms assets to secure the right for their unit to fight at all.
If a Clan commander suspected the opposition was fielding a large number of infantry and combat vehicles - using artillery (and therefore TAG) against those foes is probably honor-neutral. In addition, some clans assumed that the IS was going to fight “dishonorably” and would suspend their own honor rules the moment the IS violated them. A pilot in one of those clans might bring TAG into the field because it wasn’t too much weight/space if it didn’t get used…and it was probably going to get used.
Artillery is also often used countervalue. If a clan unit needs to destroy a particular set of buildings and/or support vehicles…countervalue attacks against non-combatants are, ironically, honor-neutral. In that case, running a light mech with TAG is one way of winning a “King of the Hill” scenario…presuming the Clan side just needs to eliminate the “Hill”.
Fire Falcon is great, and it's Clan Invasion configs are mostly useful except the B.
Prime - 2x SSRM4, 2 ERML, 1 MPL, 2 ERSL = good close range knife fighter/duelist
A - UAC2 & LRM10 = weak sniper
B - 2x ERLL + TC = amazing sniper
C - Probe and MGs = good Anti-infantry platform
D - TAG, NARC, ERML, 2x SRM4s = decent LRM/Arty support spotter (best paired with another brawler who can soak fire)
The B is definitely nasty!
can a Clan unit use tag for the lrms to hit better?
They do have ‘mechs with TAG, but that is for artillery. NARC is what you’d want for LRMs
IMO Clan-tech fast lights should not be built as knife fighters. They're better off bringing one or two longer-ranged guns and stacking their TMM with range penalties to stay unhittable. It's a similar argument to the Locust LRM variant. For trials in a circle of equals, though, assuming a pilot is sticking with whatever ride he normally drives, I can see the necessity for a short-ranged configuration.
The Prime is loaded with short-range punch. I see it as a trial configuration for hunting other lights.
The A and B both feel more like battlefield configurations with their long-range payloads.
The C does exactly what it says on the tin, butchering conventional infantry that are dug into a city.
The -D, being a spotter/NARCer, feels kind of like a high-risk-high-reward ride-or-die build for a would-be Ristar who is looking for risky fire missions in Zell-free scenarios that he can use to build some rep.
The rest look like test-bed configurations that were whipped up when somebody decided they wanted to use some of the new toys that the scientists were pushing out.
Of all of them, the B and the L are the ones that appeal the most to me, which is probably not surprising as they both follow the long-range fast-mover doctrine I mentioned in my opening paragraph. They both also have targeting computers, making for effective sniping at long range while moving quickly, as I see it the ideal role for 'Mechs like this.
Excellent commentary as usual sir!!
RiP PMW. You are missed…
Couldn’t Tag be used to paint a mech for a middle strike.
The clans have a code of conduct, sure, but they aren't stupid. If everyone agrees to play by zellbringin, then they play by zellbringin. If the opfor wants total war however, they're more than capable of bringing the pain.
*Caveat, some clans are more hidebound than others. I mean, Steel Viper went nuts because they could not reconcile losing to honourless, freebirth scum with their sense of moral superiority after all. Then you have Clan Wolf and Diamond Shark, who see zell as a 'loose guideline' at best.
The Jade Falcons in particular are perhaps the most schizophrenic Clan, because they have a strong traditionalist streak, but they are also very pragmatic. So their pragmatism and their traditionalism often butt heads, which leads to very interesting, twisty, some would say hypocritical, ways of dealing with that conflict. Also, as the Clan invasion progressed the Jade Falcon outlook on warfare and honor progressed to the point that by the 3060s they were a Clan becoming known for their use of artillery even in Clan vs. Clan warfare. It is one of the reasons the Steel Vipers targeted the Jade Falcons as tainted during the Wars of Reaving. Also, we shouldn't forget that Ulric Kerensky only died in the Refusal War, because Vandervaun Chistu ambushed him with a Star of Summoner Bs and Mad Dogs and rained missiles down on Ulric and his Star before he could even get a shot off.
In the case of the Fire Falcon specifically the lore states that the Fire Falcon and Black Lanner were designed to work in conjunction with each other and support one another, which demonstrates that even early in the Clan Invasion the Jade Falcon mind set was changing, because prior to fighting the Inner Sphere any suggestion to the Jade Falcons that they should work together or support one another would be rejected fairly quickly. The Fire Falcon D would actually make a great observer for a Star of Summoner Bs or similar missile Mechs.
I'm not a fan of SRMs in general. Streak 6s are good or banks of Streak 2s for a low gunnery pilot but that's about it. Sure, building a mech to just be a giant shotgun is great for the lulz but honestly a bit meh in practice.
I'm not a great fan of single medium lasers either. Even clan ERs. You need a bunch of them to really do anything.
This, to me, is a narc and run mech. Out flank the enemy at high speed and land a narc on something that isn't too dangerous (or is dangerous but distracted), preferably from cover. And then really only engage targets of opportunity or attempt to complete mission objectives. I wouldn't consider this a combat machine. But I wouldn't consider anything built for recon to be a combat machine either. Which is most light mechs, the odd medium mech. And the Charger.
Sometimes the most useful thing you can do is spot for something that actually does damage. And that's ok if you're cheap as chips.
The clan Naga omnimech exists.
This is a fact - which confuses me more about the Clan outlook on arty. Though Arrow is a little different I suppose.
I like the way the Fire Falcon looks, but a 25-tonner, even with Clantech, id never going to be all that impressive. Also the lack of jump-capable configurations hurts its utility. Though at least it's very cheap for a Clan mech.
As for artillery, it's true that using artillery is considered dishonorable, but there are cases where the Clans will disregard their honor rules like when fighting pirates (and by the Jihad they've largely disregarded zellbringen against IS forces in general since they know they're not going to follow it anyway). Plus they might need to occasionally deal with static defenses and fortifications, in which case calling artillery or air-strikes is acceptable as you can't really 1v1 duel a fortress anyway.
This comment has nothing to do with this video. I have a question for Aaron about the Supply Chain mission from the 4.1 update of the DFA Mission Pack. The Price of Retreat rule came up yesterday in a battle, and we were all really confused by the wording of that rule. It is my assumption that the Price of Retreat rule is there to make it inconvenient for a player to simply "give up" when they have a points lead but are about to lose their last 'mech. And we are aware of the general rule on Retreating - if that player had retreated it would have been a loss for them, and we're just using points to determine if the remaining force scores a Major or Minor Victory. So with all that said, on to the main question - How is that math supposed to work? Could you write it out using math symbols and parenthesis to make it clearer for me? It seems to me that no matter what you're multiplying by a negative, so the Price of Retreat always penalizes the remaining player?? My reading of it is ( 11 - (current turn)) x (1 - (scoring units non-retreating player has remaining)). In the situation from our battle yesterday, it would be (11-7) x (1-5) = 4 x -4 = -16...? So the other guy retreats and the one holding the field gets dinged for 16 points?? That can't be right, can it? Perhaps if the last two clauses were reversed, it would then be 5-1 rather than 1-5, it would then be a positive number, and the non-retreating force actually gets an increase in points for holding the field? But I'm not sure quite what your intent is here.
Its like “if you put the remaining mechs you had on any objective, how many points could you score? Now multiply that by the number of turns left.”
Insider tip: we are coming out with a revision on this for all missions to really simplify this though 🙂 should be out soonish.
@@DeathfromAboveWargaming Cool :) Thanks for the reply! Also is there a better place for me to ask questions like this? :P
You can always email us, or ask on Discord - we are on the Everything Battletech discord.
Most passive aggressive thing you can say about a mech, "It's not even a glass cannon" roflmao. As for the TAG, idk, clanners are hypocrites? I mean, they're all about their mad skillz and yet they love targeting computers, pulse lasers, NARCs, orbital bombardment, and anything else they can find in the munchkin box.
LOL this wins comment of the month.
Put it in a lance with a crossbow. Pretty cheap combo.
Some what of a bad clan mech, as "tagging" for someone else's honor looks bad on a ristar's codex.