I remember when I learned that rule of pushing off the map when a friend did that to me in a game to my perfectly good 95 ton Albatross that was wrecking his mech. Much swearing happened that day.
At one point I was playing with my firend and DFA'd his near pristine clan assault/heavy (can remember what it was,just that it was the majoriti of his BV) with my crippled Thunderbolt off the map. He lost the scenario becuse of that. We bot agreed that the whole thing was stupid.
@@Zweistein001 hahaha ya... pushing off the map is pretty funny. Ive used it against someone once when he was corner camping with a sniper. Good times.
Even in casual play or RPG content, ALWAYS front load initiative. All of these weapon changes are worth a try, I highly encourage everyone to try all the different rules 'toggles'. My favorite optional rule not mentioned is 'Hurried Movement'. Best house rule about machine gun ammo I have seen so far is that it does 1/10th damage on an ammo explosion, still dangerous but not comical. At the table top print a list with page numbers for the rules you are using before starting and you are golden.
@@EdmondHiggins so machine gun bombs are funny if you put on the super-ammo explosion rules where you can hurt mechs around you, it can be really funny. Especially if you have engine explosions as well. It can get wacky running in a kamikaze vulcan lol. Then again it can blow up your whole formation... There are other good fixes for ACs I've seen but those ones in MM are decent enough.
My personal favorite alternate initiative rule is TANKS MOVE -> MECHS MOVE -> INFANTRY MOVE. It really changes the role of vehicles while killing the infantry sink tactic
For anyone who would like it in text form, a complete list of all options covered in the video: Flamers per Battlemech Manual TacOps Gauss Weapons Indirect Fire Indirect LRM fire always possible Cluster Hit Penalties Rapidfire Autocannons Kinder Rapidfire Autocannons Unjam Ultra Autocannons Increased AC Damage Burst Fire MGs TacOps firing while prone Front load initiative Infantry don't count for movement initiative Infantry moves after that players other units Simultaneous deployment phase Simultaneous targeting phase Initiative streak compensation TacOps Careful Stand TacOps Sprinting TacOps Leaping Jumping into heavy woods PSR TacOps Backward Movement (Expanded) Allow pushing off the map TacOps taking damage Through-armor criticals will "float" Do not force primary target to be in front arc
As an initiative balancer, I like the following. Every time you roll, you get a bonus equal to the number of times your opponent has won initiative the whole game. Really tends to equalize the average outcome without making any one init roll too predictable.
TacOps Standing Still and the rule you mentioned for igniting hexes are both really great for making strong positions riskier to camp in. It works a treat for preventing games with lowered gunnery from slowing down into turret-tech and also speeds up those silly situations where two mechs are standing still and shooting each-other at short range.
Oh true. Standing still is a double edged sword though isn't it? Doesn't it make the mech's TH number better as well? Easier to hit them, but they have better gunnery. Seems to make snipers extra dangerous(and extra favourable targets)
@@TheManyVoicesVA In the base game I wouldn't say standing still has a double-edge. The rules generally encourage it because the penalty for moving is always the same whether or not you can actually cover enough distance to build up your TMM, it's a design flaw IMO.
@@TheManyVoicesVA Copypasted from my PDF copy of TO: STANDING STILL (EXPANDED: MOVEMENT MODE) In standard rules, standing still inflicts no to-hit modifiers, either to the attacker or the defender. However, in mechanized combat speed is life, and standing still is a death warrant. To better reflect this aspect of battle, anytime a non-infantry ground unit does not expend any MP in a turn, apply a -1 to-hit modifier to all weapon and physical attacks made against that unit.
This is great and very important to BT players. You covered the ones I normally use that feel like they should just be in the base game. You also hit on some really neat ones that I want to try out in some future games. My only suggestion that would have made this information better if you had noted in what supplement the rule could have been found or where the fan made rule was sourced / referenced from for your non mega viewers. Even a list of the names of all the optional rules used in the description would have worked. Overall, great topic!
There's also some completely unofficial rules that are really useful. For instance, having MASC/Superchargers starting their rolls at 1+ rather than 3+. Given that the units with MASC have BV costs as if they were always moving at MASC speeds, it makes sense to make the MASC a little less hazardous. The same reason is why I support the unjamming UACs, since their BV cost treats it as if they're always double-tapped. I love that initiative streak compensation. We started using it at our table after I was in a game where I lost first initiative, then won the next 12 (which was the end of the game). I also like using BV calculated by geometric mean, rather than having BV just being OBV + DBV. It *really* peeves me that they removed that option from MM. Personally, I think LACs should have the same range as regular ACs. Sure, it makes regular AC/2 and 5s obsolete, but that's fine. They're terrible anyway. It's not in MM, but it's one we've played with a few times. I rather like Hull Down rules. Not only to give quads a little boost, but combined with the alternate fall rules, it means that failing a PSR by just 1 (on most Pilot skill levels) only causes the mech to go to Hull Down rather than fall over. The alternate hit table for quads and prone mechs is very good. By default, a quad being shot from the front has a higher chance of their *rear* legs taking a hit than their front legs. This is obviously silly. I'm a big fan of rules that provide use for otherwise niche items: active probes and ECM come to mind. Ghost Targeting for ECM (post-errata) is easy to use and quite useful, providing a great purpose to the system when there's no C3 to jam. Active Probes being able to ignore a single +1 from concealment in range is great, plus with the above GT rules there's another reason to enjoy having a BAP on your mech.
I considered Hull Down... I like it thematically, but it's like... Very powerful. Especially with mechs also taking a knee when they don't flub their PSR completely. I don't like anything that encourages turret tech.
@@TheManyVoicesVA I mean, if you're combining it with the cummulative PSR penalty for 20+ damage, it balances out more. And honestly, I'm all for making quads a little less useless.
RACs are essentially mech gatling guns, the fact the rules allow them to jam in the first place is kind of ridiculous as you'd either have to damage the motor spinning the weapon, in which case it's essentially destroyed, or each individual bolt and track would need to be damaged, which is highly unlikely. Ultra Autocannons however are essentially over-gassed +P autocannons, so unjamming them would require you to either have some sort of external charging handle that your mech can interact with or require your MechWarrior to leave the cockpit and enter some sort of crawl spaces within the armor to unjam it personally, assuming it has the free space.
I could buy that it's not so much the gun that jams but rather the ammo-feed system that gets blocked. I imagine RACs to be like the GAU-8 Avenger of Thunderbolt II fame, only in a mech the gun is awkwardly crammed into a small space and the mech is running, jumping, leaning and so on, so it does make sense to me that the ammo-feed might have difficulties dealing with all that bouncing and bobbing. So every once in a while, part of an ammobelt gets stuck and the gun needs to go through some clearing process that takes a few seconds. Quite some time ago, I worked on a machine that placed sensors on tiny circuit boards, the robot arms putting down the glue and chips got out of alignment every once in a while, so you'd tell the machine to revert back to some baseline position, so it could re-calibrate itself and then proceed to do its thing. I imagine it could be something like that. Another possibility is that spent casings might get caught in the ejection port, which causes the gun to stop firing. In contrast, a UAC might not so much jam as much as suffering some part physically breaking down, which actually needs to be replaced via maintenance and replacement... but from a gameplay perspective, I'd opt for UAC unjamming in the field similar to how it's handled with RACs.
There's an idea; UACs can unjam [x] times per game, thanks to something like pyrocastic charges used to unjam them (kinda like guns such as the GSh-23L).
A rule that might have been a house rule that my old group used to play with before battle values was a thing, was that you bought and moved vehicles as a lance.
Acualy it was a rule at some point i remember reading it, though i do not remember where, though my gut says it was when fasa was still running the game
Reversing level changes with a PSR roll. Floating criticals. Forced withdrawl to speed up games. I know Im forgetting one... Really like some of the ones you've mentioned.
@TheManyVoicesVA forced withdrawal is good because it brings in an element of reality that is basicaly total ignored at most game tables and that is most soldiers will not fight to the death in hopless situations just because your tell them to
My group tends to use the sprinting rules in Alpha strike. Last Sunday we were playing classic on a Solaris map, and we were using the floating point critical rules, something I noticed when I took a floating point crit to my last two rounds of AC ammo in my Stormcrow B. I regret nothing though, I had already for all intents and purposes blew Kai Allard Liao's head off in the very first round.
There are many mechs with C3 slaves, but when you don't run a C3 lance, those always just waste tonnage, is there anything to make that less of a disappointment? I mean, the easiest is to just replace them with a heatsink, it technically has a bit of an effect on BV, but I think that can be ignored for the most part.
@@h.a.9880 Tonnage is an imaginary concept. You balance games by BV2 90% of the time, not tonnage, and C3 only costs BV if its apart of a network. Technically having a C3 slave in the mech is an upside as you're getting a free bit of crit padding for 0 BV. That being said, replacing it with a heatsink is often the most common way people would let you customize if you announce what you're doing ahead of time and pay the miniscule BV amount
@@TheManyVoicesVA I think it would have been nice to simply make the BAP, ECM and C3 Slave weigh the same amount and give players the option to choose either of those three devices before the game.
An AC adjustment we used to play with was that AC/2 have a +3 critical chance. AC/5 have a +1 and AC/10 a +1. Makes those AC armed mechs more dangerous.
@@TheManyVoicesVA Yeah, AC/10s are IMO just shy of being fairly well balanced. LB-10X is personally where I would place the balance point of autocannons.
@@TheManyVoicesVA Always! I wanted to add a bit of a comment about the edge system, but the one I get to use at my local tabletop tournament (could be either defensive or offensive re-roll) is quite different from the option offered by MegaMek...so I decided a simple appreciative comment would be best! No mention of edge - none!
@@TheManyVoicesVA Thank you! (Just to be safe, it occurs to me that my comment could have been misinterpreted - I was being silly by saying I decided not to comment on MegaMek Edge as I commented on MegaMek Edge, not accusing you of failing to mention Edge in your video. I'll be happy to watch this other video and hear your thoughts!)
One rule some friends and I have experimented with is to grant machine guns and AC2s and 5's a better critical threat. Instead of nines granting a crit, they score on 7+.
@@derekburge5294 someone else said the same actually. That is a neat way of making them super powerful crit seekers. Would you apply that to AP rounds too tho?
@@TheManyVoicesVA Hasn't come up to be honest, but we also have a no-stacking policy, not entirely but mostly because of TC pulse bullshiiiiiiiiiiiit, so the consensus would probably be a firm nooooooo.
@@derekburge5294 makes sense haha. Both types of AC are probably firing really fast so they have like dozens of projectiles, makes sense they would be good at crit seeking.
I'm a staunch believer that AC2s should have the same anti-infantry properties as Flamers/Pulse Lasers, if only to give them a niche as a long-range infantry support weapon. Also because they're often presented as firing bursts of lower caliber shells like real-life 20/30mm guns.
@@TheManyVoicesVANothing short of dramatically reducing AC weight and slots from the 2 to the 20 will make any of them truly good. Unfortunately for the AC2, even giving the AC2 the exact same stats as a medium laser (weights, slots, damage, etc-it can keep its range advantage) would *still* leave it pretty bad cus it’s still gonna need Ammo. They designed weapon categories so you had to choose between weights, slots, and heat. Problem is, there is no real way to overcome weight, so ballistics are just in a bad place. And they amount to a bomb in your own mech, which alone should have been enough balance to justify them being stronger rather than weaker.
@@piedpiper1172 agreed. ACs are in a rough spot. Lbx cannons are where it's at. ACs can be balanced by bringing precision ammo, but then you have a problem of too little ammo sometimes.
@@TheManyVoicesVA Now I wasn’t into the hobby way back at the start, so maybe it was different in the very initial stages (my understanding is classic competitive generally undervalued armor and lasers, though that seems to be an issue with an under evolved pre-internet era meta and not cus of rules). But, frankly, given that Ammo can detonate, that should alone be the balance. There is no rule about lasers melting themselves or anything, so for guns above a certain size (ac10ish) 2T of ammo should just be infinite. The mech either has it (and a bomb on board) or it jettisons it and no longer has a bomb (but also can’t shoot anymore). In this model AC2 & 5ish size need 1T, MGs just don’t need Ammo (or, at worst, it’s a 0T/0BV token that uses up a critical slot, but can’t explode). All of this is just compounded by the existence of double heat sinks. There is no… los tech ballistic anti gravity or something to cut AC weight in half. Even endo steel doesn’t address the issue. A laser boat that’s given access to lostech can just double its heatsinks, and now it can use endo steel to address literally any design problem. Still hot? Congrats, you have plenty of tonnage room to install sub arctic levels of cooling. Already cool and have room to add or upgrade lasers? Enjoy your several additional medium lasers, or retooling entirely to large lasers. Cool and have enough punch? Idk, want jump jets? Want fancy electronics? Want literally anything? Meanwhile, the ballistic boat is probably so cramped on critical slots cus it’s guns are all massive tonnage and slot hogs that even with endo and DHS it can barely start trying to redress its own issues (adding case, or adding Ammo so it can actually fight for the full game). Still gonna be just worse than anything using PPCs for significantly better damage per ton and per slot. A custom “HBK-AWE” with 2-3 ppcs (depending on how much insanity one wishes to commit to in leaving it with literally nothing but these) shoved into its shoulder is borderline gamebreaking. Meanwhile, a version that went full send on insanity with 2x AC20’s is an official variant and it’s almost meme level bad outside of some extraordinarily specific and favorable conditions (basically only narrative city fight where the opponent doesn’t know they’ll be on the board). Which is all kinda weird, cus really Missile boats aren’t nearly as out of wack as ballistic boats. They have at least viable Ammo counts, and none of their weapons scream “I should actually cost negative battle value because I make you worse.” Like the AC2 or machine gun Ammo lol. There is a reason almost all competitive and even most casual games place limits on custom design and that reason is medium lasers (pulse depending on era). They’re so absurdly good that “just run as many of the best HBK-4Ps you can” is always the correct answer. Sure, a player might call it a custom Marauder or Atlas or w/e, but if you’re shoving giant stacks of ML into it, that’s a just a heavier 4P. If using combined arms, give each one a flamer in a hand, job done-maybe bring a utility mech, but that’s part of the “as many as you can” calculation. I really want Battletech to grow and become a community that genuinely puts competitive pressure on other systems for players and quality. I think one thing they absolutely must do is put out a “universe” style rule book that brings every optional rule, every mech, everything they’ve ever published for the game into a single source as a new foundation. A lot is out of print or obscure or just hard to find. It’s too easy for new players to bounce off. Even if such a book would be pretty pricy, having it as a “one and done, you’re entirely up to date” would be huge. And in that book they have to bite the bullet and do *something* about ballistics. Ideally something that doesn’t slow down the game (just one issue with specialty Ammo). Even if it’s as simple as changing the Ammo rules as suggested and just trimming some weight and slots. They don’t need to be flatly better than lasers, but they do need to be more than a handicap. It’s such a problem even major lore reflects this. Part of what makes the Wolfs Dragoons Marauder 2 special at some points is when they either make it energy only (thus no on board bomb) or when they use Gauss instead (really the only semi balanced ballistic, but even it’s too light on Ammo).
I haven't seen the Tac op rules for rapid fire, but I like the idea that an AC 2 can fire up to 4 times in a round, and AC 5 up to 3, and AC 10 up to 2 and no rapid fire for a standard AC 20.
Ah the floating crit rule makes the bane prime EVIL to the enemy (3/3 pilot stationary targets walking longbow 2/4pilot, long range, 7 hits 1 headshot 1 floating crit left leg rolls double 6 leg blown off falls, fails pilot save roll for injury then pilot KO turn 1 much whining ensued)
I love the TacOps +1 to psr every 20 damage and combine it with the Stability modifier to weight class. Even then it doesn’t guarantee a knock over. How a Hauptman can take 200 damage in a turn and not lose any limbs and roll an 11 PSR idk, I have seen it happen three times. This also lends to me that Piloting is a more important skill on Assault mechs then light ‘mechs. While light mechs gunnery is far more important. For Campaigns, I turn off through armor Criticals. You take too many, and it rapidly becomes unfun. For an individual game it isn’t a problem but for Campaigns it’s a hard no.
@@chriseash6497 I find the opposite. The narrative of TACs on mechs is fun, but TACs in a 1 off game feel bad because it will often lose you the game early on haha. The weight modifiers are kinda wild I was lookin at those, but I dont feel like it's a good one to have on in every match.
@@TheManyVoicesVAthe weight modifiers are pretty good and make logical sense. Remember those are only for damage taken. For lights it hardly adds anything, if a light takes 20 damage or more it is usually going down anyways. An Assault is usually taking a beating, when they get targeted they really get targeted, a mere 20 damage shouldn’t adjust their piloting roll.
Would it be acceptable to roll for initiative once at the start of the game, and then alternate every turn without rolling? (unless the scenario has specific initiative rules). Roll for initiative to me seems like a way to add even more randomness to a game that's already full of randomness.
@@elithradril that is a good idea tbh. It would be pretty fair that way at least. Of course, if someone has initiative.boosting gear like comms equipment or command console... it would kinda screw them haha.
@@TheManyVoicesVA yeah it would be only something to implement if nobody uses anything that influences initiative rolls. I also saw some of the scenarios in AGOAC and the chaos campaign have some initiative modifier rules.
I dont get why would anyone play with floating criticals. Rolling a 2 is the same as rolling a 12 - extremely rare and lucky. So why would you be punished for rolling a 2, by making another roll for location, but not punished for rolling a 12? Both of them can lead to the mech being destroyed. Also it makes ballistic weapons even worse by allowing a random TAC ammo crit.
@@MARiNZ0 I mean... depending on the mech, rolling a side torso might be *worse* if it has ammo. It isn't really a punishment IMO. I honestly just feel it's odd that it basically always goes CT if you get a TAC from the front, when otherwise hits go anywhere.
There is a lot here to consider in there video. Most of these suggestions are great.Speaking for myself, most of the rules changes I have made were with the intent to speed the game up and shorten the time to kill. I have been playing Classic Battletech for 3-4 years and I have come to the conclusion that Classic has a massive problem. The game is way too damn long for so few models on the board. A lance vs lance game takes 3 to 4 hours if played by the book and that is just not OK. I think Players and Devs need a "Come to Jesus" moment. Battletech needs a bottom to top redesign. This game brought Sci-fi war gaming into the 1980's and left it there. The Initiative/movement order is a total mess, GATOR is utterly antiquated and the combine arms elements fix together like chewed Legos. I want to play this game for the next 20 years, but the rule set is such a mess that I have been thinking of either finding a new one to use my minis with or just rewrite the rules myself.
@@readwatchlisten2863 the thing I like about Battletech is how detailed it is. It can simulate most things pretty well in a war game. It's also very detailed in how mechs take damage and mount weapons which is pretty cool.
@TheManyVoicesVA you are 100% correct. Classic is detailed. I don't think that's a bad thing. I also agree that the weapons and damage table are one of the games strong points. What I am saying is that there are other elements of the game that take away from that. I believe in my bones we can have a game with cool weapons and detailed damage tables, that doesn't take 6 and a half hours to play.
@@readwatchlisten2863 lmao. Do you use the box of doom? A bunch of labeled tackle box compartments with 2d6 in them? Shake it up, slam it down. Cuts down on rolling time.
@TheManyVoicesVA oh yeah! I have seen players use it. I could never. The noise was too much. I have used the pilot dice method lately. My assessment of the length of the game is not just the movement and GATOR, but also the time to kill is very, very long. There are a lot of misses in this game, and even when hits are scored, it does little damage.
@@readwatchlisten2863 that's kind of what Alpha Strike is for haha. I guess you could just reduce the armor everything has, but then it's hard to make an assault mech like an Atlas feel so different from a locust.
As of at least last year, Alpha Strike has a sort of front-loaded initiative baked into the standard rules. Basically, if you have twice as many units on the field as your opponent (rounded up), you move two units to your opponent's one. So if you have like 5 units to their three, you move two, they move one. You'd move two, they move one, than you both alternate moving units once you're at a roughly 1:1 ratio again. Ensures that the winner of initiative doesn't run out of units before the player who lost initiative.
Uh, Commander's Edition has the same backloaded initiative (Unequal number of units, p. 32), i.e. rounding the ratio down. Rounding the ratio up is what frontloading does. In both cases, the winner will always move last.
@@worldoftancraft PPCs are like among the better weapons in the game haha. The EMP effect comes from the vidya games not Tabletop. There is an option to remove the minimum range but it's... perilous.
@@ObiwanNekody The Clan ERPPC is a long-range headcapper that only weighs six tons and doesn't have any kind of ammo requirement, explosion risk, or minimum range difficulty. There are few weapons so straightforward and lethal to mechs.
I remember when I learned that rule of pushing off the map when a friend did that to me in a game to my perfectly good 95 ton Albatross that was wrecking his mech. Much swearing happened that day.
@@halflbobeef lmfaooo that kind of optional rule should definitely be something you discuss before a game, not drop as an "aga! Got you!"
First time the shove off map came up, I had a commando skid down a road and off the map. My opponent was really confused why I was laughing so hard.
At one point I was playing with my firend and DFA'd his near pristine clan assault/heavy (can remember what it was,just that it was the majoriti of his BV) with my crippled Thunderbolt off the map. He lost the scenario becuse of that. We bot agreed that the whole thing was stupid.
@@Zweistein001 hahaha ya... pushing off the map is pretty funny. Ive used it against someone once when he was corner camping with a sniper. Good times.
Even in casual play or RPG content, ALWAYS front load initiative.
All of these weapon changes are worth a try, I highly encourage everyone to try all the different rules 'toggles'.
My favorite optional rule not mentioned is 'Hurried Movement'.
Best house rule about machine gun ammo I have seen so far is that it does 1/10th damage on an ammo explosion, still dangerous but not comical.
At the table top print a list with page numbers for the rules you are using before starting and you are golden.
@@EdmondHiggins so machine gun bombs are funny if you put on the super-ammo explosion rules where you can hurt mechs around you, it can be really funny. Especially if you have engine explosions as well. It can get wacky running in a kamikaze vulcan lol. Then again it can blow up your whole formation...
There are other good fixes for ACs I've seen but those ones in MM are decent enough.
Always front load. In more serious matches it prevents sleazy tactics that abuse the initiative system. In casual play it speeds up the game a lot.
My personal favorite alternate initiative rule is TANKS MOVE -> MECHS MOVE -> INFANTRY MOVE.
It really changes the role of vehicles while killing the infantry sink tactic
Gotta remove the initiative sink
For anyone who would like it in text form, a complete list of all options covered in the video:
Flamers per Battlemech Manual
TacOps Gauss Weapons
Indirect Fire
Indirect LRM fire always possible
Cluster Hit Penalties
Rapidfire Autocannons
Kinder Rapidfire Autocannons
Unjam Ultra Autocannons
Increased AC Damage
Burst Fire MGs
TacOps firing while prone
Front load initiative
Infantry don't count for movement initiative
Infantry moves after that players other units
Simultaneous deployment phase
Simultaneous targeting phase
Initiative streak compensation
TacOps Careful Stand
TacOps Sprinting
TacOps Leaping
Jumping into heavy woods PSR
TacOps Backward Movement (Expanded)
Allow pushing off the map
TacOps taking damage
Through-armor criticals will "float"
Do not force primary target to be in front arc
Would be helpful to have the page references as well.
As an initiative balancer, I like the following. Every time you roll, you get a bonus equal to the number of times your opponent has won initiative the whole game. Really tends to equalize the average outcome without making any one init roll too predictable.
@@TrailblazerBT that is a great one actually. Id definitely use it at the table!
Did you tell me that this would make a good video a couple of weeks ago? I'm glad that you went with it.
@@99zxk yep! Thanks for the suggestion :)
TacOps Standing Still and the rule you mentioned for igniting hexes are both really great for making strong positions riskier to camp in. It works a treat for preventing games with lowered gunnery from slowing down into turret-tech and also speeds up those silly situations where two mechs are standing still and shooting each-other at short range.
Oh true. Standing still is a double edged sword though isn't it? Doesn't it make the mech's TH number better as well? Easier to hit them, but they have better gunnery. Seems to make snipers extra dangerous(and extra favourable targets)
@@TheManyVoicesVA In the base game I wouldn't say standing still has a double-edge. The rules generally encourage it because the penalty for moving is always the same whether or not you can actually cover enough distance to build up your TMM, it's a design flaw IMO.
@@agentoranj5858 right I meant with the special rule. It makes it easier to hit you but dont your weapons also get a bonus to hit?
@@TheManyVoicesVA Copypasted from my PDF copy of TO:
STANDING STILL (EXPANDED: MOVEMENT MODE)
In standard rules, standing still inflicts no to-hit modifiers, either to the attacker or the defender. However, in mechanized combat speed is life, and standing still is a death warrant. To better reflect this aspect of battle, anytime a non-infantry ground unit does not expend any MP in a turn, apply a -1 to-hit modifier to all weapon and physical attacks made against that unit.
@@agentoranj5858 ahh ty. Ok I didnt remember that one right haha. Been a while since I used it.
This is great and very important to BT players. You covered the ones I normally use that feel like they should just be in the base game. You also hit on some really neat ones that I want to try out in some future games. My only suggestion that would have made this information better if you had noted in what supplement the rule could have been found or where the fan made rule was sourced / referenced from for your non mega viewers. Even a list of the names of all the optional rules used in the description would have worked. Overall, great topic!
@@matthewpena3932 oh that would have been a good idea... oops lol. I will make that in the description!
There's also some completely unofficial rules that are really useful.
For instance, having MASC/Superchargers starting their rolls at 1+ rather than 3+. Given that the units with MASC have BV costs as if they were always moving at MASC speeds, it makes sense to make the MASC a little less hazardous. The same reason is why I support the unjamming UACs, since their BV cost treats it as if they're always double-tapped.
I love that initiative streak compensation. We started using it at our table after I was in a game where I lost first initiative, then won the next 12 (which was the end of the game).
I also like using BV calculated by geometric mean, rather than having BV just being OBV + DBV. It *really* peeves me that they removed that option from MM.
Personally, I think LACs should have the same range as regular ACs. Sure, it makes regular AC/2 and 5s obsolete, but that's fine. They're terrible anyway. It's not in MM, but it's one we've played with a few times.
I rather like Hull Down rules. Not only to give quads a little boost, but combined with the alternate fall rules, it means that failing a PSR by just 1 (on most Pilot skill levels) only causes the mech to go to Hull Down rather than fall over.
The alternate hit table for quads and prone mechs is very good. By default, a quad being shot from the front has a higher chance of their *rear* legs taking a hit than their front legs. This is obviously silly.
I'm a big fan of rules that provide use for otherwise niche items: active probes and ECM come to mind.
Ghost Targeting for ECM (post-errata) is easy to use and quite useful, providing a great purpose to the system when there's no C3 to jam.
Active Probes being able to ignore a single +1 from concealment in range is great, plus with the above GT rules there's another reason to enjoy having a BAP on your mech.
I considered Hull Down... I like it thematically, but it's like... Very powerful. Especially with mechs also taking a knee when they don't flub their PSR completely. I don't like anything that encourages turret tech.
@@TheManyVoicesVA I mean, if you're combining it with the cummulative PSR penalty for 20+ damage, it balances out more.
And honestly, I'm all for making quads a little less useless.
@@Xeno426 truuue quads need some love haha
RACs are essentially mech gatling guns, the fact the rules allow them to jam in the first place is kind of ridiculous as you'd either have to damage the motor spinning the weapon, in which case it's essentially destroyed, or each individual bolt and track would need to be damaged, which is highly unlikely.
Ultra Autocannons however are essentially over-gassed +P autocannons, so unjamming them would require you to either have some sort of external charging handle that your mech can interact with or require your MechWarrior to leave the cockpit and enter some sort of crawl spaces within the armor to unjam it personally, assuming it has the free space.
I could buy that it's not so much the gun that jams but rather the ammo-feed system that gets blocked. I imagine RACs to be like the GAU-8 Avenger of Thunderbolt II fame, only in a mech the gun is awkwardly crammed into a small space and the mech is running, jumping, leaning and so on, so it does make sense to me that the ammo-feed might have difficulties dealing with all that bouncing and bobbing. So every once in a while, part of an ammobelt gets stuck and the gun needs to go through some clearing process that takes a few seconds.
Quite some time ago, I worked on a machine that placed sensors on tiny circuit boards, the robot arms putting down the glue and chips got out of alignment every once in a while, so you'd tell the machine to revert back to some baseline position, so it could re-calibrate itself and then proceed to do its thing. I imagine it could be something like that.
Another possibility is that spent casings might get caught in the ejection port, which causes the gun to stop firing.
In contrast, a UAC might not so much jam as much as suffering some part physically breaking down, which actually needs to be replaced via maintenance and replacement... but from a gameplay perspective, I'd opt for UAC unjamming in the field similar to how it's handled with RACs.
@@KageRyuu6 I mean... in mechwarrior games they both look like gatling guns lol.
There's an idea; UACs can unjam [x] times per game, thanks to something like pyrocastic charges used to unjam them (kinda like guns such as the GSh-23L).
Thanks a ton! Was actually asking today in Battle Banter about this lol.
@@AlexDenton0451 I hope this helps! Many of these are standard for the MRC but some aren't.
A rule that might have been a house rule that my old group used to play with before battle values was a thing, was that you bought and moved vehicles as a lance.
@@thesilentninja9255 moving as a lance is a rule u can use. Justvdoing it for vees is a house rule haha
Acualy it was a rule at some point i remember reading it, though i do not remember where, though my gut says it was when fasa was still running the game
@@xerty5502 It's in Maximum Tech.
@nationoflonegunmen ty i knew some one would recall were it was 👍
I enjoy all of The Many Voices videos 🎉🎉🎉😅😊
@@SpiritWolf1966 😎
Reversing level changes with a PSR roll. Floating criticals. Forced withdrawl to speed up games. I know Im forgetting one...
Really like some of the ones you've mentioned.
@@matthewmarek1467 forced withdrawal is pretty cool. We usually just rule it crippled mechs cant score objectives
@TheManyVoicesVA forced withdrawal is good because it brings in an element of reality that is basicaly total ignored at most game tables and that is most soldiers will not fight to the death in hopless situations just because your tell them to
My group tends to use the sprinting rules in Alpha strike. Last Sunday we were playing classic on a Solaris map, and we were using the floating point critical rules, something I noticed when I took a floating point crit to my last two rounds of AC ammo in my Stormcrow B. I regret nothing though, I had already for all intents and purposes blew Kai Allard Liao's head off in the very first round.
@@Prich319 hahaha "who's the main character now, Kai?!"
Sprinting is good imo. Sometimes you just need to hustle.
I really liked the extended ECM, AMS and BAP rules, give them a use in all games where otherwise they might be useless in some matchups
I need to get around to doing a sensors video at some point. It's too large a topic to cover in a video like this though.
There are many mechs with C3 slaves, but when you don't run a C3 lance, those always just waste tonnage, is there anything to make that less of a disappointment?
I mean, the easiest is to just replace them with a heatsink, it technically has a bit of an effect on BV, but I think that can be ignored for the most part.
@@h.a.9880 Tonnage is an imaginary concept. You balance games by BV2 90% of the time, not tonnage, and C3 only costs BV if its apart of a network. Technically having a C3 slave in the mech is an upside as you're getting a free bit of crit padding for 0 BV.
That being said, replacing it with a heatsink is often the most common way people would let you customize if you announce what you're doing ahead of time and pay the miniscule BV amount
@@h.a.9880 I always wondered why there weren't 2 variants of a variant: one with C3 and one without.
@@TheManyVoicesVA I think it would have been nice to simply make the BAP, ECM and C3 Slave weigh the same amount and give players the option to choose either of those three devices before the game.
An AC adjustment we used to play with was that AC/2 have a +3 critical chance. AC/5 have a +1 and AC/10 a +1. Makes those AC armed mechs more dangerous.
Hmmm AC10s need help less than AC5s IMO. Maybe just a scale, +3 for AC2, +2 for AC5, +1 AC10.
@@TheManyVoicesVA Yeah, AC/10s are IMO just shy of being fairly well balanced. LB-10X is personally where I would place the balance point of autocannons.
@@Xeno426 LBX 10 is amazing. I also like the LB20 as well. Its a real deadly gun haha.
Rapid fire autocannons
@@pieresteinbach rapid fire can blow u up. Id just ignore that rule at the table.
Yeah the RAC rule came out years after the ultra autocannon rule and you can tell. I always house rule that it works like RACs.
@@Ruggedtoaster there's no reason not to imo haha.
@ right?
This is an excellent video - thank you!
@@Miranda_Ghost you're very welcome! Thanks for watching :)
@@TheManyVoicesVA Always! I wanted to add a bit of a comment about the edge system, but the one I get to use at my local tabletop tournament (could be either defensive or offensive re-roll) is quite different from the option offered by MegaMek...so I decided a simple appreciative comment would be best! No mention of edge - none!
@@Miranda_Ghost the video I mentioned and put a link to specifically mentions how I would add edge to the game. :)
@@TheManyVoicesVA Thank you! (Just to be safe, it occurs to me that my comment could have been misinterpreted - I was being silly by saying I decided not to comment on MegaMek Edge as I commented on MegaMek Edge, not accusing you of failing to mention Edge in your video. I'll be happy to watch this other video and hear your thoughts!)
@@Miranda_Ghost ahh gotcha lmao. Im a little silly.
You should post the megamek settings file for us to download/load into MegaMek
@@smc4229 good idea! Thanks for the suggestion.
Hoping we get a proper TW rewrite one day. Something that plays fast like DFA's Override ruleset but with stock designs.
One rule some friends and I have experimented with is to grant machine guns and AC2s and 5's a better critical threat. Instead of nines granting a crit, they score on 7+.
@@derekburge5294 someone else said the same actually. That is a neat way of making them super powerful crit seekers. Would you apply that to AP rounds too tho?
@@TheManyVoicesVA Hasn't come up to be honest, but we also have a no-stacking policy, not entirely but mostly because of TC pulse bullshiiiiiiiiiiiit, so the consensus would probably be a firm nooooooo.
@@derekburge5294 makes sense haha. Both types of AC are probably firing really fast so they have like dozens of projectiles, makes sense they would be good at crit seeking.
@@TheManyVoicesVA Exactly how we think of it.
I'm a staunch believer that AC2s should have the same anti-infantry properties as Flamers/Pulse Lasers, if only to give them a niche as a long-range infantry support weapon.
Also because they're often presented as firing bursts of lower caliber shells like real-life 20/30mm guns.
That is a great idea! Doesn't really help with sucking pretty bad vs mechs tho haha.
@@TheManyVoicesVANothing short of dramatically reducing AC weight and slots from the 2 to the 20 will make any of them truly good.
Unfortunately for the AC2, even giving the AC2 the exact same stats as a medium laser (weights, slots, damage, etc-it can keep its range advantage) would *still* leave it pretty bad cus it’s still gonna need Ammo.
They designed weapon categories so you had to choose between weights, slots, and heat. Problem is, there is no real way to overcome weight, so ballistics are just in a bad place.
And they amount to a bomb in your own mech, which alone should have been enough balance to justify them being stronger rather than weaker.
@@piedpiper1172 agreed. ACs are in a rough spot. Lbx cannons are where it's at. ACs can be balanced by bringing precision ammo, but then you have a problem of too little ammo sometimes.
@@TheManyVoicesVA Now I wasn’t into the hobby way back at the start, so maybe it was different in the very initial stages (my understanding is classic competitive generally undervalued armor and lasers, though that seems to be an issue with an under evolved pre-internet era meta and not cus of rules).
But, frankly, given that Ammo can detonate, that should alone be the balance. There is no rule about lasers melting themselves or anything, so for guns above a certain size (ac10ish) 2T of ammo should just be infinite. The mech either has it (and a bomb on board) or it jettisons it and no longer has a bomb (but also can’t shoot anymore). In this model AC2 & 5ish size need 1T, MGs just don’t need Ammo (or, at worst, it’s a 0T/0BV token that uses up a critical slot, but can’t explode).
All of this is just compounded by the existence of double heat sinks. There is no… los tech ballistic anti gravity or something to cut AC weight in half. Even endo steel doesn’t address the issue.
A laser boat that’s given access to lostech can just double its heatsinks, and now it can use endo steel to address literally any design problem.
Still hot? Congrats, you have plenty of tonnage room to install sub arctic levels of cooling.
Already cool and have room to add or upgrade lasers? Enjoy your several additional medium lasers, or retooling entirely to large lasers.
Cool and have enough punch? Idk, want jump jets? Want fancy electronics? Want literally anything?
Meanwhile, the ballistic boat is probably so cramped on critical slots cus it’s guns are all massive tonnage and slot hogs that even with endo and DHS it can barely start trying to redress its own issues (adding case, or adding Ammo so it can actually fight for the full game).
Still gonna be just worse than anything using PPCs for significantly better damage per ton and per slot. A custom “HBK-AWE” with 2-3 ppcs (depending on how much insanity one wishes to commit to in leaving it with literally nothing but these) shoved into its shoulder is borderline gamebreaking. Meanwhile, a version that went full send on insanity with 2x AC20’s is an official variant and it’s almost meme level bad outside of some extraordinarily specific and favorable conditions (basically only narrative city fight where the opponent doesn’t know they’ll be on the board).
Which is all kinda weird, cus really Missile boats aren’t nearly as out of wack as ballistic boats. They have at least viable Ammo counts, and none of their weapons scream “I should actually cost negative battle value because I make you worse.” Like the AC2 or machine gun Ammo lol.
There is a reason almost all competitive and even most casual games place limits on custom design and that reason is medium lasers (pulse depending on era). They’re so absurdly good that “just run as many of the best HBK-4Ps you can” is always the correct answer. Sure, a player might call it a custom Marauder or Atlas or w/e, but if you’re shoving giant stacks of ML into it, that’s a just a heavier 4P. If using combined arms, give each one a flamer in a hand, job done-maybe bring a utility mech, but that’s part of the “as many as you can” calculation.
I really want Battletech to grow and become a community that genuinely puts competitive pressure on other systems for players and quality. I think one thing they absolutely must do is put out a “universe” style rule book that brings every optional rule, every mech, everything they’ve ever published for the game into a single source as a new foundation. A lot is out of print or obscure or just hard to find. It’s too easy for new players to bounce off. Even if such a book would be pretty pricy, having it as a “one and done, you’re entirely up to date” would be huge.
And in that book they have to bite the bullet and do *something* about ballistics. Ideally something that doesn’t slow down the game (just one issue with specialty Ammo). Even if it’s as simple as changing the Ammo rules as suggested and just trimming some weight and slots. They don’t need to be flatly better than lasers, but they do need to be more than a handicap.
It’s such a problem even major lore reflects this. Part of what makes the Wolfs Dragoons Marauder 2 special at some points is when they either make it energy only (thus no on board bomb) or when they use Gauss instead (really the only semi balanced ballistic, but even it’s too light on Ammo).
I haven't seen the Tac op rules for rapid fire, but I like the idea that an AC 2 can fire up to 4 times in a round, and AC 5 up to 3, and AC 10 up to 2 and no rapid fire for a standard AC 20.
Ah the floating crit rule makes the bane prime EVIL to the enemy (3/3 pilot stationary targets walking longbow 2/4pilot, long range, 7 hits 1 headshot 1 floating crit left leg rolls double 6 leg blown off falls, fails pilot save roll for injury then pilot KO turn 1 much whining ensued)
Lol. "Welcome to Battletech, Commander."
Books and Page numbers would have been nice for us analog players.
@@p12423073 ah I meant to make a pinned comment! Ill have to do that this week.
I love the TacOps +1 to psr every 20 damage and combine it with the Stability modifier to weight class. Even then it doesn’t guarantee a knock over. How a Hauptman can take 200 damage in a turn and not lose any limbs and roll an 11 PSR idk, I have seen it happen three times.
This also lends to me that Piloting is a more important skill on Assault mechs then light ‘mechs. While light mechs gunnery is far more important.
For Campaigns, I turn off through armor Criticals. You take too many, and it rapidly becomes unfun. For an individual game it isn’t a problem but for Campaigns it’s a hard no.
@@chriseash6497 I find the opposite. The narrative of TACs on mechs is fun, but TACs in a 1 off game feel bad because it will often lose you the game early on haha. The weight modifiers are kinda wild I was lookin at those, but I dont feel like it's a good one to have on in every match.
@@TheManyVoicesVA lost a few too many Campaigns due to getting so many TACs.
@@TheManyVoicesVAthe weight modifiers are pretty good and make logical sense. Remember those are only for damage taken. For lights it hardly adds anything, if a light takes 20 damage or more it is usually going down anyways. An Assault is usually taking a beating, when they get targeted they really get targeted, a mere 20 damage shouldn’t adjust their piloting roll.
We never don’t use the floating critical rule, even if everything else is kept standard to speed up play.
Oof. My gyro is uncomfortable.
Good picks. I only play solo megamek, but I use all of the above...along with giving that idiot Princess plenty of extra BV.
@@MrAjmay1 hahaha she is pretty silly at times. She can be predictable.
Would it be acceptable to roll for initiative once at the start of the game, and then alternate every turn without rolling? (unless the scenario has specific initiative rules). Roll for initiative to me seems like a way to add even more randomness to a game that's already full of randomness.
@@elithradril that is a good idea tbh. It would be pretty fair that way at least. Of course, if someone has initiative.boosting gear like comms equipment or command console... it would kinda screw them haha.
@@TheManyVoicesVA yeah it would be only something to implement if nobody uses anything that influences initiative rolls. I also saw some of the scenarios in AGOAC and the chaos campaign have some initiative modifier rules.
You don't like Ultras because they can jam but you like risking the standard AC explosion...
Are you, perhaps, a Hunchback pilot?
@@ObiwanNekody I moreso like the unofficial rules. +1 to hit while getting potentially 2x damage is great. DAKKADAKKADAKKADAKKA.
I dont get why would anyone play with floating criticals. Rolling a 2 is the same as rolling a 12 - extremely rare and lucky. So why would you be punished for rolling a 2, by making another roll for location, but not punished for rolling a 12? Both of them can lead to the mech being destroyed. Also it makes ballistic weapons even worse by allowing a random TAC ammo crit.
@@MARiNZ0 I mean... depending on the mech, rolling a side torso might be *worse* if it has ammo. It isn't really a punishment IMO. I honestly just feel it's odd that it basically always goes CT if you get a TAC from the front, when otherwise hits go anywhere.
Flamers arent worth taking if you dont use the optional rules
@@mathewkelly9968 I tend to agree. Even really efficient ones like BA flamers are kinda bad lol.
There is a lot here to consider in there video. Most of these suggestions are great.Speaking for myself, most of the rules changes I have made were with the intent to speed the game up and shorten the time to kill. I have been playing Classic Battletech for 3-4 years and I have come to the conclusion that Classic has a massive problem. The game is way too damn long for so few models on the board. A lance vs lance game takes 3 to 4 hours if played by the book and that is just not OK. I think Players and Devs need a "Come to Jesus" moment. Battletech needs a bottom to top redesign. This game brought Sci-fi war gaming into the 1980's and left it there. The Initiative/movement order is a total mess, GATOR is utterly antiquated and the combine arms elements fix together like chewed Legos. I want to play this game for the next 20 years, but the rule set is such a mess that I have been thinking of either finding a new one to use my minis with or just rewrite the rules myself.
@@readwatchlisten2863 the thing I like about Battletech is how detailed it is. It can simulate most things pretty well in a war game. It's also very detailed in how mechs take damage and mount weapons which is pretty cool.
@TheManyVoicesVA you are 100% correct. Classic is detailed. I don't think that's a bad thing. I also agree that the weapons and damage table are one of the games strong points. What I am saying is that there are other elements of the game that take away from that. I believe in my bones we can have a game with cool weapons and detailed damage tables, that doesn't take 6 and a half hours to play.
@@readwatchlisten2863 lmao. Do you use the box of doom? A bunch of labeled tackle box compartments with 2d6 in them? Shake it up, slam it down. Cuts down on rolling time.
@TheManyVoicesVA oh yeah! I have seen players use it. I could never. The noise was too much. I have used the pilot dice method lately.
My assessment of the length of the game is not just the movement and GATOR, but also the time to kill is very, very long. There are a lot of misses in this game, and even when hits are scored, it does little damage.
@@readwatchlisten2863 that's kind of what Alpha Strike is for haha. I guess you could just reduce the armor everything has, but then it's hard to make an assault mech like an Atlas feel so different from a locust.
As of at least last year, Alpha Strike has a sort of front-loaded initiative baked into the standard rules. Basically, if you have twice as many units on the field as your opponent (rounded up), you move two units to your opponent's one. So if you have like 5 units to their three, you move two, they move one. You'd move two, they move one, than you both alternate moving units once you're at a roughly 1:1 ratio again. Ensures that the winner of initiative doesn't run out of units before the player who lost initiative.
@@PlagueOfUnicorns ya that's basically how it works with front loaded heh. I like it so much more than standard.
Uh, Commander's Edition has the same backloaded initiative (Unequal number of units, p. 32), i.e. rounding the ratio down. Rounding the ratio up is what frontloading does. In both cases, the winner will always move last.
Are there some rules for buffing particle projectors? Because without an EMP effect that hinders the sensors they are quite lacking
@@worldoftancraft PPCs are like among the better weapons in the game haha. The EMP effect comes from the vidya games not Tabletop. There is an option to remove the minimum range but it's... perilous.
@@worldoftancraft PPC's are some of the best weapons available, unless you primarily use yucky Clan tech, and even then the cerppc is quite good.
@@ObiwanNekody The Clan ERPPC is a long-range headcapper that only weighs six tons and doesn't have any kind of ammo requirement, explosion risk, or minimum range difficulty. There are few weapons so straightforward and lethal to mechs.
@@ObiwanNekody Clan magic lore based wunderwaffe is not just a PPC. But all others are.