Rules preview: building your company

[Axhead]

Damage is equal to your damage roll plus an optional yellow dice minus the opponents blue roll. So if you have a yellow dice already on the target and are rolling 2d6+1d8 you can get a maximum attack roll of 8 for your red dice + 6 for the yellow dice = 14. It is possible for a busted up mech to not allocate any dice to defence (maybe they really need to move somewhere or scan something). But then that would indicate a scan attack having a range of 2 to 14... Ok I am going to assume a type on Joshuas part.

[Ramcat]

Still don't get how the range starts at "2", unless the +d8 adds the d8 to the chosen d6.

Ah, hah! The "2" starts because the spotter die minimum would be "1". That plus my attack minimum a "1" (I need a difference of at least, one, to roll any dice), makes the range start at "2".

Given that, if the defender had no defence die, my range would be 2 to 14: d6 or d8 from my attack plus d6 from the spot die - for a range of 2 to 14 in "Damage" dice.

This is where the term "hit dice" threw me. I thought "hit' = "attack" but I think Joshua mean "damage" with "hit".

[Forged]

Thanks for the clarification on red dice and weapons systems. The first post confused me since it details melee direct fire and artillery as separate systems. Of course this means I need to recalculate the possible frame combinations!

Edit: Calculations are done!

325 different system combinations!
only 5 frame combinations are NOT armed!

533 combinations if your frame can start with 4 or less systems
511 are armed 22 are not.

[Axhead]

533 combinations if your frame can start with 4 or less systems
511 are armed 22 are not.

Unless there is something new I missed frames have a max of 4 attachments. People can opt for less in a hope of getting better "points per" and starting VPs, but that is a topic for another thread.

[Forged]

533 combinations is due to split weapons systems. So instead of just 3 weapon types you have 6
Weapon system A = 2d6 direct fire
Weapon system B = 2d6 melee
Weapon system C = 2d6 artillery
Weapon system D = 1d6 melee and 1d6 direct fire
Weapon system E = 1d6 melee and 1d6 artillery
Weapon system F = 1d6 artillery and 1d6 direct fire

So a weapon can end up with 0, 1d6, 2d6,3d6, or 2d6+1d8

Then add the other systems to the mix. Many of the frame combinations are nearly identical (until they are forced to lose systems)

A frame with 2d6 melee and 2d6 direct fire could either have 1 of system A and 1 system B OR 2 system D's.
The frame with 1 of each has to sacrifice one range when it gets hit. The frame with 2 split systems stays flexible, but loses power when hit.

[Ramcat]

So if you have a split range system, do you declare the range the system will fire at? Or because it fires at both ranges, you declare the system.

The "gamble" attack declaration (armed with sword and DIRECT fire slug thrower):
I am going to HTH that frame (points to board). Player selects HTH dice and all others and rolls.
Ends up with movement dice that will not let him get into HTH.
No attack made (because frame had lowered, or slung, slug thrower, readied sword and charged, but only after he attempted to run across battle field did he realize he would not make it in time (this turn)).

For a split range slug thrower the "no attack made" does not seem to work as cleanly because the same mechanism used to attack at HTH is used to attack at DIRECT.
Same senario (armed with 1 split range slug thrower):
I am going to HTH that frame (points to board). Player selects HTH/DIRECT (1d6 in either range) dice and all others and rolls.
Ends up with movement dice that will not let him get into HTH range.
Still attacks (becuase gun works the same at either range)?????

[Forged]

You don't declare systems, when a frame is activated you roll ALL your dice, then assign where your white die is going, then act accordingly.

So for your example:
Frame with HTH sword and DF slug thrower, (the other systems went boom)
Rolls 2 white, 2 red for melee, 2 red for direct fire.

If the white dice are not enough to get into melee, then you can use the direct fire dice.
If they are, then happy melee!

The example doesn't change if the frame had two HTH/DF split slug throwers just where the dice came from does. The purpose of split systems is what happens AFTER losing a system.

New example:
If the two above frames both took 1 more hit.
The sword/gun guy would have to choose which weapon to keep, since he didn't get into melee in the above example, he is sitting with 2d6 direct fire dice.
The other frame however loses one of his split guns. He's now down to 1 melee die and 1 direct fire die. So he doesn't care how close his opponent is, but his offence is reduced.

[Ramcat]

@Forged Awesome work on the number of possible combinations. That is a lot of variability and while the 'outside' might look the same the way those 'same' frames take damage is very different.

As for declaring systems vs ranges, I'm pretty sure (not 100% 'cause the rules aren't out) that you do declare the range you choose to attack at and if you don't end up in that range you fail to get an attack. This is why my question about split range systems.

These are decisions made at design time. Once you've designed weapons with a certain spread of ranges, you can't change those ranges in play. In play, you choose which range you're attacking at, then roll the dice, then assign a defense die, then fire (or move), then move (or fire), then spot somebody. In practice, sometimes you can't do all those things, mind you; you might be stuck in a place you can't leave for tactical reasons, you might allocate your good dice to an attack, leaving yourself with no defense, you might allocate your good dice to defense, leaving no attack, you might not wind up at the range you needed, or you might be unable to spot someone.

Two key phrases, "In play, you choose which range you're attacking at," and "you might not wind up at the range you needed".

[Forged]

Thanks Ramcat, I guess we need the real rules before things like that are sorted out. I'm still really stoked. My next number crunching spree will hopefully be calculating the effects of different strength attacks vs cover/no cover, being scanned etc.... I would love to figure out things like, average number of attacks to destroy a frame, how much movement can you expect a frame to cover in x turns based on green dice.

All the things that are meaningless when actually gameplay starts and the dice gods ruin my well planned statistics....

[Ramcat]

Ah, the dice gods, yes....

But as a long time Ogre player one of the best articles I ever read was called "Playing the Odds in Ogre/G.E.V". Knowing the odds does help you in battle choose what should work the best.

Can't wait to see your calculations!

[MikeDamrat]

I don't think the attacking rules have changed since Mechaton. Even with split weapon systems, you declare what range you will be attacking at, and only add red dice to your roll that are valid at that range.

For instance, if I have one weapon system, and it is split between Direct Fire and Hand-to-Hand, when I roll dice for that mech, I would declare either Direct Fire or Hand-to-Hand before rolling, and only roll 1 red die. If I fail to be in the appropriate range, I fail the attack.

[Axhead]

I think Mike has it right. The good news on picking which range you are going to shoot at, is that Direct and Artillery are both very broad so it is easy to get in them. The only issue is if you want to Melee and get a crap white/green roll.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Yeah, you declare a range, not a system. It's better for you anyway: that way if you have a pistol (1Rh, 1Rd) and a carbine (2Rd) you get to roll 3 reds at Direct range.

There is, in fact, a mistake in my calculations above: in one of them I'm assuming a defense of 0 (which happens once or twice a game, tops) and in the other I'm assuming a defense of 1 (which happens much more often).

In any event, you guys understood it fine.

[Spiralbound]

For your stations, you can build anything that's stationary and valuable to defend or seize. A downed satellite, a drop ship, a cache of medical supplies, a research facility's data storage drives, a truck with a flat tire and a load of fresh peaches. Whatever.

A mobile frame is made of a frame and attached systems. A frame can carry at most 4 systems, and at most 2 systems of any given type, but is otherwise allowed to carry any mix of systems you want.

There are six types of systems:
Defensive systems: armor, a shield, camoflage, stealth composite surfacing, ECM.
Movement systems: jumpjets, wings, wheels.
Surveillance/communications systems: a radio, a targeting laser, spotlights, a rifle scope.
Hand-to-hand weapon systems: a shock baton, a combat knife, a repurposed jackhammer.
Direct fire weapon systems: an assault rifle, a grenade launcher, a flamethrower, a beam weapon.
Artillery range weapon systems: a mortar, a sniper rifle, a railgun.

Is it possible to have a Station with systems? I'm imagining a Company that includes a base with armor, comms, or defensive guns. A bunker with , an artillery pillbox with , or an Ops Centre with ? The number of systems devoted to a Station could be deducted from the available number of systems for your Company. Would this work or would it cause problems?

[Ced23Ric]

Is it possible to have a Station with systems?

In the current balancing, a spotting station would be huge, because you cannot attack it (not a 'Frame, nor is it meant to be destroyed). Holding it is easier than taking it (due to the inherent firepower advantage of spotting), putting the defender at a massive advantage.

This is something I'd houserule, to try it out in actual gameplay, and toy around with destructability. See where you end up. Maybe it'll come in a later campaign installment of the rules!

[Dukayn]

Regarding stations with systems, maybe you can shoot at it while the systems are active, but once it is destroyed, it reverts back to normal rules (as there's nothing left to shoot at).

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

That means that there's a frame guarding it.

I'm not totally against the idea; just use the "everyone gets them" principle, à la .

Think about the effect it will have on the gameplay when you're doing something like this. Don't just think about the color. Does it change the way you play? Good! Does it encourage daring, aggressive play, or hanging back? If the former, good! If the latter, baaad.

Right now, it's pretty hard to get objectives anyway. This definitely seems like it will make objective grabbing less attractive and turn the game into straight-up dude-killin'. Since the player in last place usually has to do a lot of killin' anyway, further disincentivizing the capturing of objectives doesn't seem like a good way to go.