Wargaming for fun?

[Korgan0]

The point is not a lack of canon 'mechs, but in a campaign most 'mechs either get damaged and fixed, or modified to remove deficiencies or specifically to break bv2.
If one or more of your players aren't interested in using things which are BV2 efficient, then you may find it useful.
So yes, BV2 works if you don't run anything that breaks BV2. Grats.

There is no modifications or ultimate mech you can build/design to 'break' BV2. You can make some very good mechs, but nothing remotely invincible or game breaking.

I'm starting to suspect you're either a pretty terrible tactician, have too small of a sample size to be making these statements, or are just parroting things you've heard before but don't actually understand.

To add on to Previn's point, the archetypal BV-breaking 'Mech is probably the Gausszilla (~2000 BV and five Clan Gauss Rifles) but even that is pretty easy to defeat with some basic know-how if you outnumber it, given that it has negligible armour, is slow as balls, and will go up like a firecracker if you get a crit, even given its CASE. The Hellstar is a lot tougher and a lot faster, but that clocks in at around 3k BV and dies to a headcap or an unlucky roll just as easily as any other mech. They're both fairly unbalanced, but neither of them are game-breaking and most mechs aren't anywhere near as ovepowered.

On the other end of the spectrum, stuff like the Charger and the JagerMech are horrendous, but again you can still usually get a fair amount of mileage out of them if you use them properly- stick the charger behind a hill and use its prowess and physical combat as a deterrent, and the jagermech does make a decent plinker from cover.

[Lokathor]

I always did Move6, mid-tonage mechs with Jump6 if possible, and then as many Mirco Pulse Lasers as you can fit into the frame. Then get close and fire everything and hope for crits. It's dangerous as all hell, and doesn't even have to be expensive BV wise. Though, I guess I don't know if I was using BV1 or BV2. I was getting the BV system out of Maximum Tech.

[Korgan0]

I always did Move6, mid-tonage mechs with Jump6 if possible, and then as many Mirco Pulse Lasers as you can fit into the frame. Then get close and fire everything and hope for crits. It's dangerous as all hell, and doesn't even have to be expensive BV wise. Though, I guess I don't know if I was using BV1 or BV2. I was getting the BV system out of Maximum Tech.

I've always been a fan of Heavy Small Lasers myself- the Firemoth H uses them pretty well- 10/15 with MASC and nine HSL's.

I forgot another cheese tactic, too- 7/11/7 clan mechs with XL engines, a Targeting Computer and as many MPL's or LPL's as you can stick on. You flit around imposing +4 modifiers on everything that tries to shoot you before terrain while completely negating jump modifiers. The BV cost on those things is pretty steep, though.

[Blasted]

There is no modifications or ultimate mech you can build/design to 'break' BV2. You can make some very good mechs, but nothing remotely invincible or game breaking.

I'm starting to suspect you're either a pretty terrible tactician, have too small of a sample size to be making these statements, or are just parroting things you've heard before but don't actually understand.

To add on to Previn's point, the archetypal BV-breaking 'Mech is probably the Gausszilla (~2000 BV and five Clan Gauss Rifles) but even that is pretty easy to defeat with some basic know-how if you outnumber it, given that it has negligible armour, is slow as balls, and will go up like a firecracker if you get a crit, even given its CASE. The Hellstar is a lot tougher and a lot faster, but that clocks in at around 3k BV and dies to a headcap or an unlucky roll just as easily as any other mech. They're both fairly unbalanced, but neither of them are game-breaking and most mechs aren't anywhere near as ovepowered.

On the other end of the spectrum, stuff like the Charger and the JagerMech are horrendous, but again you can still usually get a fair amount of mileage out of them if you use them properly- stick the charger behind a hill and use its prowess and physical combat as a deterrent, and the jagermech does make a decent plinker from cover.

I'm not trying to make the case that BV2 is utterly broken, but that it's imbalanced.
These are my primary reasons, which are neither exhaustive or innovative, but are among the many reasons provided by people of the years:
1. FSM. It's a complete turd.
When BV1 was all the rage, there was a large problem with light vehicle swarms. FSM was introduced as an integral part of BV2 to address it. It's terrible in both implementation and affect, to the point that most players don't use it. Of course, being designed as a non optional part of BV2, this leads to light vehicle swarms being overly good again. (As an aside, savanahs used to be the swarmer of choice, but I believe that most players have moved to other motive systems due to changes to stop hovercraft introduced in Total War.)

2. Doesn't take into consideration placement.
There are many 'mechs out there with placement issues, but let me pick on the original Marauder. Stupid crit placement means that a decent player will explode it much earlier than should otherwise have happened. It is in no way worth the value assigned to it. It's a limitation of the BV system which can't be addressed by fiddling the numbers.

3. Overpricing of options.
Again, some issues from BV1 (such as LPL boats coring out 'mechs in a single turn) has lead to the great overcosting of some equipment. c3 and LPLs fit there. No one takes c3 lances, they're far too expensive under BV2 (Fair warning for the oblivious - that was hyperbole, but the point stands). Specialized LPL 'mechs barely make their value, but mediocre 'mechs equiping them get costed as if they were excellent. This is especially bad for IS LPLs which are poor weapons to begin with.
This has lead to an inbalance where bad 'mechs are costed the same as good. See my earlier comment on trap options.

Going on to say that "You can fix this with tactics" is stupid. As if your opponent is not going to use tactics as well. Your adversary who has parked a couple of gauss tanks at the edge of the map isn't going to be surprised by your attempts to get into SRM range to deliver infernos or an LBX20 blast. Furthermore, just because it's possible to win with bad options, doesn't mean BV2 isn't imbalanced. Also, saying that it's balanced as long as you don't use the imbalanced options is nuts. D&D classes are balanced as long as everyone is a wizard or you party consists of monks. It's a ridiculous argument. Simply the fact that you continually run into the same 'mechs again and again under BV2 should be confirmation that there's an issue with the balance.

None of this should be of any surprise to Btech players. You cannot use the battletech forums without tripping over a new "BV2 is bad, here's my solution" threads which spawn again every month or so. It's been the case for the last five years. I find the assertion that it is balanced as disconcerting as the time I ran into a grognard espousing 1E monks as wizard slayers.

[Juton]

You can cheese your mechs BV by adding lots of flamers, after a certain point adding flamers will actually lower a mech's BV. Or at least it used to, it's been a few years.

Also spending points to give your mechs better piloting or gunnery skills is seldom worth it, just use those points to bring better mechs.

[Prak]

Between this and the Dragon Horde thread, it occurs to me that what really needs to exist is a pony wargame. The normal pony figures could probably be outfitted with Barnyard Commandos gear, and the blind bag ponies could probably be outfitted using legos and some regular minis bits.

[Previn]

1. FSM. It's a complete turd.
When BV1 was all the rage, there was a large problem with light vehicle swarms. FSM was introduced as an integral part of BV2 to address it. It's terrible in both implementation and affect, to the point that most players don't use it. Of course, being designed as a non optional part of BV2, this leads to light vehicle swarms being overly good again. (As an aside, savanahs used to be the swarmer of choice, but I believe that most players have moved to other motive systems due to changes to stop hovercraft introduced in Total War.)

FSM isn't integral to BV2. In fact it's actually impossible to calculate until you know the units each side has already chosen.

FSM was put in place more to counter Initiative sinking than to counter vehicle swarms (vehicle swarms are pretty much an edge case), and even then, it's only an issue if you're really getting into 4 to 1 odds or greater that it starts to become an issue. It's also difficult to 'break' this unless you're trying to put yourself at a deliberate disadvantage.

2. Doesn't take into consideration placement.
There are many 'mechs out there with placement issues, but let me pick on the original Marauder. Stupid crit placement means that a decent player will explode it much earlier than should otherwise have happened. It is in no way worth the value assigned to it. It's a limitation of the BV system which can't be addressed by fiddling the numbers.

Uh... no. The best you can do angle to the side with ammo and hope you crit it after you've already stripped away all the torso armor. It's a disadvantage, but it's very, very minor. I'd be surprised if it came up enough to be more than a minor statical blip. Short of locations with lone ammo slots, most other placement is demonstrably negligible in effects it has on fights and thus not worthy of a note in BV.

Theres the issue of weapons mounter in legs, for the whole like 5 that actually do that, but again, the difference in actual use is so small as to not warrant a noticeable BV change.

3. Overpricing of options.
Again, some issues from BV1 (such as LPL boats coring out 'mechs in a single turn) has lead to the great overcosting of some equipment. c3 and LPLs fit there. No one takes c3 lances, they're far too expensive under BV2 (Fair warning for the oblivious - that was hyperbole, but the point stands). Specialized LPL 'mechs barely make their value, but mediocre 'mechs equiping them get costed as if they were excellent. This is especially bad for IS LPLs which are poor weapons to begin with.
This has lead to an inbalance where bad 'mechs are costed the same as good. See my earlier comment on trap options.

c3 lances are slightly over costed. They're still taken and used, often religiously by some people because despite being slightly over costed, they are that good.

Your statement about Clan Large Pulse Lasers inflating BV is likewise wrong. An urbanmech with 2 clan large pulse lasers and a TC is 1056. With an Ultra AC 20 instead it's 915. A 35 tonner with a 6/9 movement, the same armor and 2 clan large pulse lasers and TC is 1541 BV. It's not the PLGL that's increasing the BV, it's the speed of the mech. Likewise you won't find a mediocre machine that has a BV equal to a superb machine just because of the equipment it carries. You can get some slightly over costed machines, namely with c3 (if you join it to a network) or with MASC, but those are about the biggest offenders for being incorrectly costed, and they wouldn't preclude you from using those machines against equal BV machines and being able to win.

Going on to say that "You can fix this with tactics" is stupid. As if your opponent is not going to use tactics as well. Your adversary who has parked a couple of gauss tanks at the edge of the map isn't going to be surprised by your attempts to get into SRM range to deliver infernos or an LBX20 blast. Furthermore, just because it's possible to win with bad options, doesn't mean BV2 isn't imbalanced. Also, saying that it's balanced as long as you don't use the imbalanced options is nuts. D&D classes are balanced as long as everyone is a wizard or you party consists of monks. It's a ridiculous argument. Simply the fact that you continually run into the same 'mechs again and again under BV2 should be confirmation that there's an issue with the balance.

An MML launcher is capable of providing mobile cover in the form of Smoke LRMs while closing, and then large salvos of SRMs once in range, not to mention Inferno rounds which will basically remove the tank without effort. An LB-10-X has a range only 4 hexes shorter than the gauss, hitting more often due to the -1, and pulls out 6 chances to do bad things to the tank on average. An LB-5-X is 1 hex shorter range and averages 3 chances on a hit. Using fast mechs and cover makes it possible to close with the tank, and using spotters and indirect LRM fire make it possible to take out the tank without the need to actually be able to be hit back. Depending on positioning, a few artillery rounds could ruin it as well, not to mention that if you take the tank and end up fighting in a jungle it's almost worthless.

I don't see the same mechs over and over. I see some mechs more than others, like the Hellstar because they're effective and easy to use, but I just as often see Hellstars ripped to shreds by 3025 archers using indirect fire, and if you actually do testing, you see that supposedly inferior (in terms of player perspective) mechs actually take out a Hellstar 1 on 1 more than they get beaten.

None of this should be of any surprise to Btech players. You cannot use the battletech forums without tripping over a new "BV2 is bad, here's my solution" threads which spawn again every month or so. It's been the case for the last five years. I find the assertion that it is balanced as disconcerting as the time I ran into a grognard espousing 1E monks as wizard slayers.

Well, if you had an actual clue what you were talking about, or apparently any ability to actually play battletech you'd understand why BV2 is relatively balanced. It is a useful tool, and it basically does do what it advertises and BT as a whole isn't even remotely close to:

However the game is hideously imbalanced and suffers from the type of trap options D&D can only dream about.

Come back once you learn the difference between 'minor balance issues' and 'hideously imbalanced with trap options D&D can only dream about.' It'd be nice if you brought something that actually shows this hideous imbalance too. Maybe you can cite a specific mech, cannon or custom that breaks BV2? Or a force composition that does so?

[virgil]

Oh, ordinarily I would agree on the work-to-fun ratio saying no. But as I stated originally, my girlfriend is a master artist and finds the idea of painting/modeling to be fun, and I'm personally willing to wait and do opportunity buys from E-Bay and Craigslist; so the lead time to having an army isn't a huge concern for me.

Better idea: buy your girlfiend miniatures to paint and then you two just have sex every time she finishes one. Less expensive and more satisfying than any wargame you could possibly get into.

I'd rather be gaming than having sex. I know this is a controversial opinion, but a bad day gaming is still better and more satisfying than a good day of sex for me.

Both of us do the sex thing quite regularly as it is. It's more of a backup thing, as it sounds like I would have an easier time finding a minis group to game with than a TTRPG group if this current one doesn't pan.

For as many 40K discussions as I've seen here, the fact that I see near-universal advice of "don't do it" seems a bit weird.

As it stands, tomorrow I'm scoping out one or two shops that are running a WH40K and a Warmachine game to see what the community/game is like in practice. I tried looking at comparisons elsewhere, and the most I got was that Warmachine's rules were less like stabbing yourself in the eye, but the player-base is smaller and the setting isn't all that cool. I'll look for a Battletech group next week or so.

[Zaranthan]

Both of us do the sex thing quite regularly as it is. It's more of a backup thing.

I'm going to dedicate a bit of time every day trying to use this quote out of context.

[OgreBattle]

so what are GOOD wargames then.

[Red_Rob]

The problems with Battletech aren't really balance issues, its the amount of fucking dice rolling it takes to get anything done. A lot of people have an issue with 40k because firing a weapon takes 3 rolls - Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, and as we've discussed before it should really only take 2. But at least you're rolling a single D6 so you can do massed fire pretty quickly.

Then there's Battletech.

Firing a single missile launcher at a target can involve the following:
Roll to hit, roll to see how many missiles got shot down by the targets defences, roll to see how many missiles of those left actually hit the target, group the missiles into groups of 5, roll to see what location each group of five hit, roll to see if each group of 5 caused a critical hit, if so roll to see where the critical affected, note down pilot damage if any missiles hit the head and roll for pilot consciousness, roll to see if the impact knocked the mech off its feet, if it did roll to see which way it fell, roll to see where got damaged in the fall, roll to see if this caused a critical hit, roll, roll, FUCKING ROLL MUTHAFUCKA!!!

And all of these are on 2D6, so good luck firing multiple weapons, or god forbid multiple mechs. Now, I'm aware that Battletech is supposed to be more of a skirmish game than 40k and so can be expected to have more involved rules, but really? Does it need to have that many separate rolls for everything? I'm sure if it were designed today a lot of it could be consolidated, but Battletech players stubborn refusal to accept any but the most minor changes so that they can use their old record sheets means that the game really feels like a relic from the 1980's.

[Previn]

I'm not sure there's really much to consolidate. BT is all about the minutia. It also has rules and rolls so you're not dealing with things like True LOS, or amounts of cover and wound allocation like 40k.

You can also use several methods to roll faster (pairs of colored d6, dice boxes), but yeah, it's a lot of rolling. You really want crazy, you should be talking about the LB-20-X cluster rounds. Roll to hit, then roll for how many fragments hit, then roll for where each fo the 12 (average) fragments hit, roll for each of those for possible crits, and add in head hits.

I wouldn't trade any of it though.

[Judging__Eagle]

For as many 40K discussions as I've seen here, the fact that I see near-universal advice of "don't do it" seems a bit weird.

The game is best played as if it was Heavy Metal, and that's hard to plan out.

Often it means that a big heavy hitter can really swing a battle; but it also means that a whole bunch of laser cannons can shred a supposedly magnificent badass.

Speaking as someone who got in with 2e, played 3e, and some 4e with Chaos Marines; then played a single game of warhammer and warmaster.... enter 40k with a great deal of mental preparation.

Really, your best option when playing 40k is to do the following:

1) Pick the models that you like the most, Tyrant-mites, Alfar, Spess Monks, Khaos Spess Monks, Quiang Empire, Dokk Alfar, Uruks, Spess Nuns, Imperialis Protectores, Daemone Hunterslayers; really it doesn't matter.

Pro: You have an army of minis that you will like to look at.

2) Use the Spess Merhin Codex for actual stat lines, squad arrangement, w/e.

Declare that they are a Chapter Apocrypha; one of the supposedly 'purged' chapters. However, they still operate, and the bulk of their members now are hideously mutated by some error in their gene-seed to look like Alfar/Uruks/Tyrant-mites/yourmum/Quiang Empire, etc.

Pro: You get to use not shit rules and stat lines for your army

3) Have both a better storied army than almost anyone you play against

Pro: Have a better back story for your army than almost anyone you play against

4) Have an always up to date stat line

Pro: ditto

5) Not have to buy lots of miniatures for what are usually miniature-heavy armies

Pro: SM armies aren't usually mini-heavy b/c of their higher points cost, and higher average statistics lines.

This translates into 5-10 unit squads of what would normally be 10-20 units. This can mean real cash money being saved.


Alternate plan: mix and match the units you want to use in your army; picking out dudes that look cool, or that you want to use. Stat out as SM squads and units; give them "character names" and declare them to be a part of a rag-tag, always on crusade, SM strike force.

Allowing for incredibly heavy metal looking squads, such as an Ork nob as the sgt, an dark eldar spinter cannon model as the unit's missile launcher, a mix of IG, SM, Ork and Dark Eldar squad members, and a tyranid as the units flamer bearer.

All it would take would be to buy 1 squad box of a bunch of armies; then shuffle the component minis around to create several squads worth of your 'new' marine army.

[virgil]

Time has passed, and friends have been made to game with. One of them is getting into Battletech after a long hiatus, so we're planning on messing around with it; and as I discovered, my wife apparently played a bunch of it back in the early '00s.

I've got a huge supply of Heroscape material to use for building the terrain, as well as a printer that can handle cardstock. He just bought the boxed set for the miniatures, and I've got maybe nine spare ones from old yard sale lots. And finally, one of our other gaming friends was tossing his collection of the current main books, TechManual and Total Warfare.

Are there any suggestions for play? Is the system any good when you use units that aren't mechs (space combat, tanks vs infantry, etc)? Are there good sources for scenarios or material for 'campaign mode'? We're unlikely to mess with attaching a regular RPG element to the whole thing, since us two are the only ones with a strong interest and I doubt I can cook up a satisfactory system (Time of War is not an option)

[Red_Rob]

My experience of Battletech has been that the basic 3025 game is pretty great. Playing the stock Inner Sphere mechs against each other is somewhat balanced, very tactical and lots of fun. (Almost) every weapon has a niche, every mech has strengths and weaknesses to work around and the basic rules are solid and play well (although they require too many rolls to get anything done). However...

Everything else they tried to add just makes the game slightly worse. The original weapons were simple and clean, with tactical niches made just through different range bands and heat outputs. Every new weapon and system has to have a complicated special rule that ends up bogging things down. The original mechs had to choose between speed and armour, leading to interesting tradeoffs. The new technology means every mech can get lots of armor and a big engine, making them all feel much more samey. Inner Sphere mechs are fairly balanced against each other, adding Clan mechs turns it into a clusterfuck. The buildings rules are massively complicated, requiring tracking multiple types of hp for every building on the board. Infantry have pages and pages of special rules. It all distracts from the fairly clean and elegant base game.

My advice would be to start using just 3025 mechs and technologies, then later try adding some of the advanced stuff to see how you like it. Perhaps you'll like it more than we did, but to avoid getting overwhelmed I think it's definitely best to start with the basics.

[Judging__Eagle]

Edit: Wow, I forgot that I had given better advice when this thread was first around, than I did in this following post.

If you want to get into 40k (or other GW game); and want to do so on the cheap (because otherwise is pretty much insane) here's some of what I did:

[*]Your local Games Workshop has bi-annual auctions of excess stuff. Want to buy 300$+ worth of Warmaster Minis for 50$? Knowing when the next one is; and what is being sold will require some patience and befriending the store manager. Not that hard if you're even remotely more socially adept than the average GW customer. Buy some cheap minis and paints; then paint them in store once a month and build up a rapport with the older staff members.

[*]Find your Local Gaming Store(s), and check out their resale/used minis. Ideally you'll want to get metal and paintstrip so you can repaint; but even painted plastic minis that you give a new spraycoat is a good way to turn them into a blank canvas. Avoid anything that has gunked on layers of paint

[*]Regarding the "Codex Creep" issues with 40k/Warhammer, it's simply easier to play with the "standard" space marines rules, and your own chapter and (ab)use whatever bullshit rules are currently in print which allow you to play non-standard chapters. Getting "bored" with your army is simply an excuse to have a 'cultural revolution' in your chapter so you can use a different set of force organization rules.

[*]Abusing chapter specific codexes is also possible; and having your marines painted as an ecletic mix of different chapters so that you can cherrypick most powerful non-Ultramarines chapter de jour (i.e. Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Salamanders, Iron Hands, Imperial Fists, etc.) you want to use for a game session. Your excuse for the non-chapter marine colour schemes is that "they were deathwatch teams in the region who were sent to assist [actual chapter you're (ab)using the rules of], due to their massive campaign casualties. Deathwatch marines are super skilled, and have taken on the doctrines of the majority force." The only things you might need redundant copies of may be force commanders; but not likely, as you could make all of your squad leaders each of a different chapter; and instead use one of them as your current forces "actual chapter" force commander.

[*]An other direction, with marine models, is to repaint/model them as Chaos Space Marines. A spraycoat of black paint, some glued on spikes; and waterslide transfers is pretty effective at turning the ubiquitous used SMs one can get at a LGS, and turn them into generally harder to find CSMs. The above listed ideas for hodge-podege SM forces can easily allow you to declare them all as "rogue SMs, which count-as CSMs; with greater flexibility in modelling choices and force schemes".

[*]Really, you can have a SM modelled force that could be played as CSM, or SM; and unless you're using lots of demonic stuff; or aren painting and modelling them to have their actual chapter/legion seem obscure (or simply, blackened by the grimness of endless battle); most players will let you play them as you want.

[*]Buying lots of used skeletons, and playing an UD warhammer army isn't too difficult either. While most of the Undead factions have all sorts of special units aside from skeletons; those special units tend to be shit for cost vs effectiveness (except ghosts; those things screen ranged fire like no one's business; I turned 2 bases of 3 ghost models into 3 bases of 2 b/c I didn't want to buy a 3rd one, had gotten 2 used ones at the time, and the unit cap for ghosts was 3 bases at the time; you can wargame the actual rules of a game; and you can wargame people's visual perception as well); while having tons of skeleton models is great if you were smart and got lots of cheap necromacers in your force who spam "create skeletons to add to existing regiment" every round.

Don't repaint the skeletons; instead use inks to make them look ancient/bog-risen. Clipping the heads off of human units, and putting a skeleton skull can give your forces some variety as well. I "built" a 100+ strong Vampire Counts army for maybe 50-60$ in a week using that method.

[Hadanelith]

Suggestion: Shadows of Brimstone. It's a reasonably new light RPG/tactical minis dungeon crawler boardgame. Fully cooperative, comes with campaign rules, paintable minis. Setting is more or less Deadlands, minus some of the insanity. Might scratch multiple itches.

[virgil]

Been playing a handful of Battletech. Once we finish the intro scenarios sometime this weekend, we're likely to start looking at expanding. We're both reticent to jump straight into the post 3025-era stuff from all of the nebulous doom-n-gloom we've heard. He's expressed an interest in doing a campaign, which I'm currently clueless as to what that would entail.

I almost dread what will happen whenever we both decide to start allowing customized mechs, because there's an eff-tonne of options and I'm new enough to the game as a whole to not be confident at judging any particular options/design as optimal, sub-par, disruptively over/under-powered, or something.

Of course, we both play Ars Magica for fun, so it's not like we don't eagerly anticipate poring over the books

[Stahlseele]

3025 is a good starting point.
It becomes way more power creep and gear min max in the later parts.
If you don't want to do your own campaign (which is basically just fluff leading from one game of CBT to the next, maybe with some rules for repairing damaged machines and replacing lost things), there are campaign books you can use.

When you start allowing customized mechs, you will get a mild case of archive panic over how many toys there are, especially in the later ages of the game. And then you will try and go full on min/max and powergame and build OP as hell shit and stuff . . and then you will at some point decide:"ah fuck it, some of the canon machines are good for what i want to have, so no need to do any of this myself".
In 3025, this is usually the Hunchback 4P for example.

[Previn]

Been playing a handful of Battletech. Once we finish the intro scenarios sometime this weekend, we're likely to start looking at expanding. We're both reticent to jump straight into the post 3025-era stuff from all of the nebulous doom-n-gloom we've heard. He's expressed an interest in doing a campaign, which I'm currently clueless as to what that would entail.

Before BV and for parts of BV1, people had a lot of really down right stupid ways of balancing clan and IS mechs (e.g. tonnage) for a game which is where 98% of the complaining come from. Using the current BV2, clan machines are at a slight disadvantage if you're using their standard 3/4 mechwarriors.

I almost dread what will happen whenever we both decide to start allowing customized mechs, because there's an eff-tonne of options and I'm new enough to the game as a whole to not be confident at judging any particular options/design as optimal, sub-par, disruptively over/under-powered, or something.

If you want custom mechs in a campaign, you're best off with modifications to an existing mech rather than an outright new design (e.g. swap weapons and non-structural equipment around). It also fits within the theme of the setting, especially at the 3025 to 3055 time periods and prevents most of the egregious attempts to abuse the system.

[Stahlseele]

Yeah, small modifications are usually the best.
For example: getting rid of MG and Ammo and replacing it by . .
Either a small laser of some sort or more armor/another heatsink <.<

Look up the Workhorse/Soldier type mechs and do that.
They are pretty damn good already, and removing such useless and dangerous to yourself things just makes them even more so.

[ckafrica]

My group is getting keen to give Frostgrave a try as soon as we can get enough fantasy minis to the Nam (we only had Scifi for Necromunda until now)

It's a skirmish game of no more than 10 figures a side (though can summon and are npc monsters that can appear) Each band is led by a wizard and apprentice who level but rest of figures don't though can be upgraded with gear. It has its own miniature line but fully expects people to use miniatures from any range that players want.

Online reports are apparently promising for it being fast paced and relatively well balanced though apparently quite swingy. The designers is also apparently quite active on its main forum and receptive to feedback.

[magnuskn]

When I see people saying that BattleTech is stuck in the eighties, but then the same (or other) people quickly follow with "but don't use anything beyond the 3025 era rules!", it makes my head hurt.

Then again, I started to tune out of BT after the end of the clan wars and really after they killed Omi Kurita and I don't like the new glut of technology after that (Plasma Rifles? Okay...), so what do I know.

[Ravengm]

I have no idea what anyone else here thinks of it, but I've been playing and enjoying X-Wing for a while now. The scale isn't as large as a lot of other games, but the ruleset is very straightforward. Most ships in the game are at least playable, and the ones that aren't are fixable in future expansions due to how upgrade cards work. Models come pre-painted, but are easily repainted, so it's the best of both worlds there.