The first playtest package of updated Battletech rules ended testing last Monday, and Liberty, Peri, and I all played quite a few games with them. All of our initial takes were fairly positive - you can see them in our hot take article here. Now that we've used them for a month and a half we're coming back to take another look - were we right, or was there a little too much change?

Proposal 1: Side Hit Location Changes

Jack: I sure was wrong here. Both specifically on my math (I'm a photographer, not a number-person, and was off by a couple percent) and generally on whether it's good. In my testing it was an utter disaster. Yes, it did speed the game up. In two ways - we could resolve side arc hit locations a lot faster (everyone I played with has memorized the front table), and mechs were dying a lot faster than they usually do. I will admit that we weren't just taking the lists we would've run previously; we looked at the change and built lists designed to exploit them. For me this led to a lot of things 5/8 and faster with high damage, like a Fire Falcon E, Black Lanner D, Nightsky 6T, Locust 1Vb, etc. Canny reader will notice that these are generally mechs that were already very good, and this pushed them up to oppressive.

If you take a look at this record sheet you can see a common theme across all my games - mechs die by having one side completely ripped off, while the other side is nearly untouched. It was reliably happening in 1-2 fewer turns of shooting than what I'd expect based on previous experience, as there was very little damage that ended up being wasted into other locations.

One initial thought about the playtest was that it would allow you to better control what side you're getting shot, and hide a heavily damaged side from the enemy, and that absolutely did not play out in practice. To do that you had to a) win initiative and b) be willing to move that mech last, so you're sacrificing the offensive offensive abilities that winning initiative gives you for a little bit of defense. Turning to hide a damaged side also generally reduces your TMM, and often stops you from completing any mission objectives. It was just never something we were able to effectively do after the first couple turns. A close range attacker just doesn't need to move very far to get back into whatever side you were trying to hide, assuming you don't move it last.

If these had been the rules of the game from day 1, I think they'd be OK. They are faster to play, and it does feel intuitive that when you're on the left side you aren't hitting the right torso. However, one of the stated goals is to "emphasize the classic BattleTech experience," and this change was a huge shift to how play of the game felt, causing a colossal change to balance. Beyond just the balance of fast/slow mechs getting further apart, other mechs that were significantly disadvantaged were ones with an IS XL, where they didn't even need to take much CT damage to die, and ones with significant amounts of weapons in their arms (especially if those weapons are explosive), where they were losing firepower much faster.

Liberty: I had originally said I was worried about this one, and internally had mild misgivings about putting all incoming fire to one side for this exact reason. But I tried to couch it in narrative rather than health of the game and probably shouldn't have. This change is making it so that every game Peri and I have played using it just ends with a whole bunch of half-a-'Mechs sitting on the floor smoking and busted after taking all of two salvos.

Not fun.

Peri has the sheets somewhere but when we did our last test game for this of the 6 or 7 'Mechs that died only one of them had any real damage on both sides and it was the one that just backed itself somewhere that things could not effectively get around it. Rules that encourage you to just wall pin instead of maneuver just from the knowledge that if you don't you're just going to explode?

Not great.

Please god don't implement this rule. Do some more work-shopping or just rescind it but as it stands this makes full blooded 100 tonners just stop existing and anything lighter might as well have not shown up. Speeding up the game is good, and the idea to streamline this is a good goal to have. Unfortunately this manner of streamlining uh... well it only streamlines resolving hits so much considering most players still need to look at the chart and it very much so streamlines the game by just making shit die by ripped-in-half-itis in two turns.

Peri: Liberty has been unbearably smug about being completely and totally right about this being a terrible change. I cannot overstate how deleterious this is to the health of the game. Mechs bluntly do not die from anything other than side arc shots if both players are aware of how much these rules concentrate damage and attempt to take advantage of them. Cutting the number of practical, non-head hit locations on a mech from 8 down to 4 funnels damage into not nearly enough of a mech, and leads, as mentioned, to games where dead mechs have light-no damage on one side and a completely cored opposite side.

XL engines, even Clan ones, become instant death and very nearly enough to push mechs out of the meta, bearing in mind that standard engines are already vastly superior in most ways. These changes also make the advantage from winning initiative even better, because you can position to just kill the enemy with a reactive movement. I think that over a long enough timeline if this change is applied we will see a massive shift away from close range mechs and towards some pretty cagey hang back and turret at each other play because it minimizes the risk of not existing anymore because you left a side open and 2 mechs walked into it and killed you.

When playing with Objectives, as you probably should be, even that gameplay shift won't work. Because you need to stand on a given point/go somewhere, you can't just hang back and a few things are going to maneuver to get into your side arc and halve your effective HP. The rule plays quickly, feels intuitive, but has knock-on changes that will cause a gameplay shift that, in my opinion, will lead to a less fun, more cagey and rocket-tag-ish style of play becoming the dominant strategy.

Proposal 2: Explosion Damage Cap

Jack: This one I was right on. While it took me a few games to even get an ammo explosion, it felt a ton better to not just have the mech completely vanish. I know there are plenty of people out there whose idea of good BattleTech is to have entire mechs get destroyed from a single roll, but I much prefer having gradual degradation over the course of a game instead.

Liberty: Honestly loving this one. It's great and really helps to keep a lot of 'Mechs who were struggling to be relevant upright and kicking. No comments and absolutely great to have along for the ride.

Peri: It's very funny how little we have to say on this one compared to the other change. This change is straight up good, it helps out mechs that were bad, makes ammo less punishing, and generally improves the feel of the game.

What's Next

The second playtest packet is currently being tested, focusing on mobility - particularly leg crits and movement through water. We've got our initial thoughts on it here, and will probably have some more thoughts once it wraps up (though likely fewer thoughts than we have about the side arc change).

Have any questions or feedback? Drop us a note in the comments below or email us at contact@goonhammer.com. Want articles like this linked in your inbox every Monday morning? Sign up for our newsletter. And don’t forget that you can support us on Patreon for backer rewards like early video content, Administratum access, an ad-free experience on our website and more.

Tags: Hot Take | Battletech | mechwarrior | Mech