OBT Forum

I got nothin' here. 

I am the primary author of a fan-made TRO filled with variants of existing canon designs.

 

Cent13

Of the periphery, pirate and ComStar and WoB designs I love the two tanks, the ComGuard VTOL and the custom Quickdraw

I've DESIGNED my own units lots of times, sure, but as soon as you "tinker" with a canon unit it is no longer canon, and thus a custom unit, and since every single component can be easily swapped out anyway, well, if I want a warhammer with 2xRAC5s, I just design a mech of whatever tonnage I want, with 2xRAC5s, and use my warhammer mini and call it whatever I want.  I *try* to stick with 100% canon, because if I start tinkering, I quickly end up with munchy designs

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but there are just sooooo many designs to choose from IMO.

I'm not sure how designing a new unit versus tinkering with an existing one would have any impact on whether it leads to a "munchy" design. It seems like the person and their design motivations would have a lot more impact on the end result than whether or not they are editing an existing design. That's a bit of a perplexing viewpoint.

As for the plenty of units to choose from, definitely. There's far, far too many.

On topic for a moment: The TRO looks solid on first read through. There's some design choices I disagree with, but that's bound to happen. The art is a very nice touch, and the fluff across the board seems to have been edited well. If I can find the time, I'll try to drill down into a few of the specific issues I found at a later date.

The Record Sheets have an issue with internal structure dots for Aeros.

They also have an issue with armor points for the 'Mech heads.

Here is the fix:

https://www.opendrive.com/files/61075243_lu9yG_eda0/RS%20TRO3063%20Mk31.pdf

Sorry about this.

Cent13

As a few here know, I'm back after a very long hiatus. I'm happy to see this thread started and the discussions are very enlightening. This may be a stupid question, but where can I find the latest version of this TRO? I had made a couple of small contributions early in this project and I'm curious to see what became of them. Thanks!

Where did you go?

The blog has all the most up-to-date links.  http://battletechreader.blogspot.com/

I say this because I have spent the past week stamping out bugs and dealing with issues - post-release, I might add.  It's not the 74-page errata on TacOps, mind you - but it is frustrating.

Cent13

likewise, though I am not sure it is in the tech manual rules, it is considered good design form that in the critical slots you place "Hardwired systems" in the top slots (engines and actuators) followed by weapon systems and equipment, THen "Effective Roll agains (Endo Steel and Armor Criticals) and finally roll agains.  I do not know if that is a hard and fast tech manual rule, but every canon record sheet produced by Catalyst does this, and it is the standard set since Heavy Metal Pro.

I believe the older forums had a rules question answered about this, but I can't find anything on the current incarnation. Going from memory, the ruling was that "Roll Again" slots could be anywhere in the crit table.

if it is pre total warfare then that is subject to review, and it does not change how the CT and head locations got screwed up in a way that totally glass jaws mechs.

Well, rather than build the RS in a way that took 550mb of file, we built them from the ground up, yielding a 15mb file.

That said, Bad Syntax pointed the slot layouts out to me a while back and said their placement did not make any difference, as a six-sided for upper/lower and another for crit slot meant their order would not matter.

I asked him to come in and explain, in case there is something I missed.  Yes, it is not in keeping with traditional sheets.  I don't care about the look and feel - there are other things that are different from the company's offerings.  The function is what concerns me.

And if I were you, I would dial back the use of words like 'maniac'.  I understand you are incensed about a game sheet - well, actually, I *don't* understand.

Why would you start insulting folks you've never met, whose hearts and minds are obviously in the right place as regards offering something like this for free after five years and many thousands of dollars spent from personal funds?  Who have been running around like crazy for the past week fixing bugs and re-issuing the books, making sure you guys get the best we can give you?

You *could* just point it out as a bug and ask to have it fixed.  But suggesting that the authors are ignorant of game design theory and statistical sciences because you personally disagree with the location of engine slots?

Let me guess - 'you're not here to make friends'.  Well, you are succeeding. 

Peace, brother.  It's important stuff to you, but do try to be civil.

Cent13

if it is pre total warfare then that is subject to review, and it does not change how the CT and head locations got screwed up in a way that totally glass jaws mechs.

You must roll for criticals like many of us used to then.

When you roll your 1d6 to determine top or bottom, and then another 1d6 for the slot in the top or bottom, if the location rolled has already been hit, or is roll again (or ff/es/case), you roll BOTH dice over again., not just the 2nd one..

So the order and grouping have ZERO impact on the game, in fact, they can speed things up, as when you take your first CT crit if you roll the upper group, you can mark out any engine and don't need to roll the 2nd die.

Many of us would just reroll that 2nd die, which is in fact *incorrect*.  If you have a 1d12 handy it'd be a faster method to doing crits on the arms/torsos than rolling 1d6 + 1d6.

And of course the head slots don't have any relevance at all, as each number is the exact same chance to get rolled, so the order is completely irrelevant.

I guess maybe if you had the slots memorized it may be the slightest amount of pain, but you still have to look at the sheet to cross something out, so again, minimal, if any, actual game impact.