Видео

Another thing about hidden units: You explicitly say that if the...- let me quote directly for clarity. (With further clarifying notes by me, that technically they're already set up and just need to be revealed, in {} brackets.) "He will either... set them up {reveal} immediately before movement begins, and is then allowed to move them as well. ... set them up {reveal} right before the weapons phase, which consequently allows them to fire during it. Alternatively, he may be forced to reveal them. Either by me walking right on top of them, which grants him a surprise attack against me... ... or, if I'm a little more lucky or careful, if one of my units stops my movement in an adjacent hex. Then, he's also forced to set them up {reveal}, but doesn't get the surprise attack." I believe this is incorrect, though hearing you explicitly say it rather than passively doing it that way makes me wonder whether there's an updated version of the core rules that's changed it or something. Speaking under the assumption my information's correct and up to date... Still looking at Hidden Units, page 259, the third paragraph says 'If a unit attempts to enter a hex containing a hidden enemy unit, it stops next to that hex instead. {The second sentence isn't relevant presently.} The hidden unit is revealed. Additionally, a unit that ends its move next to a hex containing a hidden unit reveals that hidden unit. Hidden units revealed in these ways cannot move that phase.' Scrolling down a bit (or turning the page, if using physical book rather than pdf), 'Pointblank Shots from Hidden Units' on the next page says 'A hidden unit revealed by enemy movement may immediately make a special pointblank weapon attack against the unit that revealed it. {And then explains what one of those is.}' Now I see how this may be ambiguous, upon seeing someone interpret it differently. I assume your reading is that 'revealing by enemy movement' is only when the enemy walks directly into them, not when moving adjacent to them. (After all, then they're revealed at the end of the movement.) I've always read it that 'revealing by enemy movement' is either of the above methods, as opposed to the hidden unit's controller manually revealing them to move or attack. (Or other methods of revealing stated, like special sensor equipment or AoE attacks.) I do think this is somewhat ambiguous as written, so take this not as an objective correction. To talk a bit more about how I interpret it, I feel like the intention is that hidden units can ambush enemies passing close to them as long as they stop there and don't speed by, and the rule for moving into the same space (The mover stops.) is just a special case to prevent mechs occupying the same space when the attacker tries to walk into a hidden mech's space, and then (The hider is revealed and ambushes before the normal reveal at the end of the movement.) an immediate reveal because it'd be thematically weird if the moving mech was forcefully stopped (!) and then was told to hold on a while for everybody else to shuffle about first before they actually see what stopped them. (Though it of course does add tactical value to other units to be able to interrupt movement through their hex.) If units can only use the surprise attack against those entering their own space, it'd very rarely come into play since the playspace is quite big, and hidden units are just little guys; the chance they move into one exact hex is quite low, so you'd generally just activate them manually as enemy troops close in (or maybe are passing/have just passed by, depending on strategy), whereas if they can ambush enemies moving close, there's a greater risk/reward between manually revealing them to move in and fire and getting definite attacks in sooner, versus hoping the enemy comes to you to get the devastating pointblank attack with the higher surprise factor. In the reading I've always used, you can also potentially ambush from multiple sides at once if they end their movement in the space between you; while I've never played Battletech myself due to not having anybody to play tabletop games with, I've always imagined a Hide and Seek scenario in a city where I use hidden infantry to ambush a light mech, and then run down a nearby street between two buildings if they survive 'til the next movement. Very much a Home Alone situation, if the opponent simultaneously wants vengeance for the hit and thinks that now the infantry is weak and will be easy pickings and chase them down the alley to stomp on them, they immediately get successively ambushed by two more squads of infantry positioned in the buildings either side the second they end their movement. (Indeed, with pointblank attacks only when an enemy moves into their space, infantry in buildings on an urban map would never be able to formally ambush an enemy mech unless they crash through the wall of the building, which is possible, but not exactly a standard mode of movement.) ... think I had more to say about the matter but I've forgotten it, and don't want to ramble for too long. So anyway...

... I did a Google. I think that's cleared it up. I probably could've just done that first, but I felt like simply saying the results of that would be a bit dry when I could instead express my own realisation that this is more ambiguous than I thought, and talk a bit on it; I respect situations that can make me test my knowledge of rules I thought I knew with alternate interpretations, and thus gain deeper understanding of them, whatever follows on from it. I've found quite a few forum posts asking about these rules with the answer always being 'pointblank attacks are triggered from adjacent spaces as well, at the end of movement', but the most authoritative place I've found is the Battlemech Manual, which was released recentlyish as an abridged version of Total Warfare featuring only the rules for Battlemechs to ease in new players without the other units. There, the Hidden Movement rules, page 21, say 'If a ’Mech attempts to enter a hex occupied by a hidden enemy ’Mech (jumping over it does not count), or ends its movement adjacent to such a hex, the hidden ’Mech is revealed. A hidden ’Mech revealed in these ways may immediately make a special point-blank weapon attack against the ’Mech that revealed it. {And then gives a page number for further info on that.}' Again, this should be read as focusing only on the rules as they pertain to Battlemechs with Total Warfare extrapolating how they do or don't pertain to other units, but I believe it clarifies the intent on what 'revealed by enemy movement' means.

One more thing that wasn't inspired by anything in the video, but rather my research into the previous: While looking through the section with an eye for ambiguities, I revisited something I knew I wasn't 100% sure on. The pointblank paragraph describes making a special 'pointblank weapon attack'... but it doesn't go on to precisely define with what weapon, or how many of them. I've always dutifully assumed 'one weapon, pick any (probably your biggest one)' since that's the reading that assumes the least, but have always been bothered that they don't *technically* say '... weapon attack which consists of any single weapon' (or however it would be written) in a precise manner. (Total Warfare and the Battlemech Manual both phrase it this way, with 'pointblank weapon attack' said in singular, but without precise definition of how the attack is made, just the additional effects on it [i.e. ignoring penalties from the target's speed and terrain, and the unique timing of the attack in the movement step]) However, while just now researching pointblank attack range, I found a forum post asking about the number of attacks where somebody (whom I recognise as a veteran of the forums) responded that originally, in the old Battletech books before Total Warfare, it was attacking with all valid weapons in a full alpha strike, with 'weapon' just there opposed to melee attacks. (And I believe generally, Total Warfare attempted to collate rather than change the older rules, even if sometimes the exact wording changed and made things a bit less clear.) ... so that's interesting! Sorry to follow up three things that gave clarity with one that takes it away, but I find it interesting enough to share. I've always recognised that rule is a little unclear, but didn't have any reason to read beyond the literal interpretation of firing one weapon; only just now have I found any evidence towards the other way. Since this is just hearsay and I don't see other discussions of it, and it'd take a bit to look up ye olde Battletech books to verify the claim... well, to be honest, now I'm not sure what to default to. Since I've not actually played the game I don't have a strong idea of which would be better strategically; I've always imagined ignoring defense would be strong enough to warrant firing only one weapon for your turn, but now I'm wondering. (For the record, I've not actually gotten far enough into the video to see how you're doing it if and when you ambush someone, because I was watching people move units forwards for four rounds while continuously thinking 'I swear the defender's supposed to start in advanced strike positions so the attacker can't just screen for ambushers with micromovements for three real world hours.' until the point that I couldn't take it anymore and looked it up, and figured at that point I may as well share my findings.)

Oh, while I'm making a comment like I almost never do, let me say: What you're doing here is mindblowingly fantastic. I clicked on this video for Battletech, and have already stopped watching it to watch all your previous Battletech videos before getting back here, and am considering watching your D&D boardgame(?) ones despite having never heard of and having low interest in that, because you have such high production value and such passion. I am frequently taking a moment to go 'Wow, I cannot imagine the effort required to do that.' when really fancy effects come in or, even more frequently while watching your videos and even more rarely while watching anybody else's, 'Wow, you went to the effort for *that* tiny detail?' when the thing is not fancy, but incredibly so relative to how much of a side thing it is. Seriously, I've consciously noted how surprised I am that a small thing was added to the overall presentation so many times it's starting to lose all meaning at this point. Even just the idea of animating missed attacks; I'm sure it's not *completely* unique, but no channel I've seen who does battle reports for wargames and who animates their units' attacks in post - already not super common due to the production effort required - animates the missed attacks alongside the hits, and it always constantly annoys me every time, even though I know they're surely trying to save work for their own sanity, because it feels like the premise is only being half executed and like all of the supposed bulletfire is a bit psychic since we only see the ones that hit unerringly. (And also means their storytelling often revolves far more around the successes than the failures, which amplifies how artificial it feels.) I really appreciate the effort to animate the missed attacks and thus visualise the battle in full. I hope a comment of corrections doesn't give an untowardly negative tone on the production itself because rather, my thoughts on everything you're doing here are glowing. (And so I've tried to give a demeaner of scholarly interest rather than cold pedanticness, but I want to explicitly say that I hope this doesn't come across badly. It's important to me.)

@@godofdarkness01 okay, wow. Now THAT was a novel I didn't expect to read tonight! Let me address your very last point first - no offense taken at all. And I'm very, very glad you enjoy the tiny details, as, yes, there goes a LOT of work into making sure every little missile and bullet hits not only the target, but the correct location, laser hits leave the location glowing, the occasional arm falling off of a hit model etc etc... That said - you are correct about most if not all your points. I should have set up the ambushers pre-battle. Including the non-hidden units. And stopping in adjacent hexes should also trigger an ambush. We simply did that part wrong, and then supplied a narrative reason WHY half the force is walking into the map as the enemy is closing. That said, I'm not sure if we'd do it differently now, seeing as that firing retreat would skew the odds even more in davions favor, and also prolong the game even more. Fun on the table, bad for a video. We're firmly in the camp 'rules exist to facilitate a cool story unfolding', and as such, are meant to be broken if the flow of the game or the logic of the story demands it. And I do believe the rules even say to make up your own scenarios, so, I don't really feel bad about doing it differently. I could write a lot more, but I think the RUclips comment section is a poor place to do that. if you want to chat, why not join our discord group? it's more casual and easier to do in a dedicated chat platform! cheers, hope you enjoy the other content as well!

@@workshoptelescope and more you shall get! eventually. we're still waiting for our KS to arrive and broaden our model selection a little, and will do a short side project that's not BT related in the meantime! (which should hopefully prove to be just as entertaining nontheless!)

Hi there, glad you enjoy! Yes, I happen to know what song is played at 47:30.... Excellent taste in music as well: it's 'couch potato' from the 'silly comedy music pack' by 'wowsounds'. Hope that helps when you need just the right vibe to go stomping through the inner sphere and beyond!

@@randyfant2588 yup. we noticed. only after the upload, of course. good catch though.

@@warlove5106 YOU are absurdly amazing! Especially for enjoying our stuff.

@@4handsondeck Well that was a quick response! XD Also as a big fan of tanks in BT I was pretty sad over how they beat up in this video. Seriously mad respect for the animations and editing!

@@090giver090 sadly not. Clan xl engines only have two slots of engine in each side torso, as opposed to the three of the IS. So, it's fine.... For a certain value of fine.

@@derptomistic I think the script for the urbie-pilot said something like 'insert family friendly curse here'.... Or it might've been Reds idea. His brain works in mysterious ways.

@@LateNightPoetry a combination of screenshotting, GIMP, and basic effects from our video editing software (Vega movie studio platin... version 17 or so, I think? Was in humble bundle some time ago...).

@@tatsu280 haha, no, I'm afraid not. Neither buildings nor LAMs. In fact, I'm not sure what the next battletech rules video will be. We have a dozen ideas, big and very small, and will need to see what's next!

@@wolfshadow7428 .... I had to watch it multiple times, cutting out dead air, random German chatter, jokes that fell flat, and so on and so forth. Trust me. Unless you're CIA looking for an alternative to waterboarding, I do not think you have any use for it. I'm always amazed how such horrible footage can actually become a good video if given enough attention with special effects, comedic timing and background music....

@@klortikterra4423 mech warriors all have their 'personalities' once they get past their green status... and sure, he might be a bit lazy and chill, but you can't say he's cowardly or stupid! "my front armor is gone, but I still have ammo left. so here, have a free shot in my rear while I take out yet more of your friends!" isn't an attitude I EVER want to see in my enemies.... We tried to give him the spirit of 'dancing on the line of insubordination, but backing it up with so much guts and skill that he can get away with it', and I think I'm fairly proud how all 4 pilots here turned out!

@@4handsondeck agreed. i'd gladly serve in a lance with the Davion's Mech Warriors.

@@ziyyigotipyigo6833 huh. excellent catch, that slipped past our attention. you're right, of course. big ACs and gauss cannons have an easier time shooting up trucks than they do individual dudes, and small arms have a harder time punching through even moderate armor.

I really enjoyed this video. The production value is probably best I've seen. Hopefully others are inspired to make similar. While combined arms is interesting, I definitely prefer just mechs. Oh... did you remember damage when the mechs would fall?

@@whitardesigns7572 Kickstarter hasn't arrived yet, sadly there's still delays for europe. but I'm confident it'll get here eventually. and as for alpha strike? ....yes. we'll do AS content at some point. no promises as for a 'when' though. so far it wouldn't really have been worth it, due to not having enough models to field the amount of troops That make AS fun in the first place.

there is no chance of an MG or normal AC jamming - ultra ACs jam if double-fired, and rotary ACs have a higher chance of jamming the more shots are fired. however, that does not apply to infantry field guns, they have enough people around to clear any jam quickly and efficiently. a mech jock can't as easily get out of the mech, disassemble a gun, put it back together and jump back into the cockpit seat!