itch.io

With the caveat that it's been a few years so I'm not 100% sure what the underlying logic was, I think your Remotes are spared from your own friendly fire. Also, if you're using the Psycho Rival check down in the comments for the fixes for some of its levels, as the math had a few mistakes in some builds and that was one of them. 

Have you looked at the True AI and Mechanical Body passives in BC79? Other than that, I've seen people making lower PL versions of their mechs to represent themselves as fighters outside the cockpit while still using the mecha rules. 

Hey, glad to hear you like it. I don't use Foundry but go ahead and make a module, I'll run it by someone who does when you finish it and spread the word.

I'm not working on this system anymore, if you want my more modern take on an economy, check out the Battle Century S rules for Wealth, which are a lot more developed and polished without being a full-on money-management minigame.

Good luck and have fun with both projects!

So when the party is divided on what to do it can be tricky to solve the fallout of things turning out badly. I think this is an opportunity for an in-character discussion about how two people were right, and two people were wrong, what that means for their dynamics and how everyone can grow from it. Maybe they dial down the bravado, maybe they work on dialing up the skills, maybe they go look for NPC allies that can provide them the backup they need in that kind of situation. 

All this, of course, making sure that everyone is in agreement OOC first, otherwise things need to be made clear there first. A lot of groups don't make sure their IC differences stay in the realm of IC, and that ends badly for everyone involved.

Good luck!

Allied Reinforcements are in-fiction ways to adjust for difficulty on the spot by helping the PCs in a way that doesn't look obviously too much like you're just handing them a W. The Reinforcement Power Confusion in the Ranks negates Tension for all Enemies which sounds like what your PCs needed there.

Having said that, I think letting people fail is also part of giving them agency. If you gave them multiple shots at getting out, and they choose to stay, they should be allowed to do so and to deal with the consequences of that. Live Another Day makes the consequences entirely narrative, rather than mechanical, and even after that the Plot Armor rules make it so that they can simply be hospitalized after ejection instead of dying horribly when their mechs explode.

It's always nice successfully introducing someone to this long, historied, and very varied franchise. One of us! One of us...!

Anyway yeah there's no direct "Cyborg" trait in S, instead a bunch of other traits say they're cybernetic enhancements in their flavor text. As for the bits, you can use the default ones (range 5 in R, yes, but long range when boosted) or make a custom remote weapon that always has long range. Either way, they cost your actions to move them. I think long range suits them to represent how the Elmeth started out as an assassination sniping weapon. And I think costing actions is a necessity because extra turns in turn-based games are universally broken, so the closest you can do is use them as a combo weapon with "Go, Funnels!".

BCS is a little bit better at making a distinction between pilot and mecha, as well as making repairs between missions a thing that players have to worry about. It also makes grunt suits much weaker though, so PCs on those have to fight weaker enemy formations (roughly 75% of the usual power rating) to make the fight winnable. YMMV on whether this is a good tradeoff or not.

Thanks for the support! Regardless of the system you use, best of luck with the game.

Pilots and mechs each have their own separate sheet, and 90% of what a mech can do is dependent on its own stats, upgrades and weapons, so it's possible. That said, the system is designed with a pilot using their personal mech, and the mech being an extension of their pilot, so by doing this you risk things like a pilot who specializes in throwing rocket punches stealing a mech that only has guns, or a support pilot joyriding a mech designed for pure brawling.

PP is about as reliable as an alarm clock that's low on battery, so my honest suggestion is to grab it for free now and tip me later if you feel like it. Appreciate it, btw.

Fixed, sorry for the inconvenience. I think it got restricted accidentally during yesterday's update. My best guess is that the default visibility settings change the project to restricted when editing it, which has never been a problem before, but I might have missed it this time? I'll be keeping an eye out from now on. Thanks for pointing it out!

Which, um, by the way, there's a (minor) update for BCS! Go get it before an internet gremlin takes it away again.

I never say never, but a POD version is not in the plans atm.

There is a possibility! Expect either a fillable pdf or failing that an online spreadsheet sometime next month.

The paragraph in page 11 is for Intermission conflict. Intermissions are much more freeform and don't need the structure, which is why it also says that using clockwise or aphabetic order is just a suggestion. Operations always use Priority determined by dice rolls. 

The page 11 paragraph should definitely be more explicit that it is only talking about Intermissions though, thanks for pointing it out.

The joke and short answer is that S is for people who prefer to play games without maps, while G is for people who want maps, minis and all that jazz.

The slightly more involved but still not comprehensive answer (its a 356 page pdf after all) is the maps thing, plus not having to do math when building your mech, the inclusion of long-term resources to manage between fights, and damage/hp values being much better balanced. Those are the most important and most observable differences.

Looks about right at a glance. Let this be a lesson about doing the math for 30 builds in a single day: Triple-check your math! Will certainly be doing more of that in the future.

Good job with the spot-fixes, the reasoning for them is solid enough and you've saved me the time of doing them myself.

Your math is correct. But there is more. Looking at it in detail now, at PL5 there's an additional 4 extra points given, totaling to a -14 deficit. This mistake is unfortunate as I don't have the working files for Remastered anymore, and I'd have to redo the entire manual from scratch (without some of the original artwork, even) to fix it.

A quick and dirty fix (without redoing the whole build and using the round attribute costs rule) to each of the PLs would be:

PL0-1 Guard and Threshold -1 each.

PL2-4 Remove Versatile Model.

PL5 Might and Systems -1 each.

Recover Guard and Threshold  by PL 2 and regain Versatile Model by PL 5, obviously. 

Boy I sure hope this is the one build with mistakes and that the rest are fine.

Thanks for pointing this out!

I compiled earlier changelogs into a singular list for convenience' sake. It is in gdoc form because it is 12 pages long.

BCG rules v1.2 to v1.7 changelog

A lot! It is structurally the same game but there's significant tweaks to every section. Just off the top of my head (some of this will be repeating the store entry bullet points):

• A myriad balance changes for individual weapons, powers, etc.
• Better rules for on-foot combat.
• Alt rules for Critical Failures, Failing Forwards and Exceptional Success in chapter 1.
• A "Dramatic Finish" rule to make defeating enemies narratively spectacular.
• An expanded alt rules chapter, I believe custom weapons and corruption were already mentioned but those are the standouts among the new stuff.
• A jillion more premades.
• The setting! ft. Cool Fungus Facts!