Transformable Frame Rules

[Ajax]

had an idle thought while tinkering with my hovertank, it would be cool if their was a transforming mechanic-wise for the game. Now, knowing full well that the MF0 is pretty good as is and really doesn't need complexity, my idea was thus..

a transformable frame has two modes.

a transformable frame can only transform during its turn.

a transformable frame has a slightly different system loadout in each of its modes, while still having a maximum of four systems.

one component that represents a swappable system does double duty and changes capability when the frame transforms.

when that system is destroyed the frame is locked into its current mode.



for example, lets say my hovertank has double direct fire, a movement and a defense system as a tank, as a battloid, it has double direct fire and two defense systems. The component that swaps is, I dunno, some kind of energy field re-distributor, it controls the cushion beneath the hovertank while in tank mode, and acts as some sort of deflector shield thing in battloid mode and is represented by a singular attachment.

my hovertank, cruising around in tank mode for the speed bonus decides to capture a base, using the green die, it gets there and transforms before attacking some nearby frame, its defensive system helping it to survive the combat. Later, it get's artilleried and loses the defensive system, not only is it hurting, but it cannot transform back to tank mode and haul its ass into cover.


obviously, it is an advantage to do something like that, so maybe allow this mechanic only if the other players agree and/or has their own transformable frames to balance things out

[Kiavahr]

Kinda reminds me of the from Battletech. I don't know how well they worked in the game, but in the setting they were always wildly, hilariously impractical.

I do like the idea though. You would have to declare your form before rolling dice, which would lock it in for the rest of the turn. Basically add a step to the "declare target and intent" phase. A possible way to balance it would be to have the system count as two systems when determining asset values.

[David Artman]

It would take playtesting, but I suggest an addition:
- One system is the transforming system.
- The transforming system takes up a system system slot in BOTH forms (i.e., transforming frames have a maximum of three 'normal' systems on each form).
- The transforming system does not contribute dice in any way.
- The transforming system it must be the first system removed due to damage.
- All normal systems from both forms are counted for purposes of initiative (i.e., normal max = 4; new max = 6).

So, in essence, you have from 2 to 6 'alternate systems' and you toggle between them, for a hit in both initiative and in being quickly 'downgraded' when stuck in one form after damage.

It would take a LOT of deep math analysis (or even more regression testing) to determine if this rule expansion is balanced or not. ANd I'm sure there will be synergies that come close to breaking it; for example, imagine this transforming frame:
Form 1:
Form 2:

Rush into melee range (weaving in and out of cover) while nearly undamageable and throwing spots all over the field, then go Ginsu on some hapless victim.

[darksyntax]

As an alternate to a new type of system, how about foregoing the frames move or even requiring "X" movement points to complete a transformation.
- if transformation is tied to movement, then it can only happen on that frames turn
- the "X" movement points could be defined by the number of systems that change
- also if "X" is used and you get a high green roll, you could still transform AND move

[Kiavahr]

[Foghammer]

[David Artman]

[David Artman]

Forgot to add: I like my suggestions because they do not increase math or fiddling at the table, only during team assembly. In play, it's just an additional option during declare activation (i.e., 'declare activation and select form'). The movement-based system is mathy; and the OP system depends on remembering or designating the system with which transformation is associated (potential confusion/cheating; and player can ensure the frame can transform until the last system is lost, so the system correlation is actually a bit toothless as a limitation).

[Mantisking]

[Foghammer]

[Mantisking]

[Xero010]

Hmm. Mantis, I think I prefer the transforming system allowing to different options, Meaning somthing with can turn into because the frame isn't mitigated to splitting it's systems, making it slightly less effective in my opinion. The three normal system rule also seems to be a natural nerf to this system by taking away a "normal" system. So a can now become a Cool!!

[Mantisking]

[Ajax]

nice to see a discussion happening here

i mused over using one of the white die's to represent the transforming system, and eventually decided that it might be best to try to keep the loadout as similar as possible to normal frames to lessen any possible confusion and instead have one of the other mounted systems represent the transformative aspect informally.


I do however, like the idea of using one of the white dies to represent the transforming system, not so much adding a third white die, rolling additional wild dice feels like too big an advantage, although, you also lose out on possible bonus effects for having double systems.


I may not have outlined it well enough but I was originally thinking that only one system is able to swap, so between forms, only one system changes capability. Allowing multiple systems to swap seems hugely advantageous.

Tank mode =
Battloid mode =

as far as restrictions against the transforming frame, I personally dont like the first hit removes the transformative ability option suggested, as it would negate the fun of transforming very quickly. It would be more interesting to me to be able to choose to keep the transformative system if I should ever want to keep it over something else.

another thought that occurred to me initially was hard restrictions against what system can swap to what, but i felt it would lessen the tactics and fun of designing a transforming frame.

also, it would definitely be cool to transform in reaction to being attacked, but also way advantageous. Kinda meh on having the transformation cost part or all of your move, would just slow down the game and would most likely get your frame killed. I'm unsure of how i feel yet of restricting the maximum amount of systems mounted as a drawback.

[Xero010]

I see your point Mantis. It makes me wonder, would players have to establish which form the frame starts in? Or what its base form is? Also, instead of immediately being able to transform, the player roles a d2 to see of the frame can transform at the beginning of a round. 123-Somethings gone wrong, 456-Transformation successful. Or even rolling a die to see how many systems you can change. It seems like transforming frames could be good in theory, but I'm not sure how to balance out the advantage of additional systems. I'd also suggest some kind of affect on initiative, but I don't want to make the game anymore complicated. I changed my mind on Mantis's idea, although I'm still a little iffy on what a transformed frame can get done. I'd need to test it in a game I suppose. The only thing I'd changed is allowing a fully loaded out frame to have a transforming system. There might be too much utility, unless we decide to have the "Transforming system dies first" rule. That, or some kind of impact of initiative, like counting as an extra system, otherwise all load-outs would benefit from a transforming system.

[Mantisking]

[Mantisking]

[Ajax]

it seems i erred on understanding the extra white die thing, it being only a representation, not an actual additional white die.

so far the options i see here as far as representing the transformitive qualities are


the system that swaps capabilities between forms, being essentially being three systems in one,( / /transformation system), takes the space of one of the four systems. white die are untouched.

one of the white dice is taken away, and in its place the transformitive system sits, thus providing a hitpoint but no wild die roll.

the white dice are kept, but the frame can only mount three additional systems, with the fourth slot devoted to the transformitive system, with no die roll attached.



i like the first 'cause you keep all four systems and white dice, no fuss

second seems balanced but losing the white die roll is going to suck

third is growing on me, as it makes sense that a mech that transforms would not be able to mount all the doodads that a normal mech would, but also concerned it would suck when facing normal frames with maximum systems.




i also think its unneccesary to worry about what form the frame starts the game as or giving it a base form, shouldnt matter really.

still think only one system should swap between transformations

and thinking more on it, the only hard rule i can get behind for what systems a transforming frame should get is a motive system for the appropriate form, jet, hovertank, transport etc, as all the transformable mecha that i can think of had a form that was more mobile then the other.

[Foghammer]

[Mantisking]