I'm in the part where I've got 90% of the work done, and the remaining 10% is the other 90% of the work! There's a few final bits that have me stumped for wording and formatting, so progress has been super slow. I'm also grappling with trying to elegantly implement more accurate attack rules (it's based on weapons, not mounts), which I don't consider solved yet. But I'm glad you're looking forward to it!
Huh, you're right! As I look back over the core book and comp/con, it seems every reaction individually specifies how often they can be performed per round. Meaning that not only is "no repeats/round" not accurate, but also the more accurate "default no repeats/round" isn't necessary.
I'll add it to my list of stuff to change! Probably I'll include that as a minor update to version 2 at the same time that I publish version 3. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Thank you for this reference! I have a small piece of feedback. Under Emergency Procedures it says that it is a Full Action to make an Engineering Check to prevent Reactor Meltdown.
However, according to the rulebook it's a free action. Page 81:
"A reactor meltdown can be prevented by retrying the ENGINEERING check as a free action."
On the sheet, I included an asterisk next to that check, which is followed up in a side-note stating how 'Free Action' is a misprint. Considering how much other stuff is packed in there, I don't blame you for missing it! I'm glad you brought it up, since if it was an error I would want to fix it right away (and if this is something several people run in to, I'll want to update the sheet layout to make it clearer).
Ha ha, it's hard to call it "wrong" when it's literally what the core book says! I'd view it as, the option is there to play the game one way or the other. I'm really glad you're finding the sheet useful! Feel free to send me any other impressions or feedback - it all helps inform the design!
This is incredibly helpful. However, I think there is a misunderstanding for Full Tech. (pg 71 Core):
"FULL TECH
When you use FULL TECH , you perform multiple tech
actions or a single, more complex action.
To use FULL TECH , choose two QUICK TECH options or
a single system or tech option that requires FULL TECH
to activate. If you choose two QUICK TECH options,
you can choose the same option multiple times." The "you can choose" means you have the option to use the same option twice, but you are not locked into the same option twice. It contrasts with attacking, where you are unable to fire the same gun twice. Rules as written, you can, for example, scan and lock on with a full tech, or scan and scan two different mechs.
Also, this isn't needed for a player sheet, but keep in mind, Full tech works slightly different for NPCs: they are not allowed to do the same tech option, though they can use 2 different invades, because they count as different types of actions for NPCs. https://lancer-faq.netlify.app/ "Can NPCs do the same Tech Attack twice in one turn?"
I've ended up in a weird place for this one. LARS v2 has a clearer model of tech actions, but the Full Tech wording still isn't quite RAW accurate. The challenge is, if I make it say "use 2 quick-techs", that vaguely implies 2 quick-techs can't be used on their own even though they can. And, as far as I can tell, there's rarely an advantage to declaring two different quick-techs as a Full Tech. So the wording is still unresolved and still on my mind- once I find a good solution I'll upload it as version 2.0.2. I remain thankful to you for pointing it out!
That is a very good point. Personally, I think just removing the "can't move between the tech" wording solves the issue, since can't implies unable, but like you said, it is rarely useful to use a full tech in that way, so it probably can stay just fine.
As someone who is very bad at remembering what I can do in combat (and truthfully, literally one of the people this sheet was made for (thank you helio)) having something like this has been legitimately really helpful! Also it just looks so visually appealing! Radical!
← Return to resource
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
Are there any plans on a mech chart update for Gilgamesh and Viceroy?
Any word on progress towards v3? The beta page looks very clean and is much more readable to me
I'm in the part where I've got 90% of the work done, and the remaining 10% is the other 90% of the work! There's a few final bits that have me stumped for wording and formatting, so progress has been super slow. I'm also grappling with trying to elegantly implement more accurate attack rules (it's based on weapons, not mounts), which I don't consider solved yet. But I'm glad you're looking forward to it!
Oh god yeah that last 10% is always a pain. Glad you are still pushing through though! I shall wait patiently then.
Under "Re-Actions" it says "no repeats/round"
That's not technically true, as some reactions can trigger multiple times per round.
Example: https://lancer-faq.netlify.app/#7424a7
Huh, you're right! As I look back over the core book and comp/con, it seems every reaction individually specifies how often they can be performed per round. Meaning that not only is "no repeats/round" not accurate, but also the more accurate "default no repeats/round" isn't necessary.
I'll add it to my list of stuff to change! Probably I'll include that as a minor update to version 2 at the same time that I publish version 3. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Thank you for this reference! I have a small piece of feedback. Under Emergency Procedures it says that it is a Full Action to make an Engineering Check to prevent Reactor Meltdown.
However, according to the rulebook it's a free action. Page 81:
"A reactor meltdown can be prevented by retrying the ENGINEERING check as a free action."
You are correct! However, there's some errata noting that this is a misprint in the core rule book! https://lancer-faq.netlify.app/#bf060b
On the sheet, I included an asterisk next to that check, which is followed up in a side-note stating how 'Free Action' is a misprint. Considering how much other stuff is packed in there, I don't blame you for missing it! I'm glad you brought it up, since if it was an error I would want to fix it right away (and if this is something several people run in to, I'll want to update the sheet layout to make it clearer).
Oh thank you! This is good to know, our group has been playing wrong. Thanks for the great sheet!
Ha ha, it's hard to call it "wrong" when it's literally what the core book says! I'd view it as, the option is there to play the game one way or the other. I'm really glad you're finding the sheet useful! Feel free to send me any other impressions or feedback - it all helps inform the design!
This is incredibly helpful. However, I think there is a misunderstanding for Full Tech. (pg 71 Core):
"FULL TECH
When you use FULL TECH , you perform multiple tech
actions or a single, more complex action.
To use FULL TECH , choose two QUICK TECH options or
a single system or tech option that requires FULL TECH
to activate. If you choose two QUICK TECH options,
you can choose the same option multiple times."
The "you can choose" means you have the option to use the same option twice, but you are not locked into the same option twice. It contrasts with attacking, where you are unable to fire the same gun twice. Rules as written, you can, for example, scan and lock on with a full tech, or scan and scan two different mechs.
Also, this isn't needed for a player sheet, but keep in mind, Full tech works slightly different for NPCs: they are not allowed to do the same tech option, though they can use 2 different invades, because they count as different types of actions for NPCs. https://lancer-faq.netlify.app/ "Can NPCs do the same Tech Attack twice in one turn?"
That's a good point! I'll adjust the wording to make the quick/full tech relation clearer in version 1.1. Thanks for bringing it up.
I've ended up in a weird place for this one. LARS v2 has a clearer model of tech actions, but the Full Tech wording still isn't quite RAW accurate. The challenge is, if I make it say "use 2 quick-techs", that vaguely implies 2 quick-techs can't be used on their own even though they can. And, as far as I can tell, there's rarely an advantage to declaring two different quick-techs as a Full Tech. So the wording is still unresolved and still on my mind- once I find a good solution I'll upload it as version 2.0.2. I remain thankful to you for pointing it out!
That is a very good point. Personally, I think just removing the "can't move between the tech" wording solves the issue, since can't implies unable, but like you said, it is rarely useful to use a full tech in that way, so it probably can stay just fine.
As someone who is very bad at remembering what I can do in combat (and truthfully, literally one of the people this sheet was made for (thank you helio)) having something like this has been legitimately really helpful! Also it just looks so visually appealing! Radical!