In all the excitement about seeing the new rules, people have ignored the new 'Escalation' format!

Quote

Instead of a normal match, players can enjoy an Escalation match, in which they control a series of increasingly dangerous ships. To play an Escalation match, players build a squad as described in the Quick Build section with a threat level of 4. (If playing with only the core set, see the “Core Set Escalation” rules below.)

Then the players set up the game. After placing obstacles, the first player places the hyperspace marker marked “1” into the play area. It must be placed beyond range 0 of all obstacles and beyond range 1 of the edges of the play area. Then the other player places hyperspace marker “2” following the same rules; but, it must be placed beyond range 3 of marker “1.

During the End Phase, if a ship was destroyed during that round, its player chooses one or two pilots from their collection of Quick Build cards whose total threat is one higher than the destroyed ship’s threat. Then that player selects one of the two hyperspace markers and rolls one attack die. The ship is placed in the play area so that its rear guides are flush against the side of the hyperspace marker that corresponds to the die result. On a ? result, the player chooses any side of the marker instead.

If a ship would be placed overlapping another ship, it is instead placed in the next available side in clockwise order. If none are available, the process is repeated on the other hyperspace marker. At the end of a round, if a player has destroyed enemy ships whose total threat is more than twice the match’s threat level, that player wins! If both players have accomplished this goal, play continues until one player’s total is higher.

My initial thought is that the placement of your hyperspace marker will be key. Some sides are more likely to get a ship than others, so positioning it to support your existing ships when they appear will be important. At the same time you'll have to be aware your opponent can use either market too - this may well affect the engagement area as ships on the back foot try and avoid a double-whammy from reinforcements - or set up ambushes for new arrivals...

It sounds fun, but in the end it is just a new flavor of the scenarios in 1.0, which also hardly anybody ever used. No point in coming up with pro-strats for a game-mode you will maybe play once for fun.

18 minutes ago, Duskwalker said:

It sounds fun, but in the end it is just a new flavor of the scenarios in 1.0, which also hardly anybody ever used. No point in coming up with pro-strats for a game-mode you will maybe play once for fun.

Big difference is this format is not like the unique one off 1.0 missions and are very easy to set up, you only need the ships and threat cards. I can see Escalation 2.0 being very popular in my local store.

Battletech has done this for... 30(?) years or so. It’s still fun.

STAW players would play this occasionally, doing 20, 30, 40, and 50. point ships.

I do like the “twice the match’s threat level” win condition over just “last standing” too.

47 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Battletech  has done this for... 30(?) years or so. It’s still fun.  

Yes, this mimics the Grinder event still run at gaming events by the Catalyst Demo team. Right down to the random placement and facing. Good catch!

The rules say your opponent needs to destroy your ships for them to count toward his score... seems like you could flee a couple times quickly to stack your squad?

21 minutes ago, ViscerothSWG said:

The rules say your opponent needs to destroy your ships for them to count toward his score... seems like you could flee a couple times quickly to stack your squad?

I think that flying off the board counts as ship being destroyed?

31 minutes ago, ViscerothSWG said:

The rules say your opponent needs to destroy your ships for them to count toward his score... seems like you could flee a couple times quickly to stack your squad?

While worded in a way a rules lawyer would argue fleeing isn’t destroyed, no. Just no. If a ship goes off the map score it as destroyed.

3 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

worded in a way a rules lawyer would argue fleeing isn’t destroyed

Sounds more like a definite maybe than a no.

The section of the rules on fleeing even compared it to being destroyed, but considers it different.

Maybe the first faq will clarify.

13 minutes ago, ViscerothSWG said:

Sounds more like a definite maybe than a no.

The section of the rules on fleeing even compared it to being destroyed, but considers it different.

Maybe the first faq will clarify.

Honest answer: Do you specifically need a FAQ for this?

1 minute ago, LagJanson said:

Honest answer: Do you specifically need a FAQ for this?

No, but they could have/should have worded it to be explicitly clear. Any ship removed from play counts toward their opponents score or some such. Specifically and exclusively citing destroyed, when fleeing is considered different yet intended to also score points, is sloppy.

Just now, ViscerothSWG said:

No

Ok

12 minutes ago, ViscerothSWG said:

No, but they could have/should have worded it to be explicitly clear. Any ship removed from play counts toward their opponents score or some such. Specifically and exclusively citing destroyed, when fleeing is considered different yet intended to also score points, is sloppy.

Fleeing and destroyed have to be different because of that one scum pilot and assuming others coming. Forget which pilot but they can “flee” and return to the board in a different location. Therefore fleeing can not=destroyed but without a special ability results in the same end.

Moralo Eval

Sounds like a fun format. Look forward to trying it out.