itch.io

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. 

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! 

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). 

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'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.