Comparative Reference by System This document presents a mechanical overview of prominent mecha tabletop role-playing games . Each system is described using the same criteria: Mechanical identity Player quality-of-life considerations GM quality-of-life considerations Typical use cases The intent is reference and comparison, not recommendation. Lancer Tactical, grid-based mecha combat system paired with lighter narrative play outside the cockpit. Mechs are built using modular

Table play isn’t a single experience. It changes shape depending on scale. At major events, pacing tightens early. Decisions are made with long arcs in mind — not just the current round, but the entire event. Players tend to avoid lines that introduce unnecessary variance. Experimental choices thin out quickly, replaced by patterns that are known to hold up across multiple rounds. Losses are absorbed differently here as well. A single misstep can feel cumulative, not because

Local Grand Archive play carries a different kind of information. When games happen at shared tables, decisions are visible as they’re made. Not just the cards, but the pauses between them. Players see how long choices take, when someone hesitates, and how lines are reconsidered in real time. That visibility adds context that doesn’t come from results alone. Learning also spreads sideways. Players pick up patterns by watching nearby matches, even when they aren’t directly inv

Grand Archive doesn’t feel static. Even when card pools don’t change, the way people approach the game does. Right now, play patterns are being shaped less by hard tier lists and more by repetition. The same champions show up across different tables, but how they’re piloted varies widely. Some players lean into efficiency and tight sequencing. Others play looser, prioritizing adaptability over optimization. Both approaches coexist without one clearly overpowering the other. A