BattleMech Manual "clarifies" the rules for TAG: I dunno anymore...

[ralgith]

Again, that's an argument about the size of the "general area target" you should aim to. It's implied it's not that big.

I'm more satisfied with such rules, since they force to make a choice between Narc Launcher and TAG, each with its own drawbacks.

Except TAG still clearly wins: No ammo, can also call down homing artillery, and I think it's even cheaper.

[pheonixstorm]

On the spotters for artillery, the only use they have is after the first shell lands and they help for target adjustment. Though really they should help a bit more than they actually do but I guess someone needed a reason for the Forward Observer SPA.

[BlueThing]

I just keep telling myself this.

As do I. I'm not sure if I should be concerned at my ability to realize how insane Battletech reality is while still greatly enjoying games played in it. ;)

[JenniferinaMAD]

I'd like to think that a ~200ish kg Arrow IV missile would be a lot better equipped to take advantage of TAG guidance than an ~8ish kg LRM.

Sure, most of the difference is going to be fuel and payload, and the exact numbers shouldn't be looked at too closely, but we are talking about a size difference in the ordnance of ~1:24. That should leave quite a bit of room for better guidance and steering systems.

So I don't really have a problem believing that AIV missiles are less spotter dependent than LRMs, being search for targets in a wider area and possibly having more time and more rocket fuel to affect course changes.

[Stormforge]

The "correct" rule seems way too convoluted and unnecessary. I do not think people realize what a "spotter" actually does. A "spotter" relays target information such as enemy size, composition, location, speed, and direction. All of this is already handled by every combat vehicle's and soldier's basic kit. Think something like today's Blue Force Tracker. When one unit has eyes on an enemy unit all are aware of it's location and composition.

Another job of a "spotter" is to watch and call in adjustments to rounds that it does see landing.

So, for a "spotter" to help an artillery or indirect LRM unit it "should" need to...

A. "Spot" the target, which is already done by each unit's basic kit.

and

B. See where each round lands, then call in adjustments.

Now a "spotter" could also carry specialized gear, such as a Laser Designator (often referred to as Target Acquisition Gear), to guide specialized munitions. With this then the steps would be somewhat different.

A. "Spot" the target, which is already done by each unit's basic kit.

and

B. Designate enemy with Laser Designator or TAG. Hold on the Target until the munitions impact.

Now I do think that in order to use TAG or Narc for indirect, of any type, you should have LoS on the unit. With TAG that will always be true. Also I think if you TAG a unit and fire at another you should get the secondary target modifier. Haven't paid attention if MM does that or not.

To justify it's weight I always thought of TAG as a modified medium laser. De-focused to get a wide infrared beam that lights up, or "flashes" the whole target sometime in the 10 second round. Then image recognition software in the munition's guidance package lock the "flashed" or tagged target.

[JenniferinaMAD]

All of this is already handled by every combat vehicle's and soldier's basic kit. Think something like today's Blue Force Tracker. When one unit has eyes on an enemy unit all are aware of it's location and composition.

It's handled, but not automatically so. The BT rules assume that consulting a map and calling out a target, position, speed and heading over the radio takes some amount of additional mental effort from the spotting unit. Hence why spotting for IDF is an active choice a unit must make, with consequences on its other actions.

The rules also assume that as the spotter is at best estimating the target's location over the next 10 seconds (under combat conditions, sudden stops and turns are quite possible), the shot will be more difficult for the IDF unit than if they were aiming at a visible target themselves.

The more mental effort both spotter and IDFirer take on and the more shaky their ride (moving fast, shooting as well as observing), the more difficult the shot.

What TAGing for semiguided rounds does is ensure that the missiles will find the target even if the spotters estimate of their course was off (which is well represented by the TMM being ignored), but it doesn't really make reading the map during a bumpy ride any easier or calling out numbers over the radio any faster.

Automatic wireless computer sensor sharing is C3 level of computing, and the game has plenty of rules for such systems (even if they don't actually interlink with the IDF rules).

[Colt Ward]

I'd like to think that a ~200ish kg Arrow IV missile would be a lot better equipped to take advantage of TAG guidance than an ~8ish kg LRM.

Sure, most of the difference is going to be fuel and payload, and the exact numbers shouldn't be looked at too closely, but we are talking about a size difference in the ordnance of ~1:24. That should leave quite a bit of room for better guidance and steering systems.

So I don't really have a problem believing that AIV missiles are less spotter dependent than LRMs, being search for targets in a wider area and possibly having more time and more rocket fuel to affect course changes.

The difference is in damage- even with TAG on Semi-G LRMs its not a auto hit with all the missiles, and from what I understand during a recent table game its harder for the Semi-G to hit over the A4.  So your comparing the more capable missile needing IIRC a 4 and putting 20 points to a location vs Semi-G which needs Gunnery + Range (5/7/9 for regular), then rolls to see how many of those missiles hit (1-20) and where the clusters hit instead of just a single location.

TW's TAG rules change were celebrated because previously any unit mounting TAG could do nothing else in the Firing Phase which made things like the Maelstrom and larger C3M mechs rather useless for TAG.  You were generally better off having the heavy/assault unit with TAG firing their own weapons.

Stormforge is right on how BT rules locate a target for IDF/TAG- simple acknowledgement of where a target is . . .

[Xotl]

We're changing this.  The original intention was not to hinder TAG in a wierd way--it was to clarify that spotting doesn't help TAG munitions, because there were a million questions on it for years.  I failed to consider the reverse (how TAG helps spotting), and the wording on the resulting errata was too sweeping as a result.

TAG will now automatically provide regular spotting as well, though we're getting the exact wording worked out still.  Here's the interim wording; I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and tell me if it covers all the bases and isn't vague in some other way:

Whether it hits or not, firing target acquisition gear (TAG; see p. XX) at a target spots it for indirect fire (the reverse is not true: just spotting a target does not benefit TAG-guided munitions). The spotting ’Mech counts as having fired that turn when calculating Target Number modifiers for any indirect fire attacks that result. A ’Mech cannot use TAG and spot for indirect fire against a separate target in the same turn.

The final wording will be in the BMM final (and errata eventually).  Apologies for the confusion.

[Colt Ward]

A unit that TAGs a target in that phase will still be able to fire weapons in the normal way in the fire phase?

[Xotl]

Sorry?  Nothing's changed in that regard.  Is there something there that makes you think otherwise?

[Colt Ward]

Because under BMR you could not fire with TAG'ing.

Because when you 'spot' you cannot fire.

And the last sentence you put the and in there . . .

[Stormforge]

Whether it hits or not, firing target acquisition gear (TAG; see p. XX) at a target spots it for indirect fire as well (the reverse is not true: just spotting a target does not benefit TAG-guided munitions). The spotting ’Mech counts as having fired that turn when calculating Target Number modifiers for any indirect fire attacks that result. A ’Mech cannot fire TAG and spot for indirect fire against a separate target in the same turn.

Ok. A target of a TAG attack is considered "spotted", whether the TAG actually hits or not, for indirect munitions such as Standard Artillery Rounds, Standard Arrow IV, Standard Mortar Rounds, and Standard LRM Rounds. Whether it fires weapons or not the "TAGing" unit counts as having fired when the firing unit uses the above munitions. And you cannot TAG and spot different targets.

Kinda weird having the target "spotted" when missing, but whatever I can live with it. Can image there are no benefits to TAGing and spotting the same target by the same unit as the modifiers would be the same.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Whether it hits or not, firing target acquisition gear (TAG; see p. XX) at a target spots it for indirect fire as well (the reverse is not true: just spotting a target does not benefit TAG-guided munitions). The spotting ’Mech counts as having fired that turn when calculating Target Number modifiers for any indirect fire attacks that result. A ’Mech cannot fire TAG and spot for indirect fire against a separate target in the same turn.

Which indirect fire? It's the spotting 'Mech it does not fire indirectly in a usual situation.

I do not get the rule. As of now, I beg to rewrite it and accompany it with a comprehensive example that is checked and re-checked for any errors.

Whether it fires weapons or not the "TAGing" unit counts as having fired when the firing unit uses the above munitions.

I did not get what this sentence meant.

Kinda weird having the target "spotted" when missing, but whatever I can live with it. Can image there are no benefits to TAGging and spotting the same target by the same unit as the modifiers would be the same.

I got from Xotl's post that TAGing counts as spotting regardless of whether you hit or not, but "hitting" with TAG accounts for more. It's not very weird that you get a partial success even when "missing" with TAG. In the end, spotting does not require a roll for be successful. And there is no need to spot the same target, neither there is an opportunity to spot for another target, because TAGging is "augmented spotting", in a way.

Meanwhile, it's strange then that using TAG does not hinder you own shooting, if those processes are that alike.

[Xotl]

Ok. A target of a TAG attack is considered "spotted", whether the TAG actually hits or not, for indirect munitions such as Standard Artillery Rounds, Standard Arrow IV, Standard Mortar Rounds, and Standard LRM Rounds. Whether it fires weapons or not the "TAGing" unit counts as having fired when the firing unit uses the above munitions. And you cannot TAG and spot different targets.

For the wording above, that's correct.

Kinda weird having the target "spotted" when missing, but whatever I can live with it. Can image there are no benefits to TAGing and spotting the same target by the same unit as the modifiers would be the same.

The idea is that, in order to fire TAG at something, you have to have line of sight, so you're standing there with LOS trying to acquire targeting data, which is exactly how spotting works.  The TAG is basically irrelevant in this regard (which is why you spot the target whether you hit or not).

At the same time, this might be a bit counterintuitive for people and lead to more questions than is worth it.  That's kind of what I'm attempting to work out here, since anyone reading this thread obviously is interested in how TAG works.

[pheonixstorm]

The way you worded your last post though makes it sound like how it was worded originally. You have to spot and TAG the target rather than only TAG the target.

[Xotl]

Okay, let's try to make it simpler.  I don't like in any case how the TAGging mech counts as having fired that turn, as TAG use happens before the weapon attack phase and specifically states that it doesn't count as an attack, so things are getting confusing and contradictory all around.  What about this instead:

TAG: Hitting a ’Mech with target acquisition gear (TAG; see p. XX) also spots the target for indirect fire (the reverse is not true: just spotting a target in no way benefits TAG-guided munitions). If a ’Mech making a TAG attack misses, it can still attempt to spot any target for indirect fire as normal.

Short and sweet.

[NeonKnight]

Okay, let's try to make it simpler.  I don't like in any case how the TAGging mech counts as having fired that turn, as TAG use happens before the weapon attack phase and specifically states that it doesn't count as an attack, so things are getting confusing and contradictory all around.  What about this instead:

TAG: Hitting a ’Mech with target acquisition gear (TAG; see p. XX) also spots the target for indirect fire (the reverse is not true: just spotting a target in no way benefits TAG-guided munitions). If a ’Mech making a TAG attack misses, it can still attempt to spot any target for indirect fire as normal.

Short and sweet.

How about:

TAG: Hitting a ’Mech with target acquisition gear (TAG; see p. XX) also spots the target for indirect fire (the reverse is not true: just spotting a target in no way benefits TAG-guided munitions). The spotting ’Mech counts as having fired that turn when calculating Target Number modifiers for any indirect fire attacks that result. If a ’Mech making a TAG attack misses, it can still attempt to spot any target for indirect fire as normal.

After all, it still fired at the target, even if the attack happened in a pseudo phase. It's not really the Movement phase (as all movement has to happen first), and its not the weapons attack pahse as wether the attack hit or not need to be deteminned before the IF attack is made.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

How about:

TAG: Hitting a ’Mech with target acquisition gear (TAG; see p. XX) also spots the target for indirect fire (the reverse is not true: just spotting a target in no way benefits TAG-guided munitions). The spotting ’Mech counts as having fired that turn when calculating Target Number modifiers for any indirect fire attacks that result. If a ’Mech making a TAG attack misses, it can still attempt to spot any target for indirect fire as normal.

After all, it still fired at the target, even if the attack happened in a pseudo phase. It's not really the Movement phase (as all movement has to happen first), and its not the weapons attack pahse as wether the attack hit or not need to be deteminned before the IF attack is made.

There still should be a notion that you can't TAG one target and spot another one.

And it could be made clearer what the TN modifiers are. "Counts as" can be confusing, maybe it should be replaced with a clear statement about the modifier.

I did not get to which situation the highlighted sentence refers. Does it cover the situation, in which something attempts to fire at the spotted target indirectly but is not using semi-guided missiles? I think, that if the spotter does not fire its weapons in that turn (but used TAG), then there should not be additional modifiers for the indirect fire (for using TAG). Regardless of whether TAG hit or not.

If the spotter unit uses its weapons and in that turn, then the indirect attacks made without a use of semi-guided missiles in their semi-guided mode (because they can be used as usual LRMs) on a successfully TAGged target should get a +1 modifier.

Also, it's a bit counter-intuitive that TAGging is almost like spotting, but spotting induces a +1 modifier on weapon fire, but TAGging does not.

I, actually, hardly understand the need to use TAG before the weapon phase except for the cases when artillery is present. Otherwise it destroys unification with the usual spotting for LRM fire, which can be perfectly done in the weapon phase. Using TAG for semi-guided missiles can be done during the weapon phase as well. Or the usual spotting could be done after the end of movement phase to reach unification. But this would be a rule change.

[pheonixstorm]

How about:

TAG: Hitting a ’Mech with target acquisition gear (TAG; see p. XX) also spots the target for indirect fire (the reverse is not true: just spotting a target in no way benefits TAG-guided munitions). The spotting ’Mech counts as having fired that turn when calculating Target Number modifiers for any indirect fire attacks that result. If a ’Mech making a TAG attack misses, it can still attempt to spot any target for indirect fire as normal.

After all, it still fired at the target, even if the attack happened in a pseudo phase. It's not really the Movement phase (as all movement has to happen first), and its not the weapons attack pahse as wether the attack hit or not need to be deteminned before the IF attack is made.

Thats not a change, that is actually keeping the rule the same as it was before before Xotl posted the changes.

[BLOODWOLF]

TAG: Hitting a ’Mech with target acquisition gear (TAG; see p. XX) also spots the target for indirect fire (the reverse is not true: just spotting a target in no way benefits TAG-guided munitions). If a ’Mech making a TAG attack misses, it can still attempt to spot any target for indirect fire as normal.

Short and sweet.

Done.  Simple. It works.  Where are you getting that you cannot fire weapons after TAG'ing Colt???  Yes you can, the "counts as firing a weapon" means it adds +1 TH just like with normal spotting and firing weapons during the firing phase.  But does not mean that you cannot fire any weapons after TAG'ing.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Once again, why it should be possible to spot another target if TAG misses? Since successfully TAGging the target also counts as spotting, I feel that missing with TAG should still count as successful spotting (a usual one). Because you do not need to make a roll for spotting.

It's a problem with intuitiveness. Using TAG could be considered as firing a weapon by usual rules (in the end, you do make a roll for a hit), or it could be considered as augmented spotting (though you still need a to-hit roll). Currently it's neither, and it creates confusion.

[Xotl]

I'd say "why shouldn't it be?"  TAG isn't spotting--it's something else that happens to also produces that effect.  But, as TAGging happens before the weapon attack phase, whether you hit or not with it should have no bearing on your actions in the weapon attack phase (which is part of the simplification of the text).  If you don't hit, you didn't spot the target.  You're then free to take the time in in the weapon attack phase to try the conventional way.  It's a more involved process than just shooting a targeting laser at it, however.

I'm not seeing the confusion you're having with the newest text; your objection seems to be more philosophical, but I can't say I agree.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Well, OK then.

EDIT: But I still can't understand why using TAG does not hamper your weapon fire.

[NeonKnight]

Thats not a change, that is actually keeping the rule the same as it was before before Xotl posted the changes.

And why is that a bad thing?

in all honesty TAG is an annoyance in games, as any player worth their salt would remove Standard LRM's and replace with semi-guided every...single...time

Get a couple of fast mechs with TAG running around, have them hit someone with their tag shot in the 'pseudo-TAG phase', and now all them LRM's with semi-guided missiles come screaming in with a way better chance to hit.

example:

Target Mech has just finished moving 6 hexes into Light Woods.

The tagging mech (Gunnery 3) has run to within 5 hexes and is attempting to tag the target mech:

To hit number is then:
G: 3
A: 2
T: 2
O: 1
R: 0

TOTAL: 8+

Let's say he hits, so with this new ruling eliminating the "SPOTTER FIRED" rule caveat, two mechs with LRM's now attempt to fire indirectly. One has Standard munitions, the other has semi-guided munitions. Both are at medium range, both walked, and both have Gunnery 4 pilots. No other Spotters.

First the Standard Munitions:
G: 4
A: 1 (walked)
T: 2
O: 1 (Light Woods), 1 (Indirect Fire), 2 (spotter ran)
R: 2 (Medium)

TARGET: 13+

So, the regular LRM’s have no chance to hit.

For the Semi-Guided, the rules for SEMI-GUIDED state:

Semi-Guided Missile
When firing semi-guided missiles at any target in range successfully designated by a friendly TAG (below), the attacker ignores the target movement modifier. When firing indirectly, also ignore indirect fire and spotter movement modifiers.

G: 4
A: 1 (walked)
T: 0
O: 1 (Light Woods)
R: 2 (Medium)

TARGET: 7+


Hmmm….I know which one I want to always have in my forces. TAG + Semi-Guided wins out all the time.

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Spotter movement modifier is already accounted for when you try to hit with TAG. It's more strange why terrain modifiers are counted twice. But dropping them would disturb balance and you need some terrain modifiers in the end. If you consider semi-guided missiles overpowered, the easiest way to nerf them a bit would be not to ignore a +1 indirect modifier.

EDIT: I probably can convince myself why target, spotter and terrain modifiers are what they are.

[NeonKnight]

Spotter movement modifier is already accounted for when you try to hit with TAG. It's more strange why terrain modifiers are counted twice. But dropping them would disturb balance and you need some terrain modifiers in the end. If you consider semi-guided missiles overpowered, the easiest way to nerf them a bit would be not to ignore a +1 indirect modifier.

Problem with Semi-Guided I've found is from what I can tell, is they are not calculated for in the BATTLE VALUEs (or for ALPHA STRIKE in the Point Values), and neither is TAG (though in AS they do currently get a 0.5 points for having TAG).

As a result, it is the balancing (which I know the new BM manual doesn't touch on). Therefore, if I have no way of ensuring a balanced forced with BVs/PVs, I would hope the rules themselves would input a little bit of balance :/

[CrazyGrasshopper]

Problem with Semi-Guided I've found is from what I can tell, is they are not calculated for in the BATTLE VALUEs (or for ALPHA STRIKE in the Point Values), and neither is TAG (though in AS they do currently get a 0.5 points for having TAG).

As a result, it is the balancing (which I know the new BM manual doesn't touch on). Therefore, if I have no way of ensuring a balanced forced with BVs/PVs, I would hope the rules themselves would input a little bit of balance :/

TAG does change BV of each unit equipped with semi-guided LRM ammo. I just can't remember exactly how.

[NeonKnight]

TAG does change BV of each unit equipped with semi-guided LRM ammo. I just can't remember exactly how.

Yeah, just finding it now...

TARGET ACQUISITION GEAR (TAG)
Any unit in the battle force equipped with TAG, Light TAG or a C3 Master Computer adds BV equal to the BV of each ton of semi-guided LRM ammunition carried in the force (use the ammo BV for the appropriate-size LRM launcher). Units whose only such piece of equipment is rear-mounted add half the BV instead.

So, if 5 units with 2 tons each of Semi-Guided LRM ammo (and lets make calculations easier, and say they all have LRM15's), then each TAG unit would have an increased BV of:

LRM15: 17 BV

(17 x 2) X 5 = 170 BV.

Now if only that translated across to Alpha Strike :/

[Colt Ward]

You give a quote but . . . page?

And I know what you mean Neon, we have someone who usually brings that to the table . . . which means I am considering how to punch out his LRM Carrier or TAG'er, which is the counter.

[NeonKnight]

You give a quote but . . . page?

And I know what you mean Neon, we have someone who usually brings that to the table . . . which means I am considering how to punch out his LRM Carrier or TAG'er, which is the counter.

Ah, sorry, TechManual, page 315.