BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

BattleTech Player Boards => Fan Designs and Rules => Topic started by: Cannonshop on 29 November 2021, 13:52:09

Title: Okay, let's screw with combat and damage (House rule or a misinterpretation)
Post by: Cannonshop on 29 November 2021, 13:52:09
Jerry rolls a '2' on his hit location-center torso, possible crit.

freeze frame.

Now, the traditional alternative here is something called 'floating criticals', which can send the round into the left knee of the 'mech, or right elbow, or even head.

we're not doing that for this exercise.

Continue

Jerry's roll on location is first '3' and then '6'.

Tom's 'mech has nothing there, it says 'Roll again', or maybe Triple Strength Myomer, or even Endosteel.

freeze frame.

okay, so he has to roll for locations again...or does he?

Here's the alternative I'm contemplating to make combat a hell of a lot faster.

Critical hits that land on a 'roll again' the first time, don't roll again.  Instead, you apply that damage to the Internal structure boxes in that location.

IOW if there's no hardware with names there, then the damage is applied to the underlying structure.

Crit Seeking gets a whole lot deadlier.  why? because you lose that internal structure, you lose that location.

benefits:

1) reduces dice rolling
2) makes engagements more decisive more quickly, because it's deadlier.



Drawbacks? critiques?
Title: Re: Okay, let's screw with combat and damage (House rule or a misinterpretation)
Post by: AlphaMirage on 29 November 2021, 14:20:37
Seems reasonable enough, I don't think it really makes crit seeking that much deadlier as it would only work less than 1/36 times and mostly on medium or lighter mechs with more space. Heavies and Assaults are already fairly well packed most of the time. Certainly makes you think about using the volume intensive but mass saving tech but I think it would still be worthwhile for most people.
Title: Re: Okay, let's screw with combat and damage (House rule or a misinterpretation)
Post by: Cannonshop on 29 November 2021, 14:43:00
Seems reasonable enough, I don't think it really makes crit seeking that much deadlier as it would only work less than 1/36 times and mostly on medium or lighter mechs with more space. Heavies and Assaults are already fairly well packed most of the time. Certainly makes you think about using the volume intensive but mass saving tech but I think it would still be worthwhile for most people.

I based it on an early misunderstanding of the 2nd edition rules back in the late eighties when I started playing.  It actually took having the actual rules clarified later to get rid of the idea, but the concept stuck around as a 'why don't we do it that way?' question.
Title: Re: Okay, let's screw with combat and damage (House rule or a misinterpretation)
Post by: Charistoph on 29 November 2021, 15:37:52
First off, how much damage is applied on a crit roll that hits an "empty"/non-damageable critical?

Something similar was brought up by my local Battlemaster and it was just one more point of IS damage, and I think it works in theory, but we haven't really tested it as a group.
Title: Re: Okay, let's screw with combat and damage (House rule or a misinterpretation)
Post by: garhkal on 29 November 2021, 16:06:49
Here's the alternative I'm contemplating to make combat a hell of a lot faster.

Critical hits that land on a 'roll again' the first time, don't roll again.  Instead, you apply that damage to the Internal structure boxes in that location.

IOW if there's no hardware with names there, then the damage is applied to the underlying structure.

Crit Seeking gets a whole lot deadlier.  why? because you lose that internal structure, you lose that location.

SO if i say, hit you with a PPC, that did a crit, the 10 points of damage would instantly go to the internal structure?  Does that spur on a 2nd chance for a critical, since normally ou  GET one, if you damage internal structure.

Title: Re: Okay, let's screw with combat and damage (House rule or a misinterpretation)
Post by: Cannonshop on 29 November 2021, 16:12:43
SO if i say, hit you with a PPC, that did a crit, the 10 points of damage would instantly go to the internal structure?  Does that spur on a 2nd chance for a critical, since normally ou  GET one, if you damage internal structure.

Nah, there's got to be a limit.  The idea is reducing the dice-rolling, not extending it indefinitely (or until the mech is dead in the case of hellbie dice).
Title: Re: Okay, let's screw with combat and damage (House rule or a misinterpretation)
Post by: Charistoph on 29 November 2021, 16:46:55
First off, how much damage is applied on a crit roll that hits an "empty"/non-damageable critical?

I see it now.

Critical hits that land on a 'roll again' the first time, don't roll again.  Instead, you apply that damage to the Internal structure boxes in that location.

I'm going to say no to this.  Apply damage to the location as normal, then just one point to IS.  That way it stays consistent across the board.
Title: Re: Okay, let's screw with combat and damage (House rule or a misinterpretation)
Post by: Cannonshop on 29 November 2021, 17:02:30
I see it now.

I'm going to say no to this.  Apply damage to the location as normal, then just one point to IS.  That way it stays consistent across the board.

maybe half damage round down?  after all, 1 point of IS isn't necessarily worth as much as, say, a weapons mount or heat sink.
Title: Re: Okay, let's screw with combat and damage (House rule or a misinterpretation)
Post by: Charistoph on 29 November 2021, 17:54:53
maybe half damage round down?  after all, 1 point of IS isn't necessarily worth as much as, say, a weapons mount or heat sink.

If you want to blow off more, roll a 12, that's what it is there for.  While some things would be nice to do, I think receiving a TAC of an AC/20 that does full or even half damage to the IS while ignoring the armor would be considered "not nice".  But a lot of things are pure luck, and not everything that gets TAC'd will be of equal importance, say an ammo bin on an area with no CASE between it and the Engine.  Meanwhile, you're still doing more damage, and getting that much closer to killing that section.
Title: Re: Okay, let's screw with combat and damage (House rule or a misinterpretation)
Post by: Cannonshop on 29 November 2021, 18:05:55
If you want to blow off more, roll a 12, that's what it is there for.  While some things would be nice to do, I think receiving a TAC of an AC/20 that does full or even half damage to the IS while ignoring the armor would be considered "not nice".  But a lot of things are pure luck, and not everything that gets TAC'd will be of equal importance, say an ammo bin on an area with no CASE between it and the Engine.  Meanwhile, you're still doing more damage, and getting that much closer to killing that section.

Fair 'nough, agreed.
Title: Re: Okay, let's screw with combat and damage (House rule or a misinterpretation)
Post by: DevianID on 30 November 2021, 00:40:10
If the damage is just applied to the structure instead of the armor, the net effect is either catastrophic or negligible.  AKA, you get a TAC with an AC2, which is great!  But you roll one of 11 empty locations, and 'just' deal 2 points of armor to the left torso structure instead.  Of a Crusader.  In 3025.

OR... You get a TAC with an AC20, to a mech with less than x total left torso internal structure but lots of side torso armor.  You get 1 crit, and the location just has the 3 xl engine hits.  You roll an empty location and destroy the entire left side, killing the mech, with only 1 crit instead of 3.