Author Topic: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid  (Read 4683 times)

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #30 on: 12 August 2023, 00:37:37 »
Quick note regarding 1.: I didn't mean either a. or b. I meant that IMO both a. and b. should be true. If destruction of a charging unit through damage it suffers during a collision with the target (as opposed to post-charge fall for example) prevents any subsequent effects to the attacked unit (such as displacement due to the charge and PSR to stay standing), then it looks like I misunderstood how charges are resolved (and not just unintentional ones). All the more reason to clarify it in the charge rules on pp. 148 TW / 35 BMM. Unless you only meant displacement of units other than the target of the charge (due to stacking rules violation for example)?

The skidding note about destruction and possible follow-on displacement covers every possible means of damage, not just charges, but yes, if you're destroyed as part of a charge or a skid you wouldn't then advance into the target's hex or move the target, because you're dead (just like it says in the BMM with regards to charges that if the target is destroyed, it doesn't get displaced).  I can add a note on this for charges in both books if that's not clear (to be fair, TW has neither scenario covered), but while it doesn't say that about the attacker in the BMM, common sense plus the note there immediately following about the target not doing so makes it pretty intuitive, I think.  Assuming I'm not missing some other dimension at play here.
« Last Edit: 12 August 2023, 02:28:37 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #31 on: 12 August 2023, 08:46:56 »
If I interpret your answer correctly both Charge and DFA rules should:

A. say that if the attacker gets destroyed, the target is not displaced.
B. if either the attacker or the target  gets destroyed, say whether the surviving party should make a PSR to stay standing.

To me A. isn't intuitive, because even if the attacker is destroyed, the target was still hit by a multi-ton object moving at dozens of kilometer per hour, so I would expect some of that momentum to carry over to the target, especially since even a seemingly less violent Push Attack achieves the same effect.

The only thing that seems intuitive to me at this point (and pretty much explicit in BMM, though not in TW) is that even if the target is destroyed, the attacker should move into the target's hex.
« Last Edit: 12 August 2023, 08:58:00 by Alfaryn »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #32 on: 12 August 2023, 21:31:52 »
In BT it's the standard rule that your multi-ton machine vanishes from the face of the earth at the end of the portion of a 10-second turn in which you were destroyed, with no effects of any kind on the world after that, not even as wreckage.  This is only extending that standard ruling by a second or two before the end of the phase.  The BMM already makes this displacement principle explicit (Displacement, p. 55, under Destroyed Mechs), and there's a reference to the same idea in that book under Charges ("If the target ’Mech is not destroyed, it is displaced...") and DFAs ("If the DFA succeeds, the target (if not destroyed) is displaced...").  I don't think this is in TW under displacement because there's never enough room in TW to shoehorn in all the clarifications it needs, unfortunately, but I might be able to squeeze it in.

In any case, I've adjusted the wording on DFAs and charges in both books to better reflect this.  But it already worked this way.

As for PSRs, they're different.  They're a standard side effect of damage, and so aren't ignored.  The current wording of the collision section errata says to just ignore displacement effects upon destruction, not all effects.
« Last Edit: 12 August 2023, 21:49:14 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #33 on: 13 August 2023, 12:03:04 »
The way I read Destroyed 'Mechs paragraph on p. 55 BMM, it says that the unit that was destroyed is not displaced, but the issue I brought up isn't about that. It is about what happens to the other unit involved in the charge - the one that wasn't destroyed. Same for the other rules you quoted they say that the target gets displaced if it is not destroyed. I was asking if the target gets displaced if the attacker gets destroyed (and in case of intentional charges and DFAs if the attacker enters the target's hex if the target is destroyed).

The way I read the BMM rules after a successful DFA the attacker enters the target's hex even if the target is destroyed (as there is no exception in the location after attack rules on pp. 36 and 37 BMM for this move), and the target gets displaced even if the attacker is destroyed as long as the charge/DFA is successful and the target itself isn't destroyed (again - no exception in the rules for the case when attacker gets destroyed by it's own attack). It is only that sentence in skidding section that may suggest otherwise, and the obvious case when the above moves/displacements can't happen due to prohibited terrain covered in Prohibited Displacement rules on p. 55. Similar story in TW - the Charge and DFA rules on p. 148 and 150 TW don't say not to move/displace one unit involved in Charge/DFA if the other one is destroyed, the Unit Displacement rules say int to move either one if one of them would be displaced into a prohibited hex, and only that one pesky sentence in the skidding rules may be interpreted to mean that if the attacker is destroyed by a collision damage, the target would be displaced even though the collision happened.

There is also admittedly the rule about destroyed units/'Mechs on pp. 128 TW and 49 BMM which says that "Destroyed units are removed from the map in the end of the phase in which they were destroyed, and have no further effect on game play." but this one is even more ambiguous, since it doesn't even clarify if the units stop having any effect on gamely as soon as they are destroyed, or only after they are removed at the end of the current phase. Of course to fully realize the general concept that all weapons fire and physical attacks are simultaneous, destroyed units need to have effect on game play until the end of the phase they were destroyed in, but if we go with that, then the consequence would be that a 'Mech destroyed by a Charge needs to stay on board and affect the game play until the end of the phase (at least during physical attack phase, since I know you ruled in the past that damage in the movement phase is actually resolved as soon as it happens, not at the end of the phase). Which actually conflicts with the idea that a charged unit shouldn't be displaced if it was destroyed earlier in the phase by the way - shouldn't it have a chance to physically attack a unit that charged it, just because initiative order dictated that the charge happened first? All in all I think that the rules on pp. 128 TW and 49 BMM aren't very useful to resolve my issue with movement/displacement of units that survived a Charge or DFA that destroyed the other unit involved, and if anything - further complicate the picture by possibly conflicting with Charge/DFA rules in BMM.

By the way, regarding Destroying a Unit rules on p. 128 TW the sentence "If tracking damage for salvage purposes/campaign play, resolve an automatic fall if the ’Mech was standing at the start of the phase it was destroyed in; a MechWarrior who survives in such a scenario suffers automatic falling damage as well." should probably be turned into its own paragraph and/or moved above the Forced Withdrawal section, because it seems applicable regardless of whether the destroyed unit operated under Forced Withdrawal rules or not. Also the "if the ’Mech was standing at the start of the phase it was destroyed in" bit needs to be changed to something like "if the ’Mech was standing when it was destroyed", because if a 'Mech got up during a phase during which it was destroyed without falling back first (possible during a Movement Phase), you obviously should resolve a post-destruction fall, and if a 'Mech fell before it was destroyed (or was destroyed as a result of a fall (possible in multiple phases), you obviously shouldn't.

Other than that, I've found just one more problem with the current BMM draft. In Dodging a Collision section the rules say to make a PSR to dodge a skid "Before the skidding ’Mech enters the target’s hex". Considering that in current draft the skidding unit enters the target's hex only after the charge damage is resolved this rule needs to change, preferably in a way that explains if the collision still happens in case the dodging unit successfully makes a PSR to dodge, but then for whatever reason fails to leave it's hex. Similar change needs to be made in Avoiding a Collision section on p. 63 TW.
« Last Edit: 13 August 2023, 16:29:56 by Alfaryn »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #34 on: 13 August 2023, 16:33:59 »
By the way, regarding Destroying a Unit rules on p. 128 TW the sentence "If tracking damage for salvage purposes/campaign play, resolve an automatic fall if the ’Mech was standing at the start of the phase it was destroyed in; a MechWarrior who survives in such a scenario suffers automatic falling damage as well." should probably be turned into its own paragraph and/or moved above the Forced Withdrawal section

Was already noted for the next printing.

Quote
Other than that, I've found just one more problem with the current BMM draft. In Dodging a Collision section the rules say to make a PSR to dodge a skid "Before the skidding ’Mech enters the target’s hex". Considering that in current draft the skidding unit enters the target's hex only after the charge damage is resolved this rule needs to change, preferably in a way that explains if the collision still happens in case the dodging unit successfully makes a PSR to dodge, but then for whatever reason fails to leave it's hex. Similar change needs to be made in Avoiding a Collision section on p. 63 TW.

I can just delete the timing note, saving the room: when it occurs is already clear (after a successful charge roll but before damage is resolved).

I'm wrapping this thread up: not to disparage your efforts, but I've already spent a week of my BT time on a ruleset maybe a dozen people use, and I have other things that need tending to.  Thank you for your time: it's in far better shape than it was at the start, both in terms of legibility and actual playability (insofar as these rules are playable at all).
« Last Edit: 13 August 2023, 17:12:48 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #35 on: 13 August 2023, 17:11:01 »
No problem, I do realize that I took a lot of your time here, though I would say that more than just a few people use this ruleset. It is implemented in MegaMek after all... And besides - if the ruleset is better in terms of legibility and playability, then perhaps more people will start using it in actual tabletop play, especially with a city-themed MapPack appearing in the Mercenaries Kickstarter.

Seriously though, thank you for your patience and effort. Expect me to post the other threads I promised in this one soon. Don't feel pressured to deal with them quickly though. I do realize that after this thread you may want a break from this corner of the ruleset (if not from Battletech rules questions in general), I just want to put my questions out there before I forget the specifics of what I wanted to suggest and ask about.

As for the note you are about to delete - keep in mind that the rules still don't say if the collision happens if the target of an unintentional charge makes a PSR to dodge, but fails to leave the hex during the movement that roll grants it. Perhaps it is something to add at a later date?
« Last Edit: 13 August 2023, 17:27:17 by Alfaryn »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #36 on: 14 August 2023, 14:44:24 »
As much as I wanted to put this to bed, when I went to update the examples to match I found additional issues, mostly regarding how the rules handle automatic dodges and skid interruption (something again not really called out in the rules text but clear in the examples).  As such, I've made further modifications, if you want to review them.  The bottom of the TW page also has the example text portions that are being updated.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #37 on: 14 August 2023, 21:38:19 »
"Each time a skid is interrupted afterwards with another collision scenario, apply all skidding damage to that point that has not yet been resolved." in TW and its counterpart in BMM while correct, should in my opinion be obvious, and as such should be the first sentence to cut if space is a problem.

Other than that and my concerns about resolving location after a unit surviving Charge or DFA attacks if the other unit involved was destroyed (and the physical attacks of units that were destroyed by a Charge or DFA before they had a chance to attack themselves), which I already expressed above and which should in my opinion be addressed in general rules for Physical Attacks and Displacement before we deal with how they interact with skids, I can see no more problems with the BMM draft. I wonder, however, about that new rule that says to resolve that last hex of skid damage after a successful unintentional charge. What prompted the change? Details of these long example texts on pp. 64-66 TW and 68-70 BMM?

By the way, should I make a separate thread for these problems with unit destruction during a Charge or DFA?



TW is a different matter. Generally I think that moving Infantry and ProtoMechs sections from p. 64 crates more problems than it solves:
1. "Other Units" in the last sentence of Buildings section would need to be changed to "Other Units, Infantry, and ProtoMechs",
2. "[...]does not use its movement for the turn, and is not required to make any kind of roll." in Infantry section is confusing, because it appears before the general rules for avoiding collisions and would thus require yet another reference,
3. "[...]charge damage dealt to them is as normal[...]" in ProtoMechs section may be confusing because not only the "normal" way of resolving collision damage with Other Units is not yet explained, there are plenty of other methods of resolving collision damage with various obstacles in the skidding rules, and it is not immediately clear if the reference to Other Units applies to both damage and halting a skid, or only to the latter.
4. Both Infantry and ProtoMechs sections fail to avoid making references to Other Units section. That makes three explicit references to that section in four sections directly preceding it - both waste of space and unnecessary hurdle for the reader to deal with in my opinion.

I think it would be better to change the beginning of Other Units section to something like:

"If the unit in a hex in the path of a skid is an Infantry or a ProtoMech unit that has not yet moved, they may dodge a skidding unit automatically without interrupting the skid (see ProtoMechs and Infantry, p. 64). Otherwise the skidding unit stops in the hex immediately prior to it,[...]" and from that point the rest of the section remains unchanged except "[...]use the ’Mech Hit Location Table." would be changed to "[...]use the ’Mech Hit Location Table. Infantry units take damage equal to the skidding unit’s tonnage divided by 5 instead of standard Charge damage." and "After the crash is resolved, the skid continues if the target unit was destroyed." would be changed to "After the crash is resolved, the skid continues if the target unit was an Infantry unit or was destroyed."

and to move the Infantry and ProtoMechs-specific rules on dodging attacks back to p. 64, changing their text to something like:

"Infantry and ProtoMechs: Infantry and ProtoMech units that have not yet moved can automatically dodge a skidding unit without interrupting the skid; they stay in the same hex without using their movement for the turn or making any roll. If remaining in the hex would violate the stacking rules or the Infantry or ProtoMech unit has already moved this turn, however, then it cannot dodge, and the skidding unit may strike it as described under Other Units on p. 63."

Aside from hopefully solving the problems mentioned above, I think that it makes sense to keep specifics of Infantry and ProtoMechs rules regarding avoiding collisions right below Avoiding a Collision section, and Infantry-specific rules not dealing with avoiding collision (the way damage taken by them is calculated, and the fact that colliding with them does not interrupt skids) in the Other Units section. Also note that the first part of the proposed Infantry and ProtoMechs section text is almost the same as the proposed first sentence of the Other Units section. Perhaps there is a way to shorten one of these sentences in a way that doesn't make it too difficult to understand?

If you disagree with moving the rules on automatic collision avoidance by Infantry and ProtoMechs back to p. 64, then perhaps another way to at least partially deal with the issues I brought up (in particular 3. and to some extent 4.) would be to put Infantry and ProtoMechs as described above right above Other Unit section (and change "[...]under Other Units on p. 63" at the end of it to "[...]under Other Units, below", or just "[...]below"), and change the beginning of Other Units section to "If the unit in a hex in the path of a skid is not a DropShip or an Infantry or ProtoMech unit that automatically dodged a skidding unit, the skidding unit stops in the hex immediately prior to it,[...]" and keeping the rest of the Other Units section as described above - with Infantry-specific rules not related to automatic dodging scattered throughout it.

I think you could also consider stating explicitly in the Infantry and ProtoMechs section if a unit that can't avoid a collision automatically due to stacking limits violation, can still do it using the general rules in the Avoiding a Collision section. I assume that they can't, since neither ProtoMechs nor Infantry have Piloting skills, and thus can't make PSRs? If this is not the case, then "the Infantry or ProtoMech unit has already moved this turn, however, then it cannot dodge" in proposed Infantry or ProtoMech section text above should be changed to "the Infantry or ProtoMech unit has already moved this turn, however, then it cannot automatically dodge", and the rules should say what to do instead of the PSR required by general rules regarding avoiding collisions.

By the way, I'm unsure if it would be a good idea to delete Large Support Vehicles paragraph on p. 64, and just change "If the charge hits, the target may still be able to dodge[...]" in the Other Units section to "If the charge hits, and the target is not a Large Support Vehicle, it may still be able to dodge[...]" as well as "A unit that has not yet moved during the current Movement Phase can attempt to dodge a skidding unit[...]" at the beginning of Avoiding a Collision section to "Any unit other than a Large Support Vehicle or a DropShip that has not yet moved during the current Movement Phase can attempt to dodge a skidding unit[...]". I think that both leaving and deleting the section has various pros and cons, though I guess that at this point the preferred solution could be simply the one that takes up less space in the book.

Finally, a question that I posted earlier today in the new thread about sideslips, but which you may want to address in the Other Units section, especially if the answer isn't as straightforward as I suggest in the question:

Quote
How do the rules on Attacks Against Conventional Infantry (pp. 215-216) interact with unintentional charges against infantry? Do you take "the skidding unit’s tonnage divided by 5" (p. 64), then divide it by 10, rounding up (Non-Infantry Weapon Damage Against Infantry Table, p. 216), and double it again in case of mechanized infantry to determine the number of troopers eliminated (p. 215)?

As for the example text at the end of the TW draft, I don't see any problems with it.
« Last Edit: 15 August 2023, 01:01:41 by Alfaryn »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #38 on: 15 August 2023, 01:18:07 »
I wonder, however, about that new rule that says to resolve that last hex of skid damage after a successful unintentional charge. What prompted the change? Details of these long example texts on pp. 64-66 TW and 68-70 BMM?

Exactly: the examples are quite clear on that point, and I only want to outright change existing rules (as opposed to plugging gaps) if it becomes necessary to fix something unworkable, like the displacement timing issue you pointed out earlier.

Quote
By the way, should I make a separate thread for these problems with unit destruction during a Charge or DFA?

No, thank you.



Quote
TW is a different matter. Generally I think that moving Infantry and ProtoMechs sections from p. 64 crates more problems than it solves:

Upon further review I agree, and have remodelled the section largely according to your suggestions.

Quote
Finally, a question that I posted earlier today in the new thread about sideslips, but which you may want to address in the Other Units section, especially if the answer isn't as straightforward as I suggest in the question:

You'd follow the rules as you intuited.  I think that's clear enough via the text as-is that I don't want to add more text to deal with it.

Once again, thanks for the review.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #39 on: 15 August 2023, 01:36:30 »
I don't have time to review the updated drafts right now, I will do it later. However I've just realized that there is another rules interaction that the skidding rules need to address - unintentionally charging units within buildings, which could interact with either Infantry Inside Buildings rules on p. 172, or Combat Within Buildings on p. 175.



Edit: I've read the newest TW draft. Here are the issues I've spotted:

1. Accidental Falls From Above paragraph - considering that it was moved out of the collisions subsection, it probably more than ever needs a clarification that initial fall and skidding damage should be resolved before the accidental fall from above is. Maybe something like "[...] but resolves any prior fall and skid damage first, and then experiences an accidental fall from above (see p. 152)." at the end of the first sentence would be sufficient?

2. The last paragraph of Buildings subsection (or possibly the beginning of Other Units subsection) should probably remind the players that if a skidding unit would enter a building hex, it doesn't unintentionally charge any infantry units in that hex as described in Other Units section, but instead automatically deals damage to the infantry units based on the charge damage dealt to building itself (per Infantry Inside Buildings p. 172).

Note that while technically the Infantry Inside Buildings would apply only to attacks from outside of the building, but it is impossible to skid more than one hex inside a building, without causing prior hexes to collapse and a skid can't start inside a building (at least under TW rules), so if a Rubble hex left by a collapsing building hex is considered "outside" (and I think it should), there is no need to make this distinction in the draft.

3. Considering that Large Support Vehicles rise 2 levels above the ground (see Levels and Height, p. 99), shouldn't charge damage dealt Large Support Vehicles to 'Mechs be applied using regular ’Mech Hit Location Table even if the 'Mech is standing? If so, it would affect both Other Units subsection in the draft and the Vehicles paragraph of the Damage subsection on p. 148.

4. "[...]the skidding unit takes an additional hex of skidding damage." in the last paragraph of Other Units subsection should probably be edited to let the player know that the damage only happens if the skidding unit actually enter the target's hex, which may not happen if prohibited terrain prevents post-charge displacements. Probably saying something like "[...]the skidding unit then takes skidding damage for entering the target's hex." would be sufficient.

5. Prohibited Terrain paragraph should probably be edited so that there is no doubt whether a unit that would skid through a hex with prohibited terrain stops there or skids through it, but becomes immobile, or becomes immobile only if the skid "naturally" ends in a Prohibited terrain.



As for BMM, I've skimmed through it, and noticed only one small change in the draft compared to the previous version (simplifying damage direction determination in the general Collision rules), which works fine in BMM as far as I can tell, so unless I've missed any other changes, the draft should be fine.



Edit 2: Regarding the changes in TW draft that appeared after my previous edit to this post:
- I assume, that the change I suggested in point 3. above won't be implemented?
- Re. point 1. telling the player to resolve initial fall, skidding damage and accidental fall from above together (as is in the current draft) is problematic, because the skidding rules say to determine the direction of incoming damage based on the direction of the initial fall, while the rules for Accidental Falls from Above on p. 152 say that the falling unit takes "standard damage from falling" if it misses all units in the hex it accidentally fell into (which seems to suggest that the fall and damage direction would be randomized independently from the initial fall direction), and, perhaps more importantly, that if the falling 'Mech does hit a target in the hex it fell into, it takes standard falling damage to its back. In other words if damage from initial fall, skidding damage and accidental fall from above, the rules conflict about which direction it is coming from, and as long as the conflict is there, these kinds of damage can't be resolved together.



As a side note it is not entirely clear how to resolve falling damage to a unit other than a 'Mech if accidentally falls from above, hits a unit in a hex it fell to. Should apply the falling damage as if it came from its rear, or randomize it with fall direction as normal? In fact Vehicles seem to lack any rules about determining fall damage direction and facing after fall other than the case of VTOL rotor destruction (which destroys the vehicle) and falls into basements (which say that the facing after fall remains unchanged, and in case of Vehicles damage direction is either front or rear depending on the direction of Vehicle movement before it entered the building hex - completely ignoring the fact that the vehicle may fall into a basement as a result of a "sideways" skid or sideslip, or due to another unit entering the building hex).

In other words we probably need a clarification for post-fall direction and damage resolution for non-'Mech units not only in Accidental Falls from Above section, but also in Basements section on p. 179, because the current rules don't seem cover all possible circumstances of ProtoMech and Vehicles falling into basements. Perhaps the best way would be to just have the Vehicles roll in Facing After Fall Table (p. 68) to determine damage direction if they accidentally fall fall into a basement as a result of action other than their own movement (except a skid in which I would determine the direction as in case of a collision - based on the direction of a skid)? In case of Vehicles accidentally falling from above during a skid or sideslip (p. 67-68) I wouldn't use the table to determine incoming fall damage direction at all, and instead determined it as if the Vehicle crashed into the hex it fall into (at least if the Vehicle did not hit any other unit while falling - the rules in Falling Unit Hits Target subsection on p. 152 should clarify if "Determine damage to the falling ’Mech as normal for a fall, with the ’Mech landing on its back" sentence in that subsection should be extended to falling Vehicles, or only applies to 'Mechs - I know the sentence says "'Mechs", but many rules in this chapter that refer to 'Mehcs in their text apply to other units after all, and in this case it is not obvious if the rule in question does).

As for the direction after a fall (both in case of accidental falls from above and falls into basements) I would determine facing of 'Mehcs and ProteMechs as normal (this would be a change for ProtoMechs falling into basements by the way), but in case of Vehicles I would leave it unchanged (i. e. same as before the fall) - falling vehicles tend to keep their direction after all but the longest falls from cliffs, etc. (that is - their front keeps pointing in more or less the same direction even after they roll on their roofs - a possibility that BT rules don't cover anyway). This is something that the rules regarding falls of Vehicles to basements already say to do anyway - I would just make it work this way for accidental falls from above. Of course if you think that in any of these cases the facing of vehicles needs to be randomized, then it should also be reflected in fall damage direction rules I suggested in the paragraph above. And if you decide to leave the ProtoMech facing after fall into basement rules unchanged, then I would suggest to implement the same rule regarding ProtoMech facing after falls from above.
« Last Edit: 20 August 2023, 09:28:20 by Alfaryn »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11644
  • Professor of Errata
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #40 on: 20 August 2023, 18:08:59 »

Edit 2: Regarding the changes in TW draft that appeared after my previous edit to this post:
- I assume, that the change I suggested in point 3. above won't be implemented?

No.  Not adding more exceptions and text here.

Quote
- Re. point 1. telling the player to resolve initial fall, skidding damage and accidental fall from above together (as is in the current draft) is problematic

Yeah, another case of the examples being crystal clear on how things are supposed to end up, but the supporting rules not detailing how to get there.  I've made adjustments to resolve this as a generic fall or as a collision scenario, as appropriate.

Quote
As a side note it is not entirely clear how to resolve falling damage to a unit other than a 'Mech if accidentally falls from above, hits a unit in a hex it fell to. Should apply the falling damage as if it came from its rear, or randomize it with fall direction as normal?

For the most part, just replace "Mech" with "unit" in that section (which is strange as TW is normally quite careful at making things suitably generic).

Quote
In other words we probably need a clarification for post-fall direction and damage resolution for non-'Mech units not only in Accidental Falls from Above section, but also in Basements section on p. 179,

I'm not going to deal with basements at this time.  It's just too much further work.

The draft size on TW has been expanded to cover even more of the skidding section, but for the most part there's few rules changes in the earliest stuff: it's mostly just cuts to allow other stuff later to fit, as the section is bursting at the seams.
« Last Edit: 20 August 2023, 19:27:20 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #41 on: 20 August 2023, 18:52:57 »
Once again, I don't have time to do a full review right now. I should be able to get around to it tomorrow. However even skimming a beginning of the TW draft revealed a few issues:
- Water paragraph mentions sideslipping before it is established in Ground Vehicles (Except Hover Vehicle) subsection what sideslipping is, and how it differs from skidding. You may consider putting a reference to either Ground Vehicles (Except Hover Vehicle) subsection or Sideslipping section in the Water paragraph.
- Shouldn't Ground Vehicles (Except Hover Vehicle) subsection be named Ground Vehicles (Except Hover Vehicles)?
- Skidding in Combat subsection says that "A skidding ground unit applies a +1 to-hit modifier to all weapon and physical attacks during the turn it skids." Examples on pp. 64-66 make it clear that this modifier doesn't apply to to-hit rolls for unintentional charges made by the skidding unit, but I think the rules should also mention it.


Xotl: Updated.



Issues with current TW draft spotted during a full read-through:

1. Terrain subsection - you can delete "(unless the hex is prohibited terrain; see p. 63).", since the last paragraph of that subsection includes this information.

2. Water paragraph - "If a hover vehicle suffered critical damage during a sideslipping". Considering that I'm not an English native speaker, I feel silly asking this question to someone who is, and probably read this fragment a couple times while working on this draft, but shouldn't it be "If a hover vehicle suffered critical damage during a sideslip"?

3. Skidding in Combat subsection - "A skidding ground unit applies a +1 to-hit modifier to its weapon and physical attacks during the turn it skids (except unintentional charges)." I'm not sure if that modifier should apply to accidental falls from above, but considering that it is supposed to represent pilot's imperfect control over a skidding unit, and all accidental falls from above (regardless of whether they happened as a result of skid or not) are obviously a situation in which the pilot has pretty much no control over his unit's movement, I suspect the mod shouldn't apply. If so, change the sentence to "A skidding ground unit applies a +1 to-hit modifier to its weapon and physical attacks during the turn it skids (except unintentional ones)."

4. Attack Modifiers Table pp. 117, 307, Skidding line - consider adding a note that the mod does not apply to unintentional charges or attacks as appropriate (see previous point).

5. Physical Modifiers Table pp. 144, 308, Asterisk (*) footnote - Is it possible to squeeze in an information that this mod does not apply to unintentional charges? I assume not, since it did not make it there when you resolved the same problem in BMM, but I thought I would ask in case you simply forgot to do it in TW.

6. Avoiding a Collision subsection - "Once the skidding unit’s movement is completely resolved, immediately adjust for the number of units shifted per side (see Unequal Numbers of Units, p. 39)." You can probably delete this sentence. It has no counterpart in BMM, and if you decided to keep it, you would probably also need to add similar ones to rules that describe a situation where a unit which has not moved is destroyed by an unintentional charge, accidental fall from above, a fall due to domino effect etc. I see no reason to adjust the number of moves earlier than just prior to a pair of movement or attack declarations the rules on p. 39 talk about anyway.

As for the BMM draft, I see no problems with it, though I suspect that points 1. - 4. may apply to BMM as well - just outside of the text covered by the draft.



Final edit (hopefully): Looks like there are no more issues with the drafts that I can see right now.

I may give them one last read-through in a few weeks or months once I get some distance from what we've done here, and a fresh perspective that will hopefully come with it. I'll also try to remember to check if all corrections outside of the scope of the drafts that came up in this thread make it into the next official errata document. Other than that I'm done with this thread.

Once again thank you Xotl for all your patience and work here, and sorry for all my mistakes and other failings here - from my general problems with writing correctly (not to mention concisely) in English, to occasional inability to read the rules, including that thing in point 3. of this post. It was only today that I realized that since to-hit rolls for accidental falls from above are modified only by target movement and terrain, the change I suggested in that point wasn't needed.


Xotl: Turns out reprints are coming up as of now, so I'll have to close this out for good.  Thanks again: this was very timely!
« Last Edit: 28 August 2023, 20:52:01 by Xotl »

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: (Answered UPDATED) Resolving collisions during a skid
« Reply #42 on: 01 September 2023, 15:15:52 »
Sorry for double posting, but considering the reprints are coming, I wanted to make sure Xotl sees this before submitting the final text for the upcoming TW and BMM printings if possible.

Currently it is unclear if the hexes a unit skidded, sideslipped and or was displaced during a turn should be counted towards it's target movement modifier. It could be clarified in Skidding in Combat subsection (p. 62 TW) and Combat Effects paragraph (p. 68 BMM), but considering that the problem involves not only skids and sideslips, but also displacements for other reasons, I think it would be better to do it in Target Movement and Target Movement Modifier subsections (pp. 107 TW and 25 BMM respectively).

Edit: Turns out that TW rules already say that hexes sideslipped count towards TMM (at the end of the fourth paragraph on p. 67). I still can's see any such rule for skids, displacements etc. though...
« Last Edit: 02 September 2023, 11:02:00 by Alfaryn »