No to-hit Rolls for missiles?

[Mostro Joe]

It Always bugged me the idea that you have to roll to hit with missiles salvos. Because you can miss the target or you can hit with SOME of your missiles (and sometimes It means with very few of them).

What about instead a cluster table where you can directly make a roll and that (including some modificators) could include the zero result? It would fasten a lot the game! And It could be used for Infantry attacks too!

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=69907.msg1623467#msg1623467

Perhaps, something like this? Feel free to make your own, though.

[Mostro Joe]

Very near. About the problem that with your solution Is difficult to obtain a "full salvo hit": my idea Is different. You are going to alter the dice roll using the cluster hit tablet as it Is now.

I'm thinking to change the cluster hit table itself.

Someone said in past that the same weird thing (miss or hit "with something") Is a problem even with the infantry rules.

Anyway It seems that many players thought as to how transform multiple dice Rolls in Just One dice roll.

[Mostro Joe]

Anorher solution Is to roll to hit and use the MoS or the MoF to adjudicate the missiles that hit.

[Daemion]

That's been the typical solution. 

[Mostro Joe]

That's been the typical solution.

Elaborate on that 

[DevianID]

In the base rulebook, using glance and direct blows.

If you roll the exact number needed, it is called a glancing blow.  The missiles recieve a -4 on the cluster chart.  If you roll 3 higher, for every 3 higher it is a direct blow, and you recieve a +2 to your cluster roll.

So say you need a 6 to hit, with 4 SRM4s.  You roll a 5, 6, 9, and 12.  The 5 is a miss, it does 0 damage.  The 6 is a glance, it rolls a -4 on the cluster table.  The 9 is a direct, it gets +2 on the cluster table.  The 12 is a double direct, it gets +4 on the cluster table.

Thus, better hit margin of success = more missiles in the cluster hitting.

[Charistoph]

Going on that, what would be the baseline for that if we were skipping Cluster Rolls?

For the SRM-2, Ultras, and low-firing RACs (2-3), that's going to be hard to manage (mostly).  There is no "better" for them, really.  Though, I guess the Glancing and Direct Hits fit that mold quite simply.  Nasty for an Ultra AC/20 hitting a Narrow/Low Profile model, though (not that it isn't nasty now).

Of course, the heavy LRM racks and HAGs can get pretty funky, too.  The 20 has 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 as its marker  (12 and 16 doing Aero representation).  In most cases, they're not going to get that MoS of +4 for a full Cluster Hit.

Then there's Artemis and NARC representation, too.  The HAG also has a similar bonus/deficit at the Short/Long Ranges as well.  How does this affect this dichotomy without a Cluster Roll?

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

A possible way to do is just sum all the numbers of missiles toward the same unit, unit by unit, after then roll for a cluster hit once to determine which one hits. It still does have the separated rolls, though. It is better to have the priority of missiles to survive too. Perhaps SRM would be downed first if the target have AMS?

It is also good to compare the chance to hit and damage and using MoS and MoF with this, but as said above it doesn't always works well with the different numbers in tube. Also this makes very different result with the assumed average damage of cluster hit than now.

[Mostro Joe]

In the base rulebook, using glance and direct blows.

If you roll the exact number needed, it is called a glancing blow.  The missiles recieve a -4 on the cluster chart.  If you roll 3 higher, for every 3 higher it is a direct blow, and you recieve a +2 to your cluster roll.

So say you need a 6 to hit, with 4 SRM4s.  You roll a 5, 6, 9, and 12.  The 5 is a miss, it does 0 damage.  The 6 is a glance, it rolls a -4 on the cluster table.  The 9 is a direct, it gets +2 on the cluster table.  The 12 is a double direct, it gets +4 on the cluster table.

Thus, better hit margin of success = more missiles in the cluster hitting.

It's a cute idea, but it retains the double roll (to-hit and "cluster hit"). I think it's better for the game to device a single roll to adjudivate everything. It will considerably speed-up the game.

[Gorgon]

Going on that, what would be the baseline for that if we were skipping Cluster Rolls?

For the SRM-2, Ultras, and low-firing RACs (2-3), that's going to be hard to manage (mostly).  There is no "better" for them, really.  Though, I guess the Glancing and Direct Hits fit that mold quite simply.  Nasty for an Ultra AC/20 hitting a Narrow/Low Profile model, though (not that it isn't nasty now).

Of course, the heavy LRM racks and HAGs can get pretty funky, too.  The 20 has 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 as its marker  (12 and 16 doing Aero representation).  In most cases, they're not going to get that MoS of +4 for a full Cluster Hit.

Then there's Artemis and NARC representation, too.  The HAG also has a similar bonus/deficit at the Short/Long Ranges as well.  How do this affect this dichotomy without a Cluster Roll?

If I were to mess around with dropping the to-hit roles for missiles, I would limit that to SRM, LRM, ATM and any other guided missile. HAGs, MRM, RLs, RAC / Ultra-ACs all lack the built-in guidance package for their munitions, so they should have to make a to-hit role as usual. They are aimed like all direct fire weapons and should be treated like that, imo.

[Charistoph]

If I were to mess around with dropping the to-hit roles for missiles, I would limit that to SRM, LRM, ATM and any other guided missile. HAGs, MRM, RLs, RAC / Ultra-ACs all lack the built-in guidance package for their munitions, so they should have to make a to-hit role as usual. They are aimed like all direct fire weapons and should be treated like that, imo.

I was speaking more of dropping the Cluster Rolls that DevianID was suggesting, where the MoS would determine the number of missiles that hit.  That's a different consideration than dropping To-Hit Rolls (which I am not in favor of).

And why leave out the rest when the goal is to minimize this process and leave them out?

MRMs and RLs already have a To-Hit deficit to represent their lack of guidance.  The ACs and Gauss don't have that guidance, either, so why wouldn't they have a To-Hit deficit, too?

[idea weenie]

3d6+2 minus the to-hit number minus any missile penalties (i.e. MRMs) = the row on the Cluster table.  If the net value is 1 or less, then you missed.

Average roll for 3d6 is 10.5, modified to 12.5.

So if your to-hit roll is a 10, then on average you would be getting the 2 or 3 row on the cluster table (12-10 = 2, 13-10 = 3).  When firing an LRM-20 you are pretty much wasting most of your salvo.  If you can close to medium range where the to-hit number is 8, then you are looking at the 4 or 5 row on the cluster table.  If you can get into short range, then you will be getting the 6 or 7 row on average.

Makes missiles much more dangerous at closer ranges, unless you get inside an LRM's minimum range.

[Mostro Joe]

If I don t Remember wrong there was a book with an advanced rule that pointed out the medium damage for missiles attacks.

[Daemion]

Honestly, the modifier to the cluster roll based off MoS is complicated beyond necessary.

I'm actually fond of making the cluster roll the to-hit roll, applying range and other modifiers as inverse modifiers to the final roll result.  The only exception to the complexity would be the difference in gunnery from standard of 4. 

[Sabelkatten]

3d6+2 minus the to-hit number minus any missile penalties (i.e. MRMs) = the row on the Cluster table.  If the net value is 1 or less, then you missed.

Average roll for 3d6 is 10.5, modified to 12.5.

So if your to-hit roll is a 10, then on average you would be getting the 2 or 3 row on the cluster table (12-10 = 2, 13-10 = 3).  When firing an LRM-20 you are pretty much wasting most of your salvo.  If you can close to medium range where the to-hit number is 8, then you are looking at the 4 or 5 row on the cluster table.  If you can get into short range, then you will be getting the 6 or 7 row on average.

Makes missiles much more dangerous at closer ranges, unless you get inside an LRM's minimum range.

I was looking at pretty much the same thing, thought I could never decide if it should just be 3d6 or 3d6+/-something. The averages gets complicated.

[Mostro Joe]

I think that anyway the game would earn a lot if the two-rolls system for missiles would be changed in favour of a one-roll system.

The missiles, expecially the LRMs, tend to "saturate" an area and this is the main concept that should be kept present.