100% Genuine Fake Rules

[mike19k]

Actually, it does not.

With the old rules, AMS would destroy about 12 (24 for Clan AMS) missiles, then become useless for lack of ammo, unless you gave it more than one ton of ammo. IIRC it would also waste itself against missed missile salvoes. Basically it was good for three or four rounds per ton of ammo.

With the new rules, sure, the number of missiles destroyed each time it activates goes down, unless you have IS AMS and it intercepts salvoes of 20 or more missiles, in which case  the number can go up considerably, up to (IIRC) 16 out of 40. But since its ammunition lasts so much longer than previously, over the course of any battle that lasts more than about four rounds, the total number of missiles destroyed will be considerably higher than under the old rules.

If I had to choose between old rules and new rules, I´d prefer the new rules. Though if I could pick and choose, the old rules´ effects and new rules´ ammo useage would be an even better combination.

I agree that the old effect and new ammo would have been the way to go. How it is now you get a -4, unless they also have Artemis IV FCS then it is only an -2 and the AMS only works against missiles. From what I have seen (not at all scientific I know) Artemis IV FCS is much more common than AMS. If you replaced the AMS with ECM then you end up with the same effective -2 and it works on more than just the missiles. I guess this is why I think that the new rules are so stupid. Also the fact that you can no longer shoot down all the missiles in a salvo. If it had been up to me I would have done it like you said but with the extra that it can shoot at every salvo fired at the unit during the turn.

[Kit deSummersville]

If you replaced the AMS with ECM then you end up with the same effective -2 and it works on more than just the missiles. I guess this is why I think that the new rules are so stupid.

Clearly you didn't read the first page. ECM doesn't affect Artemis.

There are additional rules in TacOps that allow you to shoot down an entire salvo.

[NeonKnight]

Clearly you didn't read the first page. ECM doesn't affect Artemis.

Huh? Page 134 of TW says otherwise ;)

Artemis IV FCS: ECM blocks the effects of Artemis IV fire control systems. Artemis-equipped launchers may be fired as normal missiles through the ECM, but they lose the Cluster Hits Table bonus.

[Kit deSummersville]

Huh? Page 134 of TW says otherwise ;)

Artemis IV FCS: ECM blocks the effects of Artemis IV fire control systems. Artemis-equipped launchers may be fired as normal missiles through the ECM, but they lose the Cluster Hits Table bonus.

Clearly my cold medication is blocking the effect of my brain.

[NeonKnight]

Clearly my cold medication is blocking the effect of my brain.

Or...it's a 100% Genuine Fake Rule! :D

[Kit deSummersville]

The AMS does have other uses, though. While Artemis IV is popular, you aren't assured of running into it, ECM can be countered, ECM doesn't help against Thunderbolt missiles while I believe AMS has about a 50/50 chance of killing those. There might have been an optional rule for using them as a limited machine gun somewhere.

[Scotty]

If you replaced the AMS with ECM then you end up with the same effective -2 and it works on more than just the missiles.

That's not how this math works.  Artemis (+2) and AMS (-4) overlap for a cumulative -2.  Artemis (+2) negated by ECM (-2) results in a net 0, not a net negative for missiles.  You will be hit by more missiles with an ECM than with an AMS unless your opponent rolled poorly in the first place, or they rolled a 12 on an SRM-2.

Additionally, TL level ECM doesn't affect Streaks, but AMS will reduce every single Streak launcher by a minimum of 1 missile (1 on the -2, 1 on the -4, 2 on the -6).

[glitterboy2098]

Sounds like AMS plus ECM would be the best counter to Artemis. Negate that bonus, then shoot down a ton of missiles

[Empyrus]

Uh, ECM basically negates Artemis IV/V bonus completely. Then the missiles act as normal missiles. ECM alone is counter to Artemis.
AMS vs any missiles is a nice thing to have in the long run, especially as it reduces head hits and TACs (damage negated is rather light after all).

[NeonKnight]

AMS vs any missiles is a nice thing to have in the long run, especially as it reduces head hits and TACs (damage negated is rather light after all).

How so? AMS does nothing to change where a missile hits/rolls for hit location.

[Empyrus]

How so? AMS does nothing to change where a missile hits/rolls for hit location.

Fewer missiles, fewer chances for head hits or TACs. Though perhaps i should note this affects SRMs more than LRMs.

[Kidd]

The AMS does have other uses, though. While Artemis IV is popular, you aren't assured of running into it, ECM can be countered, ECM doesn't help against Thunderbolt missiles while I believe AMS has about a 50/50 chance of killing those. There might have been an optional rule for using them as a limited machine gun somewhere.

Inspired by real world CIWS no doubt O0 the 50/50 chance against Thunderbolts is also applicable to Narc I think, as a single shot missile weapon?

[Empyrus]

Possible fake rule...

"Apollo FCS can be turned off (ie the -1 cluster penalty is replaced by +1 to hit penalty as usual)".

I swear i've seen people mention this, but i'm pretty sure that isn't actually possible, at least under TW/TO rules if the item predates TW.

[Xotl]

I'm not sure if you can shut off Apollo at the moment, but you will be, as the BattleMech Manual will have a blanket rule regarding activating and deactivating electronics that will be ported back to TW via errata.

[Empyrus]

Does that include Artemis IV (such option being presumably all or nothing, like Apollo)? Not sure why anyone would want to do that but just wondering.

[Xotl]

Yeah, it does.  And agreed, not sure why anyone would want to, but it's a blanket ruling so it's going to drag in some things that no one will care about.

[Sartris]

a few advanced rules in TacOps but aren't standard, a la floating crits

* Mechs can walk backwards down hill with a PSR
* Mechs can prop and fire with one arm destroyed
* Units can pass through hexes with immobilized enemy units
* Mechs can flip arms and torso twist

[glitterboy2098]

for the longest time, i thought that you had a PSR penalty for every 20 damage you took, so that taking 40 or 60 damage is 2 and 3 times worse penalty than taking 20.

of course by the rules it is a flat penalty above 20 damage.

i'd been playing with groups that used that houserule/advanced rule, and hadn't realized. after my brothers and i figured out that we'd been running the official rule wrong, we did keep using it though.. since it did make for more interesting battles. we just knew to check with the person runnign the games in the future to find out whether they were going to use the official version or not.

[Xotl]

a few advanced rules in TacOps but aren't standard, a la floating crits

Some of those I've encountered (the arm prop one, mostly).

for the longest time, i thought that you had a PSR penalty for every 20 damage you took, so that taking 40 or 60 damage is 2 and 3 times worse penalty than taking 20.

of course by the rules it is a flat penalty above 20 damage.

i'd been playing with groups that used that houserule/advanced rule, and hadn't realized. after my brothers and i figured out that we'd been running the official rule wrong, we did keep using it though.. since it did make for more interesting battles. we just knew to check with the person runnign the games in the future to find out whether they were going to use the official version or not.

Yeah, that one is really common, now that I think about it.

All of them are listed in the upcoming Manual as optional rules, so there'll be no mistaking them for standard stuff if you have that book. :)

[Mattlov]

for the longest time, i thought that you had a PSR penalty for every 20 damage you took, so that taking 40 or 60 damage is 2 and 3 times worse penalty than taking 20.

of course by the rules it is a flat penalty above 20 damage.

i'd been playing with groups that used that houserule/advanced rule, and hadn't realized. after my brothers and i figured out that we'd been running the official rule wrong, we did keep using it though.. since it did make for more interesting battles. we just knew to check with the person runnign the games in the future to find out whether they were going to use the official version or not.

I've house ruled that FOREVER.  More damage should matter.  Unless I run a game that is meant for beginners or strict tournament rules I used that rule.  I think it is in Tac Ops.

[Colt Ward]

I like and use it too in MM because it stops the assault bum-rush . . . sure the assault can survive 40 or 60 damage spread across the armor but a player would not risk that if getting that +2 or +3 for the PSR which increases the odds of them falling over.

Heck I have seen assaults survive the 80+ damage, it was spread out enough it did not do much.  Then that 90 tonner fell over to tear itself up . . . or at least get easier to hit as it got up.

[Sartris]

I've house ruled that FOREVER.  More damage should matter.  Unless I run a game that is meant for beginners or strict tournament rules I used that rule.  I think it is in Tac Ops.

it is indeed in tacops. we don't use it because counting is hard.

[Caedis Animus]

That particular rule is why I love Hull-Down rules.

[SCC]

I had a discussion with Xotl several years ago and was never too happy with the answer (Might have to raise the question again, some of errata seems to have gone walkabouts):
Anti-Radiation Missiles get Narc bonuses

[c_gee]

I've house ruled that FOREVER.  More damage should matter.  Unless I run a game that is meant for beginners or strict tournament rules I used that rule.  I think it is in Tac Ops.

There is a "stacking 20's" rule in TacOps that adds +1 to the PSR for every 20 points the unit takes, BUT, the other half of the rule that is often forgotten about/overlooked is that the PSR is also modified by the weight class of the unit making the PSR.

L = +1,
M = 0,
H = -1, and
A = -2)

So, if you're using the stacking 20's rule and your Atlas takes 40+ points of damage in a turn, he's going to make a PSR with a +2 penalty (for the stacking 20's) and a -2 bonus (for being an assault mech).

At the end of the day, IMO, the use of the full stacking 20's rule unfairly reduces the value of a light mech without actually reflecting it in BV2.

[Caedis Animus]

Just saying, if your lights are taking 20+ points of damage in a turn, something's wrong, unless it's the last thing you have.

Or it's a very sad Urbie.

[Colt Ward]

I think MM splits that . . . and I like that it is for the previously mentioned reason.

[Kharim]

C_gee the loss of value You are talking about is offsetted by another TacOps rule that grants -2 to hit for physical attacks for light mechs.

[Mattlov]

I like and use it too in MM because it stops the assault bum-rush . . . sure the assault can survive 40 or 60 damage spread across the armor but a player would not risk that if getting that +2 or +3 for the PSR which increases the odds of them falling over.

Heck I have seen assaults survive the 80+ damage, it was spread out enough it did not do much.  Then that 90 tonner fell over to tear itself up . . . or at least get easier to hit as it got up.

Best I saw was an Atlas get lit up by a light Ghost Bear BINARY, take 163 points of damage, roll a 12 for his piloting check and the player used an Edge to make it the 13 he required.

The Ghost Bears left.  They decided they weren't gonna screw around with that guy and the rest of his company.   :D

[c_gee]

C_gee the loss of value You are talking about is offsetted by another TacOps rule that grants -2 to hit for physical attacks for light mechs.

I'm not 100% familiar with the rule you're talking about, but the only way such a rule would offset the stacking 20's rule is if you choose to use that rule. That's the thing about TacOps rules. They're all optional.

That being said, the two parts of the stacking 20's rules aren't meant to be independently optional. If you choose to use Stacking 20's, then you're meant to use both parts of it.

Any other rule you also choose to use is irrelevant to whether or not Stacking 20's unbalances the true value of light mechs.