More critical hits!

[Adrian Gideon]

Alpha Strike players: Thoughts?

1) if you roll a natural 12 on your to-hit roll, you roll once on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

2) Any hit of damage from one source of 3 or more grants a roll on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

3) Any hit from one source of 7 or more grants  a critical hit check (cumulative with the above for 2 checks)

4) 12 damage, another crit check. Etc. as above.

5) Critical hit table, swap 4 and 5, and 9 and 10.

[RoundTop]

Alpha Strike players: Thoughts?

1) if you roll a natural 12 on your to-hit roll, you roll once on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

2) Any hit of damage from one source of 3 or more grants a roll on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

3) Any hit from one source of 7 or more grants  a critical hit check (cumulative with the above for 2 checks)

4) 12 damage, another crit check. Etc. as above.

5) Critical hit table, swap 4 and 5, and 9 and 10.

I'd say no on #2, as that means that most Heavy and Assault mechs (not to mention light clan mechs) will get crit rolls. #3 is a maybe for me, as typically you need IS Assault or heavy+ clan to make that happen (and most of the time, 7 damage will go internal anyways).

I'm fine with a #1. #4, how many designs can deal 12 damage in a single hit? (and what mechs could take that without going internal anyways)

[NeonKnight]

No to number 1.

I have always felt the Alpha Strike rules needs to be as similar in basic mechanics to the TOTAL WARFARE rules. To allow a natural 12 to not only hit (if a modified to hit of 12 or worse 13+) but hit and allow for a critucal is too far removed.

The other ideas I  am more in favor of

[Azakael]

I'd be okay with a natural 12 being a critical check, only if the target number was less than a 12.
Otherwise, why not a margin of success? If the margin of success is say... somewhere between 3 or 5, then you check for critical?

[Scotty]

I think I'd be okay with something along the lines of a ground threshold that was half of the total armor of the unit.  So a single hit of greater than X/2 where X is maximum armor would generate a single critical hit even if the structure was not breached.

[Weirdo]

Note: 1 is exactly how Aeros do things at all scales in TW/SO. :)

I like 1 and 3. 2 is a bit much, and 4...if something takes 12 damage without anything going in, it deserves to do so unscathed.

5...making 'no crit'results less likely, huh? I'd be okay with that, but only by itself. Combining it with any of the above seems like too much for me.

I would advise a note saying this only applies to non-aeros. Aeros already have thresholding.

Does Alpha Strike really need more crits?

[nckestrel]

Crits currently are a fairly large section of rules. (A fairly noticeable chunk of the unit card as well.) But they often only happen right before (often a turn or less) the unit is destroyed anyway.
But that is a big part of the question, what is your opinion of the worth of the crit rules.

[Scotty]

Yes, I think it does.  That's one of the few complaints against AS I can sympathize with, where sometimes it feels like a unit doesn't degrade until it's destroyed.

I am not in favor of 1), and I'm not in favor of a flat-damage threshold.  I'd be largely okay with "Threshold = Size".

I am in favor of 5) with an additional change: reduce Fire Control Hit to +1 and reduce MP Hit to -2"/-half/immobile.  Crits can absolutely be more numerous if they're less outright crippling.

[Weirdo]

I'm not a fan of size or armor-based thresholds. Crits on 12 work for me, that's the equivalent of hitting your target and rolling a TAC.

The fewer changes, the better. Alpha Strike is already 99.9% perfect, as far as I'm concerned. Gimme a way to use WarShips on an actual tabletop or hex map as an option instead of the radar map, and you've hit 100.

[Scotty]

I'm not a fan of size or armor-based thresholds. Crits on 12 work for me, that's the equivalent of hitting your target and rolling a TAC.

The fewer changes, the better. Alpha Strike is already 99.9% perfect, as far as I'm concerned. Gimme a way to use WarShips on an actual tabletop or hex map as an option instead of the radar map, and you've hit 100.

I'm a fan of at least some kind of threshold because it makes ARM and CR more valuable (whereas right now they're really underwhelming), and because I've lost 'Mechs to ammo explosions that have taken exactly one front torso's armor value worth of damage +1.  Or an arm/leg to an AC/20 amputation while the rest of the 'Mech is nigh pristine.

It also makes the Mad Cat Mk IV's ARM plus a whopping three structure more likely to actually matter, which I am again in favor of.

[jshdncn]

I fully support increasing the number of crits, I miss those moments where a lucky early strike causes catastrophic damage. Even a single point of damage on a pristine assault has the chance to bring it down in TW, I want that in Alpha Strike. I do agree that some of the effects will need to be adjusted, of course that’s a good thing too; the half movement crit is brutal.

[NeonKnight]

Alpha Strike players: Thoughts?

1) if you roll a natural 12 on your to-hit roll, you roll once on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

Note: 1 is exactly how Aeros do things at all scales in TW/SO. :)

I like 1 and 3. 2 is a bit much, and 4...if something takes 12 damage without anything going in, it deserves to do so unscathed.

Again, the issue I have with this is it goes beyond merely getting criticals. Does this mean a 12 automatically hits? I actually searched the Alpha Strike Rules, and I could not find anything on on rolling Natural 12's or Natural 2s like Total Warfare (p. 106 Modified To-Hit numbers)

Without going to off-topic if we were to decide rolling a Natural 12 automatically succeeds, then it falls to reason, one must also include the rule of Rolling a Natural 2 is an auto-miss.

And at this point the Alpha Strike rules starts to become it's own set of rules mechanics which begins to vary too far from it's parent rule set.

That said, I have no Qualms if rolling a 12 then role a d6 and if it is a 5 or a 6 then a possible critical. Because i really dislike the I need to roll a 12 to hit, and it's such a long shot, that if I succeed, then YIPPEE I also get a crit!

[ColBosch]

And at this point the Alpha Strike rules starts to become it's own set of rules mechanics which begins to vary too far from it's parent rule set.

I would be okay with Alpha Strike wandering afield from BattleTech if it results in a superior game with much the same feel. To that end, instead of adding another ****** die roll, how about borrowing from other game systems, and have a natural-12 be an automatic critical hit if you needed 9 or better at least? That gives a chance to reward players who have maneuvered well, but doesn't actually penalize folks who are forced to take snap shots.

[abou]

What about a margin of success for a possible critical hit? I don't know what the number would be, but for example:

MoS of +5 gives the chance for a critical hit. So with a to-hit of 6, player roles an 11 or 12, and therefore gets to roll for a potential critical.

However, this may make veteran and elite pilots even more devastating.

Increasing the chances of critical hits would, in my opinion, return some of the feel from Total Warfare: a game where stray shots or a lucky clustering can penetrate to the internal structure of one location before stripping all the armor off.

[Weirdo]

Again, the issue I have with this is it goes beyond merely getting criticals. Does this mean a 12 automatically hits?

I don't see anything that says 12 would be auto-hit. Just that when you land a hit, if the roll was a natural 12, you'd roll once on the crit table. Nothing more, nothing less.

[NeonKnight]

I would be okay with Alpha Strike wandering afield from BattleTech if it results in a superior game with much the same feel. To that end, instead of adding another ****** die roll, how about borrowing from other game systems, and have a natural-12 be an automatic critical hit if you needed 9 or better at least? That gives a chance to reward players who have maneuvered well, but doesn't actually penalize folks who are forced to take snap shots.

I'd be OK with that. It's something I have hated so much from many past games (D&D I'm looking at you), where a Player has no hope of success but rolls the die and get the nat-20, or the Box-Cars or what have you, and not only is it a success, but it is a critical success.

[NeonKnight]

I don't see anything that says 12 would be auto-hit. Just that when you land a hit, if the roll was a natural 12, you'd roll once on the crit table. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, I get that, but it cheapens (in my mind, and hey, if the PTB decide that is the way to go, then so be it).

A Player who needs a 8+ to succeed will succeed more often, but likely not get a critical

A Player who needs a 12, while having a much slimmer margin of success, has a 100% chance of being guaranteed a chance for a critical if they succeed.

[Frabby]

Crits on natural 12 or margin of success does disproportionally favor long range combat (pot shots become much more dangerous), which in turn devaluates the maneuvering aspect. I think that would be bad.

So perhaps limit improved crit chances to point-blank/physical attacks?

[Weirdo]

No, I get that, but it cheapens (in my mind, and hey, if the PTB decide that is the way to go, then so be it).

A Player who needs a 8+ to succeed will succeed more often, but likely not get a critical

A Player who needs a 12, while having a much slimmer margin of success, has a 100% chance of being guaranteed a chance for a critical if they succeed.

You'll crit just as often because the odds of rolling a 12 don't change, it just means you'll be doing a lot less raw damage. The guy that needs 8s is much more likely to actually kill his target than the guy that needs 12s, and that's kinda the point of the game.

[nckestrel]

You'll crit just as often because the odds of rolling a 12 don't change, it just means you'll be doing a lot less raw damage. The guy that needs 8s is much more likely to actually kill his target than the guy that needs 12s, and that's kinda the point of the game.

Yes, but I'm fairly certain he's saying he doesn't want somebody shooting on 12s to crit just as often as somebody shooting on 5s.
I should not hit a bullseye from 1000 yards as often as I do from 10 yards.
Marksman gives a crit, but requires an MoS of 3. Sharpshooter also requires an MoS of 3.
The shock value of rolling box cars might be worth more than that though. Requiring an MoS might be more realistic and fair, but box cars may be more emotionally fulfilling to the player.

[Weirdo]

Yes, but I'm fairly certain he's saying he doesn't want somebody shooting on 12s to crit just as often as somebody shooting on 5s.

He won't. The guy shooting at 12s will score a crit once every blue moon, because that's how often he'll hit with anything at all. The guy shooting at 5s will score a LOT more crits, because in addition to his blue moon 12s, he'll chew through armor in no time and get his crits the normal way.

[nckestrel]

He won't. The guy shooting at 12s will score a crit once every blue moon, because that's how often he'll hit with anything at all. The guy shooting at 5s will score a LOT more crits, because in addition to his blue moon 12s, he'll chew through armor in no time and get his crits the normal way.

I assumed my "crits" to mean "crits from rolling 12s" from the context.  It didn't mean crits from hitting structure, or thresholding aerospace, or crits from SPAs.
It's the concept that a person at 10 yards hits a bullseye as often as one from 1000 yards.  Armoring the bullseye has nothing to do with how often I think a bullseye should be hit.

[NeonKnight]

Yes, nckestrel has the right of it.

It's the concept that if I need a 8+ to hit (because I'm standing 50 feet from the Target and aiming a Pistol), I can hit with a:

8 (the Target Board)
9 The Out Ring
10 The Inner Ring
11 The Centre Ring
12 The Bull's-eye

but if I need a 12 to Hit (Because I'm now 100 Feet from the same target and shooting from the hip), If I hit, I'm Always hitting the bulls-eye, and is frankly a concept in most games I dislike.

[abou]

What about borrowing from Pathfinder/D&D? It is one more die roll, but you roll again to confirm. No extra math involved.

Example: you need a 7 to-hit. You roll 12. Roll again: 7 or greater means the chance for a critical; 6 or less means just a normal hit.

So this balances everything out. You basically would have to roll a successful to-hit twice.

[ColBosch]

What about borrowing from Pathfinder/D&D? It is one more die roll, but you roll again to confirm. No extra math involved.

Example: you need a 7 to-hit. You roll 12. Roll again: 7 or greater means the chance for a critical; 6 or less means just a normal hit.

So this balances everything out. You basically would have to roll a successful to-hit twice.

Because I don't want MORE die rolls, which is why I suggested the "margin of success" limit earlier.

[abou]

Sorry, man, but at least this is alpha strike. It is a quick roll with no extra math. Otherwise, I don't know how to make this work without being over or underpowered.

[Weirdo]

Yes, nckestrel has the right of it.

It's the concept that if I need a 8+ to hit (because I'm standing 50 feet from the Target and aiming a Pistol), I can hit with a:

8 (the Target Board)
9 The Out Ring
10 The Inner Ring
11 The Centre Ring
12 The Bull's-eye

but if I need a 12 to Hit (Because I'm now 100 Feet from the same target and shooting from the hip), If I hit, I'm Always hitting the bulls-eye, and is frankly a concept in most games I dislike.

How are you always hitting the bullseye? Needing twelves means you're almost always missing entirely. I understand that the percentage of bullseyes per hit is going up, but the number of actual hits is going so far down that those bullseyes are negligible. The fact that every hit will be a bullseye is completely irrelevant, because by and large, you're not going to hit at all.

[Fear Factory]

My thoughts?  This is hilarious.

The old-timers (and I am one of them) in this game do not want to change Total Warfare (or BattleTech 1.0) in any way to streamline it, may it be speeding it up or just updating the outdated set.  However, when it comes to Alpha Strike, a well-made modern ruleset (I do enjoy), there is always a discussion about making the game feel more like Total Warfare.  This thread is the perfect example of it:  Alpha Strike lacks something, propose adding more critical hits to bring in the feel Total Warfare, regular Alpha Strike players oppose it because they can't ever go back to Total Warfare, old BattleTech players subconsciously envy faster play but still try and push the old rules.

So, how about we actually do something productive about Total Warfare?  How about for every new rule we want to add to Alpha Strike that is inspired from Total Warfare, we take something from Alpha Strike (like movement rules) and throw it into Total Warfare?  I think it's a fair compromise that will actually make the game better.

So, I'll stop dreaming, the only rule I can get behind is #1 because it would feel like a floating critical.   :(

[Fear Factory]

Also, maybe something like "hot dice" could be looked at.  For example, you roll your normal 2d6 to hit with a different color 1d6.  The result of the 1d6 could mean something depending on the type of target.  BattleMech could be 1 out of 6, Vehicle 2 out of 6, etc...

You could even make other results mean something, so 1 in 6 could be a critical hit, maybe another result is bonus damage or something based off of the unit type?

[wolfspider]

1) if you roll a natural 12 on your to-hit roll, you roll once on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).
 
We have been using this in my groups Alpha Strike games for about a year and half, and it does add favor to the game. In fact a few weeks ago I lost my pristine marauder to a natural 12 hit resulted in a head hit on the critical hit table. He was also the leader of my forces and it was the first turn of the game!  xp We also roll a set of dice for each point of damage which does not slow the game in any way. (of course most of our players also play 40k so rolling dice for us is part of the fun!)

[Major Headcase]

No comment

[SC_Dave]

Alpha Strike players: Thoughts?

1) if you roll a natural 12 on your to-hit roll, you roll once on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

5) Critical hit table, swap 4 and 5, and 9 and 10.

If a developer approached me and said, "We are definitely going to do one of these things for the commanders edition, which would you prefer?" My first choice would be 5, the second choice would be 1. In the case of 1 I would also prefer it to be firmly placed amongst the optional rules.

If one of the choices does not definitely have to happen I would say leave things the way they are.

One of the joys of Alpha Strike for me has been fielding combined arms forces. With faster play allowing the fielding of larger forces it feels less essential to focus upon mechs.

In the existing Alpha Strike mechanics vehicles already have 2 disadvantages against mechs: 1. Vehicles cannot use partial cover. 2. Vehicles must make checks for motive systems damage each time they are hit.

Adding a mechanism, such as option 1, would stack yet another means for vehicles to take critical damage. Or it could take away some of the feeling that mechs are inherently tougher than vehicles.

[Scotty]

Guys, Adrian didn't ask about Variable Damage suggestions.  Shall we keep it to crits?  :)

[Major Headcase]

No comment

[Weirdo]

The vacuum very much exists. If he later wants to talk about variable damage, you can bring your ideas up then. Crits only, please. C:-)

[ActionButler]

Gentlemen...

While the Mods try to encourage lively discussion whenever possible, we are not wild about individuals posting their assumptions and beliefs about what their fellow fans want out of the game.  When you post your opinions about the game, please leave your opinions about the members of the community out of it.

Yes, this is an official in-thread direction.

On topic... yes to an autocrit on a natural 12.  No to the autocrits on X amoun of damage.  Most units would already be in crit range after seven damage, throwing in a freebie seems unnecessary.  Three damage doesn't seem like enough to proc a crit.  Twelve probably kills most things outright.

Not sure about swapping the crit tables.

[JadedFalcon]

Not crazy about the idea, but if more crits are a necessity to making fun and compelling gameplay, I acknowledge that the Box-Cars roll is the most intuitive of the options presented.

Now the dumb idea: Overheating doesn't work at long range (without specials), why should expanded crit rolls work at long range by default?

[Valkerie]

Just my humble opinion here.  On the whole, I do like Alpha Strike as it is.  Were it to be tweaked in this vein, then:

1) if you roll a natural 12 on your to-hit roll, you roll once on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

Most of the games I've played, criticals don't factor in much because (as mentioned earlier), death wasn't long after.  This notion reminds me of the center torso critical hit on the TW to-hit-table.  And I like it because it does not involve anymore dice rolling.  I do like my die rolls, but when I need a strong fix, I'll go play classic. :thumbsup:

[Son of Kerenski]

None of the suggestions.

For me the big point of AS was you had to carve through armour before getting crits. None of that lucky BS in TW that takes a pristine mech out with one flukey hit.

As has been mentioned things die pretty quick once you go internal anyway.

But hey, you guys do whatever works for you in your games... because its your game.

[Stinger]

Question: In the rare circumstance of a to-hit number of 13, could I still roll the 12 and get the crit, even without armor damage? That'd be kinda interesting...

[Weirdo]

No. It still requires you to actually hit your target.

[NeonKnight]

No. It still requires you to actually hit your target.

Are you sure ;) :P

As I said, I combed the rules for ALPHA STRIKE, there is no mandate that a Natural 12 is an automatic hit, nor is there anything that double 1's is an auto miss either.

[Weirdo]

That is exactly my point. If you need a 13 and roll a 12, you have not hit your target, therefore no crit. If you need a 2(or less) and you roll a 2, you have hit your target.

[NeonKnight]

That is exactly my point. If you need a 13 and roll a 12, you have not hit your target, therefore no crit. If you need a 2(or less) and you roll a 2, you have hit your target.

Hmmm...you missed my Cheekiness.

For you reading pleasure from TW (pg 106)

MODIFIED TO-HIT NUMBER
The modified to-hit number equals the base to-hit number
plus all applicable modifiers for range, minimum range, movement,
terrain and other factors discussed in To-Hit Modifiers.

If the modified to-hit number is greater than 12, the shot automatically
misses. ...snip...

If the modified to-hit number is 2 or less, the shot automatically
hits. ...snip...

From ALPHA STRIKE (pg 16 &  pg 36):

Step 4: Determine To-Hit Number
Once a player has determined that he has LOS to his target,
that the target is within the attacking unit’s firing arc, and within
a range bracket it can deliver damage to, he must determine the
to-hit number. The player’s dice roll must equal or exceed this tohit
number in order to score a successful attack against his target.

The base to-hit number for all attacks is the unit’s Skill Rating.
This number is then modified based on the attack’s range
bracket, the target’s movement capability, terrain features,
and other miscellaneous situations. The modifiers applicable
to Introductory Alpha Strike are shown on the To-Hit Modifiers
Table. Unless otherwise stated, all modifiers are cumulative,
which means they are added to the unit’s base to-hit number to
find the final to-hit number.

Note, that in ALPHA STRIKE there is no inclusion of an statement of modifed numbers above 12 or lower than 2, and because one is looking to expand this game to a player base that comes from other games, the mindset is already present in other games of the CRITICAL SUCCESS and CRITICAL FAILURE (Fumble). Yes, there is the underline statement, but it is often easy to overlook if one's eyes is looking for a 12 or a 2.

Therefore, IF we were to state, Rolling a 12 (double-6's) results in an automatic critical check, then we better also ensure the stipulation of rolling a 12 does not indicate an attack hits regardless of modified number.

[Weirdo]

Therefore, IF we were to state, Rolling a 12 (double-6's) results in an automatic critical check, then we better also ensure the stipulation of rolling a 12 does not indicate an attack hits regardless of modified number.

I get it now, yeah. Battletech was my introduction to gaming, so the concepts of Critical Success and Critical Failure never really got cemented into my psyche.

[ColBosch]

Again, this part of why I like the idea of a threshold on when an on-12 critical is possible.

[NeonKnight]

I get it now, yeah. Battletech was my introduction to gaming, so the concepts of Critical Success and Critical Failure never really got cemented into my psyche.

Thank-You...

Now go read my post in the STEAM thread for an extra chuckle for my day...In fact, it is such a good post, I may need to find somehwere to share with the general public! I'm still laughing, a sad laugh mind you over it.

[Jones]

I’m ok with option 1. Just because you’re rolling on the crit table doesn’t mean there’s gonna be a crit, after all.

[Descronan]

1. Crit on a roll of 12.

Absolutely agree and support this idea 100%. I would suggest that this only applies if your To-Hit Number is 10 or lower.

Further, if we could get the crit tables synchronized so that we don't need four different tables, that would be awesome. I really don't see why we can't simply have a rule that says "Mechs ignore the first Crew Stunned or Crew Killed" result. This makes criticals much more effective and speeds play, increases opportunity for salvage in campaigns, and can significantly affect the outcome of the battle.

For example:

2 - Ammo
3 - Crew Stunned*
4 - Engine
5 - Fire Control
6 - Weapon
7 - Movement
8 - Weapon
9 - Fire Control
10 - Fuel/Engine
11 - Crew Killed*
12 - Destroyed
*Mechs may ignore the first Crew Killed/Crew Stunned result

[ColBosch]

I can dig that. Fewer tables would greatly speed play, even with more rolls for critical hits.

[Jones]

If you’re compressing tables, I’d still like to see more than a one-time “ignore pilot death” result on the crit table. Rolling for a crit should be worrisome but not a 100% suckfest for the defender.

[DarkJaguar]

Please, none of these options.  The only method that would make sense IMHO is a threshold much like ASF use, but #1 in particular is nauseating.  "Well, I need a 12 to hit because my opponent way outmaneuvered me.  Let's just throw this hail mary and oh look, a headshot because if I hit on a 12, I automatically hit something important!"

[Jones]

You don’t automatically “hit something important”. 5 and 9 currently are No Critical on the table. Besides, what about a threshold keeps that same scenario from happening? “Need a 12 to hit because reasons, throw a Hail Mary and look! A headshot because if so hit on a 12 I cause enough damage to exceed their threshold and I automatically (but not really) hit something important!”

Unless the threshold is the unit Size, it won’t be on the unit card itself and will be a source of slowing down play. Crits should be fast!

If it makes it any easier to take, a sentence of “unless the TN is 12 or higher*, a natural roll of 12 prompts a roll on the critical hit table.” would solve the “problem” of always golden-BB on a 12.

*Just to prevent they inevitable “well I know the TN is a 16 now, but I rolled a bat 12 so it’s crit time!” worrying.

[Descronan]

If you’re compressing tables, I’d still like to see more than a one-time “ignore pilot death” result on the crit table. Rolling for a crit should be worrisome but not a 100% suxkfestfoe the defender.

At that point, you could have a new critical hit entry on the sheet for "Crew". Give mechs 2 dots and aerospace 1 dot.

Either way, I'm fine with eliminating the "No crit" results.  :thumbsup:

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Alpha Strike players: Thoughts?

1) if you roll a natural 12 on your to-hit roll, you roll once on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

2) Any hit of damage from one source of 3 or more grants a roll on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

3) Any hit from one source of 7 or more grants  a critical hit check (cumulative with the above for 2 checks)

4) 12 damage, another crit check. Etc. as above.

5) Critical hit table, swap 4 and 5, and 9 and 10.

One of the most memorable AS moments I've had was with a C3S Panther using the Marskman SPA.  Out at long range and in cover he could afford to go stationary, and thanks to the C3 network he was able to score the required MoS of 3+.  And he pegged a pristine Cerberus for 1 damage, and then got box cars on the resulting crit.   And you know what? A perfect storm like that has happened exactly once in oh, about 2-3 years I've been playing Alpha Strike.

I enjoy the idea of thinking about ways to increase the relevance of Critical Hits in Alpha Strike.  Aside from AM infantry: the only times crits really impact play are 3025 era games (where noone has the DAM values to wipe out an entire XL-less damage bar) and Aerospace (due to thresholding). 

A "Golden BB Rule" analogue for Alpha Strike is an interesting and elegant idea (free crit on a nat 12).  Another idea that's a bit less elegant but would result in a bit more crits is giving a threshold to ground units.  Call it DAM>SZ=Free Crit.  Or SZ+some number as needed to tune how frequent you want your crits to be.

[Sartris]

Alpha Strike players: Thoughts?

1) if you roll a natural 12 on your to-hit roll, you roll once on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

2) Any hit of damage from one source of 3 or more grants a roll on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

3) Any hit from one source of 7 or more grants  a critical hit check (cumulative with the above for 2 checks)

4) 12 damage, another crit check. Etc. as above.

5) Critical hit table, swap 4 and 5, and 9 and 10.

1) only if TN wasn't 12 in the first place.
2) yes
3) 6 rather than 7 for symmetry with #2? would there be a significant increase in crit-causers by lowering the threshold from 7 to 6?
4) yes

[Fear Factory]

I like the idea of merging tables so there is less to look at.

After thinking about it a bit more, I'm still fine with the "natural 12" critical hit.  It does feel like the part of BattleTech we all love and hate.

As for the other ideas, instead of making it raw damage leading to a critical hit, maybe create some kind of weapon trait/ability that gives units with heavy hitting weapons (like Autocannon 10's, 20's, PPC's) a better chance to score critical hits.   Just as an example, units like the Cyclops, Enforcer, Hunchback, Griffin, BattleMaster, etc. would get a CRIT-X ability.  The bonus is equal to the weapon's damage divided by 10 (round down, so Ultra AC's aren't too powerful).  This ability gives a bonus that increases their chance to get the "natural 12" result.  An AC/10 or PPC would get a +1 bonus to the to hit roll result (rolling an 11 or 12 would grant a critical hit).  An AC/20 would get a +2.  I mean, it's not that complicated, but it kind of brings back that bubble of doom effect these old 'Mechs still have AND creates some diversity between variants.

[ActionButler]

As for the other ideas, instead of making it raw damage leading to a critical hit, maybe create some kind of weapon trait/ability that gives units with heavy hitting weapons (like Autocannon 10's, 20's, PPC's) a better chance to score critical hits.

I have wanted to see this from any flavor a Battletech for ages. Especially from big guns, like the gauss rifle.  Suddenly, even the lowly Hollander becomes a serious threat beyond the occasional headcap.

[Fear Factory]

I have wanted to see this from any flavor a Battletech for ages. Especially from big guns, like the gauss rifle.  Suddenly, even the lowly Hollander becomes a serious threat beyond the occasional headcap.

Exactly!  It really adds flavor to the game without too much change.

To keep it balanced and unique, I would recommend only having the ability for Autocannons, Gauss Rifles, and PPC's, that get past the math.  Don't give it to lasers (Clan lasers, I'm looking at you), missiles, and SRM's.  I would still round down for Ultra AC's so they would offer the same type of crit chance as the basics, however they still add more damage to the units damage value.

In Alpha Strike, your Hollander would have CRIT1 (round down) or CRIT2 (round up).

[sadlerbw]

Of the original options, I prefer #1 and #5. MAAAAYBE #2, but I think it, and #3/#4, would create a huge step in power between mechs with >= X damage and mechs < X damage.

The problem with the straight-damage method, in addition to being a buff only to mechs with high damage is this: either you have to set the threshold low so that a reasonable percentage of units could take advantage of it and have crits getting thrown out like armor didn't exist, or you push the damage threshold up, and reward mechs that are already blessed with high damage values! Kind of a catch 22 unless you could find the perfect damage threshold...but I don't think there is one. Also, if you do pick a low threshold, now it sucks to have high armor/structure because you have a serious risk of becoming useless well before you blow up.

I like #1 for a couple of reasons. First, I consider the Alpha Strike to-hit roll to be sort of the TW to-hit and location rolls smooshed together into one. In TW, there is a 'magic' 1/36 chance of getting a TAC on a mech. It happens to be 2, but 12 has the same probability, so to me multi-purposing the to-hit check to also be a TAC check is fine. I really don't care that it makes landing a low-probability shot more damaging. I admit there is nothing in TW that gives you an extra reward for landing a really hard shot, but I don't think it would actually change much. We are talking about an extra crit, on average, once every 36 to-hit rolls. That just isn't a whole lot of extra crits, and it is super-low effort in terms of adding rules and complexity to a game that is trying to stay light and tight. Finally, there is no penalty for trying for low-probability shots anyway in AS because we don't track heat for regular shots. I ALREADY will try any shot that is mathematically possible, even without the possibility for a TAC, so adding this rule isn't going to change the number of low-probability shots people try for.

#5, while I don't think it addresses the core problem, will make crits stick more often which is good. Unfortunately, I don't think it will change much on its own because it doesn't change when the crits happen, and therefore how long you have to deal with them. If we change other stuff, we may not need this one.

That said, I am in favor of having crits show up more often earlier in a mechs lifecycle. I also agree that, as-is, crits really don't matter much. In my experience, most mechs are about one turn away from dying when they finally get a crit. non-XL assaults might get two or three turns. As someone else said, in 3025 crits can matter, mostly on assaults and some heavies. Once XL's show up, structure drops like a rock and crits don't happen early enough in a mechs life to make much difference.

I have more to say, but I need to get my thoughts in order...and eat lunch. the short version is, I think we should, conceptually, have a goal for how many crits we would like a mech to accrue before it dies based on it's total armor/structure. If we have a goal, we can better evaluate how different options would get us closer to that goal...or how they wouldn't.

[Fear Factory]

I feel the same about having raw damage determine a critical hit.  I know for Alpha Strike we rarely run custom mechs, but there are ways to break it and having crits this way would break it more.  This is coming from a guy who made a 6/6/0 OV1 Fire Moth by using 13 ER Small Lasers.  IMO, and I've said it, it would be a lot better if it was an ability certain weapons got.

[sadlerbw]

There are two thing we could be simulating with more crits while a unit still has armor: units taking crits because a single component is stripped of armor, but other components are still protected, or units taking crits from TACs. This only really matters in terms of how it feels. TACs can feel a bit random and capricious, but give the feeling that armor isn’t magical and perfect. I think #1 has a very TAC-esque feel to it. The feeling of a robot with half its armor blown off starting to accumulate crits is different. That is more of a feeling that the less total armor you have, the more vulnerable you become. I don’t think any of the sub rations really captures that feeling that you get more vulnerable to crits the less armor you have.

I have some thoughts about how to accomplish that, but it would involve changing the AS card format a little, so it is probably a non-starter. In case someone has a way to do the same thing without card changes, here is what I am thinking. Instead of two rows of pips, one for armor and one for structure, make three rows of pips (maybe four.) armor stays on the top row and structure is split between the two lower rows. All the rows stay left-aligned like they are now. When marking off damage you start with the rightmost column and when you have filled up a column, you move to the next one to the left. Here is what this does. With armor on one line and structure on two or three, most mechs will be able to loose 50-60% of their armor in a normal fashion. Once you reach a column which includes structure bubbles, you would have to mark them off to complete the column. Hey, you just took structure damage, so the rules already say you need to roll for a crit. Easy peasy...except for the whole invalidating all existing AS cards thing!

If you can change the way in which we mark off armor and structure, you can potentially keep the idea, and the rules text, of damage to structure requiring a crit roll. You just need a reason to mark off structure before all the armor bubbles are gone. Going 2D with the armor and structure pip layout is one way to deal with it. I’m not sure if we could accomplish the same thing without changing the AS cards or not, but I think that is a good ‘feel’ to aim for: the more damaged you are, the more likely you are to take crits, even if you still have some armor.

[JadedFalcon]

Respectfully, Alpha Strike needs to stop trying to be Battletech Lite! and focus more on being a compelling tabletop miniatures game. The answer may not lie with looking at the many years worth of well-worn FASA gameplay and trying to bash it into the mold of faster gameplay, but considering what will make Alpha Strike a more successful game in the contemporary market.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man. :P

[ActionButler]

Respectfully, Alpha Strike needs to stop trying to be Battletech Lite! and focus more on being a compelling tabletop miniatures game. The answer may not lie with looking at the many years worth of well-worn FASA gameplay and trying to bash it into the mold of faster gameplay, but considering what will make Alpha Strike a more successful game in the contemporary market.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man. :P

I agree with this completely.  These days, I use the published Alpha Strike rules and MUL cards more as guides for my own homebrew, family games night miniatures game than I do as proper Alpha Strike (while proper Alpha Strike, itself, has replaced Total WarFare/CBT as my proper Battletech).

To keep it balanced and unique, I would recommend only having the ability for Autocannons, Gauss Rifles, and PPC's, that get past the math.  Don't give it to lasers (Clan lasers, I'm looking at you), missiles, and SRM's.  I would still round down for Ultra AC's so they would offer the same type of crit chance as the basics, however they still add more damage to the units damage value.

In Alpha Strike, your Hollander would have CRIT1 (round down) or CRIT2 (round up).

Annnnnnd, I'll be adding THAT awesome idea to those homebrew rules  :)

[RoundTop]

Exactly!  It really adds flavor to the game without too much change.

To keep it balanced and unique, I would recommend only having the ability for Autocannons, Gauss Rifles, and PPC's, that get past the math.  Don't give it to lasers (Clan lasers, I'm looking at you), missiles, and SRM's.  I would still round down for Ultra AC's so they would offer the same type of crit chance as the basics, however they still add more damage to the units damage value.

In Alpha Strike, your Hollander would have CRIT1 (round down) or CRIT2 (round up).

Add Heavy Large Lasers. Where do HAGs fall? Do Light PPCs get it? Artillery?

[sadlerbw]

Respectfully, Alpha Strike needs to stop trying to be Battletech Lite! and focus more on being a compelling tabletop miniatures game. The answer may not lie with looking at the many years worth of well-worn FASA gameplay and trying to bash it into the mold of faster gameplay, but considering what will make Alpha Strike a more successful game in the contemporary market.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man. :P

I understand what you are saying. It isn’t that I think AS needs to be TW abridged, but that there are some fun and iconic elements that give TW a certain feel that people have enjoyed or been drawn to over the years. Trying to replicate elements of TW that players found memorable, in a good way, is more about taking what works and tweaking it rather than starting all over.

In my opinion, one of the iconic things missing from AS is the feel that these giant robots are slowly getting blown apart. That feel that they don’t just explode in a ball of fire all at once, but that things start breaking and getting blown off before you finally put one down. The crit rules often don’t do enough to make a mech with a decent amount of health feel like it is taking as much punishment as the little circles seem to show. I feel like that is one of the things that sets BattleTech apart from other games, and it’s worth keeping in AS.

As for TACs...well, they are iconic, but frustrating as hell. The idea that even a pristine mech can take critical damage from a lucky first shot is something that not many games are willing to allow. Losing an Atlas to a random LBX pellet smashing through the cockpit may be pretty rare, but holy hell is it memorable when it happens. So, is that something we want players to experience in AS as well? The boxcars rule certainly will do that. Right now, a spider isn’t ever going to one-shot an Atlas in standard rules play. It can’t happen. Add in the boxcars rule, and now it can. It’s still a really low probability, but it is possible.

So, it isn’t about adding things just because they were in TW. It’s about looking at what made TW fun, and seeing if we can roll any of that into AS. Sure, we could just look at AS in a vacuum as it’s own thing with no history. However, why not take the lessons that have been learned from working on TW for decades and try to cherry pick what worked from it? Pulling good ideas from TW isn’t about nostalgia, it’s about taking less of a risk because you already have years and years of people saying, ‘this was cool’ or ‘this sucked’.

Sorry, I’m feeling wordy this morning!

[Fear Factory]

Add Heavy Large Lasers. Where do HAGs fall? Do Light PPCs get it? Artillery?

This is where BattleTech needs to change.  Ballistics always have to answer to energy weapons and it needs to be the other way around.  Clan weapons are just way too powerful.  I would opt out of throwing most energy weapons into this category.  They still boost up raw damage, leave the crits for high-impact ballistics.

No for HAG's because they do cluster damage.  No for Light PPC's because they only do 5 damage.  No for Artillery because, again, they do cluster damage.

I would still stick with Ballistics/PPC's that do high impact damage.  Take their damage, divide by 10...  Example:

Code: [Select]

Type                  Round Down   Round Normally

Light Gauss Rifle     CRIT1/1/1*   CRIT1/1/1
Gauss Rifle           CRIT1/1/1    CRIT1/2/2
Heavy Gauss Rifle     CRIT2/2/1    CRIT2/2/1
Autocannon 10         CRIT1/1/-    CRIT1/1/-
Ultra Autocannon 10   CRIT1/1/1    CRIT2/2/2
LB10X Autocannon      CRIT1/1/1    CRIT1/1/1
Autocannon 20         CRIT2/2/-    CRIT2/2/-
Ultra Autocannon 20   CRIT2/2/-    CRIT3/3/-
LB20X Autocannon      CRIT2/2/-    CRIT2/2/-             
PPC                   CRIT1/1/1    CRIT1/1/1
ER PPC                CRIT1/1/1    CRIT1/1/1
Heavy PPC             CRIT1/1/1    CRIT1/2/2
Snub Nose PPC         CRIT1/1/-*   CRIT1/1/-
Clan ER PPC           CRIT1/1/1    CRIT2/2/2

*CRIT1 minimum on round down

The problem with applying this to laser and pulse weapons is that you can really break the rules on the Clan side.  Like, way too broken to even nerf.  Imagine giving that crit rating to Clan lasers (Nova PRIME or H).  Honestly, leave it in raw damage, most designs that use multiple beam weapons would not need a crit boost.  Even on the table I made, Ultra AC's only get a slight boost in the rating while double tapping.  I prefer round down because it fits nicely between the benefit of taking a high impact weapon (that IMO should exist in BattleTech, but that's another topic) AND using raw damage to boost the damage rating.  I think it is fair, and if applied, it wouldn't break the game but offer some unique variants.

So, I'm saying NO for Heavy Lasers.  Let them get their payoff in the damage calculation, not an ability they can break.

EDIT:

I guess, if you have to, the Heavy Large Laser would be fine.

Code: [Select]

Type                  Round Down   Round Normally
Clan Heavy Large Las. CRIT1/1/-    CRIT2/2/-

I guess there are other weapons could fall in this category too:

Code: [Select]

Type                  Round Down   Round Normally
Thunderbolt 10        CRIT1/1/1*   CRIT1/1/1
Thunderbolt 15        CRIT1/1/1    CRIT1/2/2
Thunderbolt 20        CRIT1/2/2    CRIT2/2/2
Clan Proto AC/8       CRIT1/1/-*   CRIT1/1/-

*CRIT1 minimum on round down


[JadedFalcon]

I understand what you are saying. It isn’t that I think AS needs to be TW abridged, but that there are some fun and iconic elements that give TW a certain feel that people have enjoyed or been drawn to over the years. Trying to replicate elements of TW that players found memorable, in a good way, is more about taking what works and tweaking it rather than starting all over.

In my opinion, one of the iconic things missing from AS is the feel that these giant robots are slowly getting blown apart. That feel that they don’t just explode in a ball of fire all at once, but that things start breaking and getting blown off before you finally put one down. The crit rules often don’t do enough to make a mech with a decent amount of health feel like it is taking as much punishment as the little circles seem to show. I feel like that is one of the things that sets BattleTech apart from other games, and it’s worth keeping in AS.

As for TACs...well, they are iconic, but frustrating as hell. The idea that even a pristine mech can take critical damage from a lucky first shot is something that not many games are willing to allow. Losing an Atlas to a random LBX pellet smashing through the cockpit may be pretty rare, but holy hell is it memorable when it happens. So, is that something we want players to experience in AS as well? The boxcars rule certainly will do that. Right now, a spider isn’t ever going to one-shot an Atlas in standard rules play. It can’t happen. Add in the boxcars rule, and now it can. It’s still a really low probability, but it is possible.

So, it isn’t about adding things just because they were in TW. It’s about looking at what made TW fun, and seeing if we can roll any of that into AS. Sure, we could just look at AS in a vacuum as it’s own thing with no history. However, why not take the lessons that have been learned from working on TW for decades and try to cherry pick what worked from it? Pulling good ideas from TW isn’t about nostalgia, it’s about taking less of a risk because you already have years and years of people saying, ‘this was cool’ or ‘this sucked’.

Sorry, I’m feeling wordy this morning!

Thank you for the glass half-full response and the quite valid arguments outlined above.

I am still concerned about loss of speed and simplicity, increasing the bookkeeping part of the game, and once again making random dice rolls more important than strategy. Is there a better, more elegant way to achieve the same result?

An absurd example may be the following: What if instead of rolling for a crit result from a boxcars roll, the player of the damaged mech has to choose a result, provided that they can't choose a No Result or to lower a stat below zero.

[sadlerbw]

I agree on keeping the bookkeeping to a minimum and play speed up. So, while I may like slightly fancier options, I won’t be mad about a change that mucks with the balance a bit, but is really fast and simple and it makes crits more important.

Oh, and letting folks pick what crit they want is probably over powered, but it is an interesting idea.

In my ideal world, a mech with less than 6 or 7 total health probably shouldn’t end up with more than one crit before it blows up, on average. Between 7 and about 12 I would like to see two crits on average when it finally dies.more than 12 and I would like to see three when it pops. I don’t think we want stuff picking up more than three crits regularly, because it tends to be utterly crippled at that point and is basically a bullet sponge. There is no science behind those numbers, just what feels about right to me. Anything that gets us generally close to those numbers will probably make me happier, regardless of how we get there.

[JadedFalcon]

I agree on keeping the bookkeeping to a minimum and play speed up. So, while I may like slightly fancier options, I won’t be mad about a change that mucks with the balance a bit, but is really fast and simple and it makes crits more important.

Oh, and letting folks pick what crit they want is probably over powered, but it is an interesting idea.

In my ideal world, a mech with less than 6 or 7 total health probably shouldn’t end up with more than one crit before it blows up, on average. Between 7 and about 12 I would like to see two crits on average when it finally dies.more than 12 and I would like to see three when it pops. I don’t think we want stuff picking up more than three crits regularly, because it tends to be utterly crippled at that point and is basically a bullet sponge. There is no science behind those numbers, just what feels about right to me. Anything that gets us generally close to those numbers will probably make me happier, regardless of how we get there.

Choosing which crit is more an example of solutions outside the typical Battletech mindset. The TW Battletech player in me wants to jump on board with having a Crit special for headcappers, but I don't think that resolves the actual issue with the gameplay.

So let's say your Locust hits my Atlas by rolling a 12 and now I have to fill in one of the crit dots in addition to the armor damage. I have to choose an engine hit, fire control, mp, or weapons. I'm still losing something and I still have to no control on crits rolled by damaging the structure points. It creates the same proposed result without having to roll dice and look at a table. Not saying it's a good idea, just trying to look at things from a different direction.

[Son of Kerenski]

In my opinion, one of the iconic things missing from AS is the feel that these giant robots are slowly getting blown apart. That feel that they don’t just explode in a ball of fire all at once, but that things start breaking and getting blown off before you finally put one down. The crit rules often don’t do enough to make a mech with a decent amount of health feel like it is taking as much punishment as the little circles seem to show. I feel like that is one of the things that sets BattleTech apart from other games, and it’s worth keeping in AS.

This paragraph seems somewhat counter intuitive to the whole critical hit on a 12 thing.

You say you want mechs to slowly fall apart but what if a mech that does one point to an Atlas gets a crit then gets a 2 or a 12?

That doesnt speak "slowly disintergrate' to me. If anything that makes it faster and more frustrating as the recipient.

[sadlerbw]

This paragraph seems somewhat counter intuitive to the whole critical hit on a 12 thing.

You say you want mechs to slowly fall apart but what if a mech that does one point to an Atlas gets a crit then gets a 2 or a 12?

That doesnt speak "slowly disintergrate' to me. If anything that makes it faster and more frustrating as the recipient.

You are absolutely correct. I don’t think the 12 rule will get things to feel the way I would like. It just makes AS feel like it has TACs.

The reason I would still support it is that it does at least add SOME possibility for crits while you still have armor, and is super duper simple to add rules for and to execute. So, it at least moves the needle in the right direction and keeps things light and fast. That is enough of a win that I’d support it, even if it doesn’t totally do what I want. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good and all that.

[SC_Dave]

As noted elsewhere in this thread, a mech with a crit likely only has one more turn on the tabletop. Looking at the issue of crits from another perspective I don't think it is the means in which they are generated that causes any perceived lack of mechs with crits on the tabletop.

The Alpha Strike game mechanics encourage units to gang up. You concentrate fire on a unit until it is destroyed, then move onto the next. In my experience units will typically take critical hits during play, but they are usually destroyed by further units firing at them before the next turn. If there's a mech on the field suffering crits at the end of a turn it is usually only because the player "shooting" at it ran out of firepower before they could finish it off.

I have had occasions where it was more tactically expedient to leave a mech with crits alone and finish it off later, but these are rare.

Perhaps if you want more mechs on your tabletop with crits go clan style and play with Zellbrigen?

I don't think adding a mechanism such as a to-hit roll of 12 also gets a crit roll will result in more "walking wounded" on the tabletop because in general it will probably still make more sense to keep picking on the unit until it is taken out. A crit with a 12 would likely just reward lucky dice rolls, hit a unit with 12, then follow it up with another 12 and you get to start ganging up on the next target quicker.

While rewarding luck can be memorable, it doesn't always mean in a good way. In my early days of playing Battletech I one shotted a friend's mech in his first game. It put an immediate end to his interest in Battletech.

Again I would suggest leaving things as they are, or placing any changes such as a crit chance with a 12 in the optional rules.   

[sadlerbw]

Good point. Focused fire is certainly much more of a thing with more units on the board, and AS is supposed to see units die pretty fast.

However, here is my totally un-scientific theory why accruing more crits may still help: it changes the value of totally finishing off a unit all at once. Lets say you get an Atlas with a Move crit move and two Fire Control crits, and it has four or five pips of structure left. Is it really worth throwing more damage at it right now, or would it be better to start peeling the armor off the next mech? Sure, it might manage to land a really lucky hit and still do some damage, but with that same 5 damage you might be able to erase the Locust or Cicada standing next to it that is setting up for a back-shot next turn. It's like blowing the AC/20 off a Hunchback. Once that is gone, it's often a better idea to shoot something else with more firepower rather than finishing it off right away.

I think anything with less than around 7 total health is still going to end up getting blasted into dust. If we do manage to make crits more common I think it could absolutely change the value of finishing off a unit entirely with Focus Fire rather than leaving it to be the walking dead and shooting something else instead. Is having wounded mechs stick around for an extra turn or two a good thing? I don't know, maybe? All I know for sure is, at this point, crits don't often factor into the games I've played if they are only coming once armor has been stripped. If you can get them on earlier through stuff like anti-mech attacks or motive crits on vehicles, then they can actually do something you notice.

[ColBosch]

I've been thinking on this a lot, and even discussed it with some folks away from here, and I'm going to do a 180 here. Alpha Strike doesn't need more crits, it needs the entire mechanic taken out. The game should reward tactics, not random dice rolls.

[ActionButler]

I've been thinking on this a lot, and even discussed it with some folks away from here, and I'm going to do a 180 here. Alpha Strike doesn't need more crits, it needs the entire mechanic taken out. The game should reward tactics, not random dice rolls.

I am not opposed to removing crits completely, but what is your rationale for removing them from Alpha Strike but not CBT?  If it is an issue of the shorter health bars in Alpha Strike, what about shrinking the critical hit table so that they are less likely to happen?

[Weirdo]

That sounds like a good idea. I love how in Alpha Strike critical hits are truly critical, while in Total War, often times they're more like Annoying Hits or Concerning Hits. The converse of this is that the vast majority of the time, structural hits means crits are almost automatic, unless you get lucky on the 5 or 9.

[ColBosch]

I am not opposed to removing crits completely, but what is your rationale for removing them from Alpha Strike but not CBT?

Because this is the Alpha Strike sub-forum, so I saved my thoughts on crits in CBT. ;)

[Maingunnery]

What about a margin of success for a possible critical hit? I don't know what the number would be, but for example:

MoS of +5 gives the chance for a critical hit. So with a to-hit of 6, player roles an 11 or 12, and therefore gets to roll for a potential critical.

An MoS mechanic would be best, as it can be a good representation of the target presenting an easy target that allows the attacker to aim at a weak spot.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

A MoS mechanic for crit eligibility would also be a huge boost in the power of C3 networks.

[RoundTop]

A MoS mechanic for crit eligibility would also be a huge boost in the power of C3 networks.

Good. we already have to pre-pay the PV for those even if we don't use it. (it is cheaper in company C3, but a lot of units mount slaves and pay a penalty)

[GoldBishop]

Sorry I'm late for this party; saw the mention in the facebook group and thought I should probably chime in here as well (not that my voice has any weight here, but I am being encouraged to post on behalf of my peers)

Alpha Strike players: Thoughts?

1) if you roll a natural 12 on your to-hit roll, you roll once on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

2) Any hit of damage from one source of 3 or more grants a roll on the critical hit table (in addition to any other critical hit checks).

3) Any hit from one source of 7 or more grants  a critical hit check (cumulative with the above for 2 checks)

4) 12 damage, another crit check. Etc. as above.

5) Critical hit table, swap 4 and 5, and 9 and 10.

1) I think automatic hits should come before crit chances.  Crack shots are impressive enough but no where near as fair to players who have payed for lower skills or maneuvered cleverly enough to earn a better shot or penalize their opponent's ability to hit them more effectively.
My Suggestion: "Natch-12" should mean a "success" for those impossible shots [damage only]... and for nearly impossible shots, perhaps a 2nd roll to using the same target numbers (to confirm the attack, ala D&D) to net a critical result. 

2 through 4) Multiple crits sounds tempting, but the higher damage trees turns into outright destruction in most cases.  Against Mediums, 7 will often break armor and already damaging Structure in most cases; same goes for Heavies and Assaults at 12.
My suggestion-- and I haven't playtested it yet -- but I have been considering the following as a sort of "threshold" for Ground units:

"If a target takes more than half its starting armor from a single attack, that attacker may roll a critical hit against that target."
and
"Against targets that were partially damaged, if the attack also damages structure, the attacker may roll twice on the Critical Chart, (once for [threshold] and once for damaging Structure)."

Essentially this represents the chance that most or all of an attack went through a single location on a given target, and has a chance to cripple or destroy a given unit.  (On paper, clans have an edge with their higher damage output, so its not exactly fair to InnerSphere players... but I'm still working on that).

5) Leave "No Crits" on 5 and 9; it's fine as is.
I've found that players who cross-play or transition from Classic/TotalWarfare to AlphaStrike will recognize 5 and 9 as the "No damage" leg hits from Partial Cover.

[Descronan]

Someone noted that mechs with a lot of armor should not be affected by random crits. I can see that to a degree. One solution that is really simple to implement would be to say if your unit has four or more points of armor then no random crit is possible. For example:

"Any roll of 12 on a standard attack will cause a Critical Hit if the target has less than four points of armor remaining and the To Hit number was 10 or less."

I think this is a pretty good compromise so your brand new assault mechs aren't crippled by a lucky shot from a 1 point infantry or locust. Remember that 1 point of armor damage is equal to 30 points of damage in CBT. With 4 points of armor remaining, that's roughly 120 points of armor, which most likely is enough to protect the mech.