Hull down and TMM

[DarkJaguar]

Note that a unit that chooses to go hull down becomes an effectively stationary target as long as it remains so. Thus, if a unit spends its entire Movement Phase in a hull down position, it should be treated as if it is standing still for movement modifier purposes (see Variable Movement Modifiers, p. 22).

This is from the second paragraph of the Hull Down rules.  The bolded statement is the one I question, does this mean that if a unit is hull down during a combat phase, it will have a TMM of 0 regardless of how far it actually moved during the movement phase that turn?

[Elmoth]

Seems so. We ignore that sentence in our games since only infantry really benefits from hull down otherwise.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Wait... you're trying to find a way/rationale to retain full TMM while simultaneously being Hull-down?

[DarkJaguar]

Wait... you're trying to find a way/rationale to retain full TMM while simultaneously being Hull-down?

No, I'm making sure that I'm reading it correctly, since it does not explicitly say that you have no TMM when hull down.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

It does say (in effect) that if you're claiming benefit from being Hull Down, you're also stationary.

[Weirdo]

I'm with TDC, this seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

[GoldBishop]

If you read deeper into the section, in order to go Hull Down, a unit must spend a portion of its Movement to perform the maneuver.  (3 inches for bipedal, 2 inches for tripods, quads, ground vehicles, and protomechs).  There's nothing that says you cannot use MORE movement during the turn you go Hull Down... which to me means that a player should only perform this maneuver at the END of their desired movement, (since once you go Hull Down, you cannot move until you stand back up  ;)).

I believe that, so long as a unit has more movement than the cost for the maneuver, they may simply reduce their normal available ground movement by the maneuver cost (and other terrain modifiers such as woods and water) before moving.  This means they should retain their TMM* - if only for this turn of movement - and then abide by the rules for Hull Down in sequential turns that follow (may choose to continue to remain Hull Down, forgoing TMM modifier and treated as Standstill)

I also believe that, if a unit that does NOT start it's turn Hull Down but also does not spend any other movement other than going Hull Down, it should neither benefit from TMM (treated as 0" Movement) nor benefit from being Standstill (does not get the -1 to attack rolls) ...simply because the maneuver still costs movement and it did not move significantly from its position.

This is all, however, a humble opinion; it's not my place to challenge TPTB but it was my experience the one time I ran into this situation (my players agreed that it seemed a fair compromise)

* = for those players who prefer actual movement for TMM, adjust the total available Movement by the cost for the maneuver and recalculate TMM as normal.  Example: A 10" mover who normally has +2 TMM may only move 7" [or 8"] before going Hull down... which recalculates to granting +1 TMM (the net bonus is still +2, but the side benefits of HullDown may be preferable at the time of the maneuver)

[nckestrel]

There's two parts.
"spends the entire Movement Phase in the hull down position"
followed by
"treated as standing still"

You're not treated as standing still unless you spend the _entire_ movement phase in the hull down position.  If you moved first, then entered the hull down position, you didn't spend the entire movement phase in the hull down position.

[DarkJaguar]

There's two parts.
"spends the entire Movement Phase in the hull down position"
followed by
"treated as standing still"

You're not treated as standing still unless you spend the _entire_ movement phase in the hull down position.  If you moved first, then entered the hull down position, you didn't spend the entire movement phase in the hull down position.

That's for the standstill bonus, which I agree with you 100%, however the "Effectively stationary" part is what my question is about.  If you're effectively stationary, do you still get the TMM from say, moving 17 inches first and then going hull down?

[Weirdo]

If you moved 17" before going Hull Down, you're not effectively stationary. You're not even remotely stationary.

You've probably noticed that the rules often contain sentences that aren't actually rules in and of themselves, instead they describe the situation in order to provide context for the actual rule. For example, the Lance/Star Movement section on the same page as the Hull Down stuff has an entire paragraph describing Lances and Stars that isn't a rule at all, but describing how Battletech forces are grouped so that players not versed in the lore can make sense of the actual rule. This bit is the same. Look at the two sentences in question at the same time:

Note that a unit that chooses to go hull down becomes an effectively stationary target as long as it remains so. Thus, if a unit spends its entire Movement Phase in a hull down position, it should be treated as if it as standing still for movement modifier purposes (see Variable Movement Modifiers, p.22)

The first sentence is not a rule at all. It is a situation descriptor, telling players Why the second sentence(the actual rule) exists. Only the second sentence is a rule.

[DarkJaguar]

If you moved 17" before going Hull Down, you're not effectively stationary. You're not even remotely stationary.

You've probably noticed that the rules often contain sentences that aren't actually rules in and of themselves, instead they describe the situation in order to provide context for the actual rule. For example, the Lance/Star Movement section on the same page as the Hull Down stuff has an entire paragraph describing Lances and Stars that isn't a rule at all, but describing how Battletech forces are grouped so that players not versed in the lore can make sense of the actual rule. This bit is the same. Look at the two sentences in question at the same time:

The first sentence is not a rule at all. It is a situation descriptor, telling players Why the second sentence(the actual rule) exists. Only the second sentence is a rule.

Okay, I get where you're coming from, but here's a weird interaction by including that qualifier.  It states that as long as a unit is hull down, it is to be considered stationary.  Intended as the "rule" or not, it does say that.  Stationary is also referenced elsewhere in both manuals, though it's not ever listed as a condition, it does carry a plain-english meaning.  So while you're saying that the first part is the example and the second part is the rule, it could just as easily be taken the other way around.

Might I recommend then, changing the wording on the first part to "Note that a unit that chooses to go hull down becomes an effectively stationary target as long as it remains so for an entire turn. " . This would remove any possibility of confusion (as clearly occurred in this thread by every response prior to yours and NCKestrel's arguing the opposite of what you are saying.  Also, you stated the opposite of your current post in your first one as well).

[nckestrel]

Hull down has a proposed rewrite of the entire section for AS:CE. Pending developer review, etc before its final (or rejected).

[DarkJaguar]

Hull down has a proposed rewrite of the entire section for AS:CE. Pending developer review, etc before its final (or rejected).

Roger that

[nckestrel]

May as well get comments on it while I can..
Replaces Hull Down p11 ASC. (Note this is also intended to move Hull Down to standard rules.  As such I wanted to try and simply the rules for Hull Down, while also not just making it a free partial cover.  So it had to be simpler and have something to separate it from partial cover.)

A ground unit may use the Hull Down Movement Mode to find low-level cover. ‘Mechs and ProtoMechs duck or crouch, while most vehicles take advantage of integral suspension system controls to settle deeper into their position behind the cover.
A unit spends 4” of movement to attempt a hull down position. An infantry unit, or Quad or Tripod ‘Mech reduces the movement cost to 2”.  After spending the movement cost, the unit rolls 2d6, on a 7+ the unit has achieved a hull down position.  The unit may subtract 2 from the target number if the unit occupies terrain with an additional movement cost, or if within 2” of an elevation change. If a scenario or ability provides a premade hull down or fortified position (see Fortified Positions, pp. XX), the hull down roll automatically succeeds. The unit may continue to make additional hull down attempts as long as it has enough remaining movement to pay the hull down movement cost again. A unit using Hull Down Movement Mode cannot use its Move for anything except finding a hull down position.
A unit in a hull down position gains +1 to-hit modifier to any attacks made against it, unless they are from the rear attack direction (see pp. XX). The unit is considered half it’s normal height for line of sight.
A hull down vehicle can only attack using weapons and special abilities listed in its turret (TUR). BattleMech and IndustrialMech units reduce all attack values by 1 (minimum of 0* as long as the unit had a non-zero attack value initially). Other units reduce all attack values by half (rounded down, to a minimum of 0).
Once hull down, a unit cannot move until it leaves the hull down position. The unit already in a Hull Down position may use the Stand Still Movement Mode. A hull down unit must spend the same hull down movement cost to leave a hull down position, but there is no roll necessary to leave the hull down position.

[DarkJaguar]

May as well get comments on it while I can..
Replaces Hull Down p11 ASC. (Note this is also intended to move Hull Down to standard rules.  As such I wanted to try and simply the rules for Hull Down, while also not just making it a free partial cover.  So it had to be simpler and have something to separate it from partial cover.)

A ground unit may use the Hull Down Movement Mode to find low-level cover. ‘Mechs and ProtoMechs duck or crouch, while most vehicles take advantage of integral suspension system controls to settle deeper into their position behind the cover.
A unit spends 4” of movement to attempt a hull down position. An infantry unit, or Quad or Tripod ‘Mech reduces the movement cost to 2”.  After spending the movement cost, the unit rolls 2d6, on a 7+ the unit has achieved a hull down position.  The unit may subtract 2 from the target number if the unit occupies terrain with an additional movement cost, or if within 2” of an elevation change. If a scenario or ability provides a premade hull down or fortified position (see Fortified Positions, pp. XX), the hull down roll automatically succeeds. The unit may continue to make additional hull down attempts as long as it has enough remaining movement to pay the hull down movement cost again. A unit using Hull Down Movement Mode cannot use its Move for anything except finding a hull down position.
A unit in a hull down position gains +1 to-hit modifier to any attacks made against it, unless they are from the rear attack direction (see pp. XX). The unit is considered half it’s normal height for line of sight.
A hull down vehicle can only attack using weapons and special abilities listed in its turret (TUR). BattleMech and IndustrialMech units reduce all attack values by 1 (minimum of 0* as long as the unit had a non-zero attack value initially). Other units reduce all attack values by half (rounded down, to a minimum of 0).
Once hull down, a unit cannot move until it leaves the hull down position. The unit already in a Hull Down position may use the Stand Still Movement Mode. A hull down unit must spend the same hull down movement cost to leave a hull down position, but there is no roll necessary to leave the hull down position.

I like it! I don't think it needs the roll though.  You've already covered that you can't do any other movement but go hull down in a turn you attempt to go hull down, so there's really no need for that complexity added IMHO.  I'll read it a few more times to see if I notice anything else though.

[nckestrel]

That would definitely simplify it. I wanted to cover making hull down easier in certain terrain, and the movement cost without a roll is pretty meaningless. Ie. Quads and infantry would lose their benefit.
Hmm, could give quads/infantry a +2 while hull down?
 Or don’t reduce their damage while in a hull down?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

May as well get comments on it while I can..

I love you in a non-romantic, you-do-much-for-a-game-I-thoroughly-enjoy sort of way, so please take any negativism in my comments in that light...

As is (and as the rewrite still presents Hull-Down), I'd never use Hull-Down, even with prepared positions. The advantages of partial cover are simply superior. +2 to TNs to hit me, stacking with TMM, and no nerf to my outgoing damage vs +1 to TNs to hit me, not stacking with TMM, and a nerf to my outgoing damage... if I've got terrain I'm not going to even bother using Hull-Down even with that +2 to the roll to achieve the status.  I'd be shooting myself in the foot to go Hull-down.

Literally* the only reason to use Hull-down is to get some cover where there is none to be had. But in order to go Hull-down out in the open, I must have moved out of cover and already endured a combat phase with no benefit of cover or hull-down status last turn.  That's unplayably bad, except when allowed to start the game Hull-Down.

Not being able to move around the board and still achieve hull-down seems overly harsh. Especially given how much (indefinite) time an Alpha Strike turn is supposed to  represent...  Why not remove the "A unit using Hull Down Movement Mode cannot use its Move for anything except finding a hull down position" line and replace it with a line saying you lose your TMM once you achieve Hull-Down status? 

Note this is also intended to move Hull Down to standard rules.  As such I wanted to try and simply the rules for Hull Down, while also not just making it a free partial cover.  So it had to be simpler and have something to separate it from partial cover...

Spitball of an idea that suggests ditching your whole paradigm here, but you *did* ask for comments:
What about treating Hull-Down as an Alpha Strike version of having the terrain soak some potential damage.  It's already nerfing outgoing damage, what about flipping it and the benefit gained from that status is that incoming damage is also reduced by 1 (to a minimum of 0)?  That'd be a benefit absolutely worth achieving, even if it meant sucking damage out in the open for a turn, and it's quite mechanically distinct from partial cover.

Tangential comment I mentioned long ago which I'll float again: It's not relevant to standard rules, but why not give an added benefit to the ENG SPA of being able to place X prepared position templates inside one's deployment zone during setup?

*Edit: Lol, a 2nd order effect of the height lowering occurred to me.  Hull-down IS a pretty solid response in losing LOS to a Demoralizer...

[NeonKnight]

I don;t Know.

I like the idea of a Roll...reflects the aspect of not every location is gonna be a good 'cover' area. Maybe the tree you were planning on hiding behind is all hollow...maybe the rock is limestone and not granite, etc, etc.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I don;t Know.

I like the idea of a Roll...reflects the aspect of not every location is gonna be a good 'cover' area. Maybe the tree you were planning on hiding behind is all hollow...maybe the rock is limestone and not granite, etc, etc.

I do too.  Moreso to the meta-mechanic side of it.  If Hull-Down is going to be something worth achieving even in place of all TMM, it'll bog the game down if you're guaranteed to be able to just turret down anywhere. 4" seems about the right price for the roll too... something needs to move 8" or more to have claimed TMM1.  Something that doesn't get a TMM anyway only gets one shot, and TMM1s get two rolls, and if you'd rather have Hull-Down than your TMM2+ you get at least 3 rolls.

[nckestrel]

Hull down stacks with terrain/partial cover.
Hull down as a request that was made to me. It was my choice that if it were to be standard, it needed to be simpler.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Hull down stacks with terrain/partial cover.
Hull down as a request that was made to me. It was my choice that if it were to be standard, it needed to be simpler.

In my local meta we don't stack partial cover with woods due to too many TN penalties making games draw out.  I'd fear kind of the same effect of stacking +2 with +1.  Stacking cover, woods, AND Hull-Down is ridonculous.

I really like the idea of Hull-Down reducing incoming damage rather than applying a TN penalty.

[StingerTheRaven]

Spitball of an idea that suggests ditching your whole paradigm here, but you *did* ask for comments:
What about treating Hull-Down as an Alpha Strike version of having the terrain soak some potential damage.  It's already nerfing outgoing damage, what about flipping it and the benefit gained from that status is that incoming damage is also reduced by 1 (to a minimum of 0)?  That'd be a benefit absolutely worth achieving, even if it meant sucking damage out in the open for a turn, and it's quite mechanically distinct from partial cover.

I like this idea, especially its implications for infantry; in particular, a Comstar jump platoon would be able to soak up an AS7-D shot and (barely) live to tell the tale.. though it does feel a tad bit too strong against lighter units; how about incoming damage is reduced by 1, to a minimum of 0*?

As for getting into hull-down/dug-in position, how about infantry and BA be able to dig in for 2", and leave hull-down state for free; everything else lays down for 4" and gets up for 2", no dice rolled. If a unit attempting to hull-down has less than 4" movement, then they may make no other movement for the turn, and are treated as immobile for said turn. (assuming units with >4" get to retain their TMM when laying down)

[Xochi]

I mainly use hull down to effectively move units up and keep them out of the LOS of brawlers or other units pushing forward to deal that high damage in the short and medium bracket. In the Marines we knew this as "I'm up, he sees me, I'm down."

I don't think it necessarily needs to +1 to hit modifier because of the fact its really good at toning down your LoS when you have hilly terrain (which i mean is when you'd really use it.)  I do like the idea of it being used in conjunction with terrain to absorb damage though. For instance if your in a super heavy and you go from 3" to 2" behind a one inch hill, it would be nice to absorb some of that incoming fire.

[DarkJaguar]

So I have a sort of idealized version of hull down now.

You use no movement to go hull down, you can even sprint into position if you so choose.  Going hull down conveys no to-hit bonus outside of what your TMM/special abilities generated that turn, but it instead reduces incoming damage from each attack by 1 to a minimum of 0*.  Hull Down is compatible with Stand Still, but Getting out of hull down reduces your available movement by half.

[nckestrel]

*sigh* I’m sure it’s been said before, but I can’t really steal your ideas. I wanted to know whether the proposed rule had any issues, didn’t get the idea across, had loopholes, didn’t cover something, etc. I was not asking for y’all to write the rule. I’m no lawyer, but this seems to have gone far beyond feedback on what I wrote and instead into your proposals and I don’t think I can use those.

[DarkJaguar]

*sigh* I’m sure it’s been said before, but I can’t really steal your ideas. I wanted to know whether the proposed rule had any issues, didn’t get the idea across, had loopholes, didn’t cover something, etc. I was not asking for y’all to write the rule. I’m no lawyer, but this seems to have gone far beyond feedback on what I wrote and instead into your proposals and I don’t think I can use those.

Interesting, and certainly fodder for a long discussion that's completely off topic.  I digress though, the hull down as you presented doesn't feel like it offers any tangible incentive to use.  Have you play tested it?  How did it feel to you?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

*sigh* I’m sure it’s been said before, but I can’t really steal your ideas. I wanted to know whether the proposed rule had any issues, didn’t get the idea across, had loopholes, didn’t cover something, etc. I was not asking for y’all to write the rule. I’m no lawyer, but this seems to have gone far beyond feedback on what I wrote and instead into your proposals and I don’t think I can use those.

I'm no lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure I can't sue CGL for "copying my ideas" when I complained that "introducing new tech was always stupid idea for BattleTech and instead of issuing new TROs they should have been instead been publishing sourcebooks centered on locations and units".  Sometimes people just come up with the same ideas.

It'd be a shame that Hull-Down can't feature a benefit in the form of damage reduction in place of a TN to hit just because someone happened to mention the idea.  Hell, the only reason I even mentioned it is because it's a mechanic already introduced (in buildings) and I feel should be used in/expanded to more contexts.  Even played around with it a bit for forests, ala HBS battletech.

[DarkJaguar]

I'm no lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure I can't sue CGL for "copying my ideas" when I complained that "introducing new tech was always stupid idea for BattleTech and instead of issuing new TROs they should have been instead been publishing sourcebooks centered on locations and units".  Sometimes people just come up with the same ideas.

It'd be a shame that Hull-Down can't feature a benefit in the form of damage reduction in place of a TN to hit just because someone happened to mention the idea.  Hell, the only reason I even mentioned it is because it's a mechanic already introduced (in buildings) and I feel should be used in/expanded to more contexts.  Even played around with it a bit for forests, ala HBS battletech.

I would tend to agree with your statement.  Recombining existing mechanics in a game is very likely not a IP issue at all.  For it to be IP it would need to be something new and unique that isn't already in games to begin with.

[GoldBishop]

Breaking this up to clarify...

May as well get comments on it while I can..
Replaces Hull Down p11 ASC. (Note this is also intended to move Hull Down to standard rules.  As such I wanted to try and simply the rules for Hull Down, while also not just making it a free partial cover.  So it had to be simpler and have something to separate it from partial cover.)

1) A ground unit may use the Hull Down Movement Mode to find low-level cover. ‘Mechs and ProtoMechs duck or crouch, while most vehicles take advantage of integral suspension system controls to settle deeper into their position behind the cover.
2) A unit spends 4” of movement to attempt a hull down position. An infantry unit, or Quad or Tripod ‘Mech reduces the movement cost to 2”.
3) After spending the movement cost, the unit rolls 2d6, on a 7+ the unit has achieved a hull down position.  The unit may subtract 2 from the target number if the unit occupies terrain with an additional movement cost, or if within 2” of an elevation change. If a scenario or ability provides a premade hull down or fortified position (see Fortified Positions, pp. XX), the hull down roll automatically succeeds. The unit may continue to make additional hull down attempts as long as it has enough remaining movement to pay the hull down movement cost again.
4) A unit using Hull Down Movement Mode cannot use its Move for anything except finding a hull down position.
5) A unit in a hull down position gains +1 to-hit modifier to any attacks made against it, unless they are from the rear attack direction (see pp. XX). The unit is considered half it’s normal height for line of sight.
6) A hull down vehicle can only attack using weapons and special abilities listed in its turret (TUR). BattleMech and IndustrialMech units reduce all attack values by 1 (minimum of 0* as long as the unit had a non-zero attack value initially). Other units reduce all attack values by half (rounded down, to a minimum of 0).
Once hull down, a unit cannot move until it leaves the hull down position.
7) The unit already in a Hull Down position may use the Stand Still Movement Mode.
8 ) A hull down unit must spend the same hull down movement cost to leave a hull down position, but there is no roll necessary to leave the hull down position.

All good to me except for the following:
- Skip the skill check and leave #3 out.  This is Alpha Strike after all, and not TotalWarfare... though with all-due respect I understand that the rule in TacOps p.21 calls for a "Standard Piloting Roll" for the maneuver, we strive to keep such mundane things from bogging down play (as desirable as a roll might be, KIS should continue to be the norm)
- #5 should exclude infantry since they don't have a Rear arc (just a stipulation will do; it might not be obvious to players who don't use them)

Couple things of note:
Concerning #6... I need to research, but shouldn't units (mech or vehicles) be allowed to use IF# and ARTxxx-# Specials while Hull Down, even if they're not turret mounted?
I am imagining my Mars Assault (missiles Front facing but mounted in the rear), LRM Carriers (fixed Forward, elevated above the hull), and LongTom Carriers (upward tracking barrels) being allowed, but I don't want to make special cases out of a handful of units if SIMPLE would be better.  [I understand reduced height for Mechs behind 1" elevation; I am assuming blocked Line of Sight adjacent to 1" terrain and the battlemech's ability to "lean back" and fire indirect.]

Concerning #4... if "entire Movement" is going to be used for this maneuver, why bother having a Movement cost in #2?
I am guessing this is to deny a unit going Hull Down a TMM?  While I disagree with the notion, I do believe some clarity needs to be made for units coming UP from Hull Down, such as "gets its full TMM" or some portion thereof.
Alternatively, perhaps award "Half TMM" to units going down or standing up?  This is of course a suggestion but I do not believe it to be an unreasonable one. Referring to the rules in TacOps, the MP cost is identical... so the benefit/penalty should also be identical).  Since I believe a unit coming up from Hull Down should receive a TMM based on its available movement, it should also be an adjusted value and not full (TMM/2 or TMM-1 is sufficient in my eyes, but anything besides full).

Regardless of what happens with #4, I don't believe special maneuvering should be "stacked" meaning a unit that spends movement standing up from Hull Down should not also be allowed to Sprint or use other Special Movement modes.  (As it currently reads, a unit obviously intending to go Hull Down cannot Sprint in place to do so, so I'm not really concerned unless something changes)

[SC_Dave]

May as well get comments on it while I can..
Replaces Hull Down p11 ASC. (Note this is also intended to move Hull Down to standard rules.  As such I wanted to try and simply the rules for Hull Down, while also not just making it a free partial cover.  So it had to be simpler and have something to separate it from partial cover.)

*A unit using Hull Down Movement Mode cannot use its Move for anything except finding a hull down position.*

To be clear, does the section I've highlighted between asterisks, mean that a unit using Hull Down Movement Mode cannot actually move/go anywhere at all? It simply remains in the current location and spends move trying to find cover?

i.e. A unit can't move 8", then spend 4" (or 2") of move to find a hull down position and claim TMM along with the +1 to-hit?



It's a semantic issue, but perhaps rather than "Hull Down" these rules should be referred to as "seeking cover" or similar. IMHO any "Hull Down" rule should be a special rule for vehicles only. In actual military tactics the term applies to finding a position for a tank/vehicle where the main body of the vehicle (the hull) is hidden behind a terrain feature (such as the crest of a hill) leaving the turret exposed. This provides a smaller target for the enemy while enabling the vehicle to bring its weapons to bear. The front of the turret is typically one of the better armoured parts of the vehicle too.


Engaged infantry, that have to move, try to do so by moving from positions with cover to other positions with cover. Seeking cover shouldn't be anything out of the ordinary for them.

I also always considered that the rules did give mechs their own version of "Hull Down", it's just called "Partial Cover" instead.