Open Beta
Page 90, Battlemech Quirk Table
Missing Atlas III
Command BattleMech
Distracting
Jettison-Capable Weapon(RAC/2)
Protected Actuators
The list is for units that have not already been assigned quirks, Atlas III, along with the other TR3145, TR3150, TR3085 and TRPrototypes already have quirks assigned.
Shouldn't we have them all in one place? Isn't that the point of this book?
How interested would you be in self-contained BattleTech products that are playable without additional miniatures or rulebooks?Is this in reference to many other games which shall remain nameless, that would require a non-proxied-unit be used, and thus any new manual that's released, requires the purchase of corresponding game-pieces? (Less, comment about Rulebooks).
Have you purchased the recent Open Beta of the BattleMech Manual?Seems out of place early on in the questionnaire considering there hadn't been a reference to indicate that the questionnaire itself isn't solely related to the OpenBeta: BattleMech Manual. (Could have just been my perspective of reading through it).
How interested would you be in tabletop BattleTech products geared specifically to players of the electronic games, such as MechWarrior Online or the upcoming Harebrained Schemes BattleTech game?Hopefully this is in reference to Catalyst possibly producing new products, and NOT modifying TableTop rules to match that which the video-game players have been forced to use.
All that is required is that the attacker can legally enter the hex the target occupies, and has enough Jumping MP to reach that hex. An attacker must have at least 2 Jumping MP to make a DFA on a standing ’Mech, since a standing ’Mech is two levels high."
DFA Attacks: If a ’Mech launches a death from above attack (see p. 35), and all the hexes surrounding the target ’Mech contain impassable terrain, one of the ’Mechs will automatically be destroyed. If the target ’Mech is hit by the DFA, it is destroyed. If the DFA fails, the attacker is destroyed instead.While not as likely to occur as with Grappling, is the reason one 'Mech (specifically 'Mech, and not described as any other type of unit) would be out-right destroyed due to impassable terrain for the purposes of ease-of-gameplay?
’Mechs can be displaced downward any number of levels, though this results in an accidental fall (see p. 57).Old DFA-rule:
FALLSDoes the BattleMech Manual correct the condition created with TW-rules to where a target of a successful DFA being displaced off of a higher elevation to one lower (off of a building or cliff, for example), would only suffer a 0-level fall?
A successful death from above attack may cause both ’Mechs to fall. Both MechWarriors must make Piloting Skill Rolls, the target adding a +2 modifier and the attacker adding a +4 modifier.
If either unit fails this roll, the unit takes damage as from a 0-level fall.
On an unsuccessful attack, the attacker automatically falls, taking damage as though the ’Mech had fallen 2 levels onto its back (see Falling, p. 68).
OK, so if you are catching up on questions, I do have one from page 31, Indirect Fire and TAG. I will quote the rules here:
Not sure I'm following entirely, but does the statement on p. 113 clarify this?
"a ’Mech can both be a spotter and TAG-designate a target in the same turn; if so, the ’Mech counts as firing a weapon that turn when calculating indirect fire Target Number modifiers."
If so, do you think any sort of clarifier is needed on p. 31?
Suggestion: I don't think the Marauder 'Mechs should get the Narrow/Low Profile quirk. The "target area" of the 'Mech doesn't appear to be any great reduction over other designs. And this is at 12 and 6 o'clock. At any other angles(facings) the Marauder line is displayed further, and is a suitably large target.
This is especially considering smaller designs that don't have the quirk - such as the Fire Falcon.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1768639/nu.jpg)
-Ocelot: Jettison Capable Weapon(s): ER Medium LasersOcelot should probably get that, yeah.
-Mad Cat Mk II: Ubiquitous - It's used everywhere during the Jihad through dark age.
-Cicada: If it does get no-minimal arms and no torso twist, can we get errata placing the lasers in the arms?
-Chimera: Bad Reputation? It had one to a degree in real life for being a crummy mech in MW4, might be a fun nod
-Crimson Hawk: Nimble Jumper, just due to this awesome art and the directional jump jet ports: http://isa.pl/mechwarrior/tapety/FFE_desktop_CrimsonHawk_800x600.jpg
-Dervish: Barrel-Fists
-Spider: Dark age variant has fine manipulators
I'm going to hazard a guess that the Marauder is meant to have the quirk due to the highly sloped armor rather than volume. Look at the Dragon... it has the quirk and high angles of deflection has to be the explanation.Uh... yes, let's go with that.
The Mad Cat Mk II is available to damn near half of the Inner Sphere during the Civil War, and expands all the way onto the Inner Sphere General and the Mercenary list by the time the Jihad wraps up. It's pretty everywhere.That the Mad Cat Mk. II is available to them is one thing, but Ubiquitous means that design is produced in large numbers or has lots of parts available, which is why it's on stuff that has that fluff. Just because it has a wide availability doesn't mean it has large production.
The exact shape of the Dervish's hands are pretty irrelevant, the idea is that it's not harder to punch something with its paddle hands than without hand actuators (which is what the quirk represents).
Seconding the suggestion to break Narrow/Low Profile into two different quirks.
Suggestion: Distracting perk for the Night Gyr due to its laser heat sinks - perhaps only during the Clan Invasion Era, or perhaps only at night?I actually did add this quirk initially, but according to the TRO and the RS, the Night Gyr doesn't actually have Laser Heat Sinks. So I set it aside. If we're going to retcon the LHS back on to the Night Gyr, then it should have that quirk.
TRO3058 (corrected 3rd printing, 1995), p182: "These laser heat sinks also have an interesting side effect that the Jade Falcons, of all the Clans, surely must appreciate. When firing its weapons at night, the Night Gyr appears to be shrouded in plumage of light beams as the 'Mech exudes its converted heat ... the sight of it can be extremely frightening to green troops."
A ’Mech with the WTF quirk is physically designed to embarrass, intimidate, or confuse its pilot and opponent, with its appearance...
pg101 M-PodThey're Point Defense, and I think Point Blank pertains to units that can make those types of attacks (namely, infantry).
M-Pod is not Point-Blank, hence should not get PD designation.
Also, why PD and not PB, for Point-Blank?
They're Point Defense, and I think Point Blank pertains to units that can make those types of attacks (namely, infantry).
Here's another post in the "I think this mech should have a quirk that you didn't give" column.Yeah I can agree with Easy to Maintain.
Hatamotos should have "Easy to Maintain", imo. Based on TRO entries in 3039 and 3050U. And logically that Hatamotos are heavily modified Chargers, which DO have the quirk already.
3050U: Mentions that Hatamotos have "spacious cavities" that are "easy to reconfigure".
3039: The notable pilot entry is actually not a Hatamoto pilot. The LCAF pilot is notable precisely because Hatamotos are so easy to repair... she killed the same Hatamoto over and over in the same battle only to see it quickly repaired and put back into action every time.
also: not that it's the BattleMech Manual's focus, but customizing a mech involves lots of repair rolls. Between the 3050U comment and the existence of so many canonical variations on the Hatamoto, it's clearly something that's easily redesigned/customized. Again, the entire line is basically a totemized Charger afterall. Ergo, it's easy to make lots of repair rolls on a Hatamoto and that sounds very appropo for the quirk :)Er, that's what the Modular Weapons (Torso Weapons) quirk is referencing. Since most of the canon variants of the original Hatamoto shuffled the torso weapons, that's what got the quirk.
In my opinion, no. Since quirks aren't tournament legal, and the point of this book is to cover TL rules. It's a bonus.
But certainly the Atlas III by itself is not missing. If you want to request all units, go for it. You're welcome to your own opinion, and they've asked for your opinion.
OK, so if you are catching up on questions, I do have one from page 31, Indirect Fire and TAG. I will quote the rules here:
This leads to my question.
Mech A is TAGging enemy Mech 1.
If Mech A then spots Mech 1 for Mech B to indirect fire on (using Semi-guided missiles because otherwise TAG is useless for IF), does this mean that Mech B has the follwoing Modifiers for Attacking (Using G.A.T.O.R.):
G: Base Gunner
A: Mech B's Attacker Movement Modifier
T: Not calculated as Using Semi-Guided Missiles with TAG elimiates (page 31)
O: +1 To hit for IF not calcuated (page 31, Semi-Guided), +1 for Spotter IS added because the spotter is the TAGger?
R: Range Modifiers
If that is indeed true, then I am correct in assuming if the TAGger does not then spot but say Mech G spots instead (and performs no attack) then the +1 for Spotter attacking is not added at step O of G.A.T.O.R.?
If Mech A both TAGs and spots for IF:
Mech B has a +2 penalty to attack
(+1 IF penalty, +1 more because the spotter counts as having attacked that turn, as per BMM p. 113)
If Mech A TAGs and non-attacking Mech G spots for IF:
Mech B has a +1 penalty to attack
(+1 IF penalty)
I hope this clarifies things: let me know if I missed a point. As far as I can tell there's nothing in the rules that would make me thing Mech B would receive additional penalties in scenario 2. Can you explain why you thought so? Do you think this needs a clarifier anywhere? if so, could you suggest the exact spot and some idea of what the wording might be (even just rough)?
Ah, I see now. The statement on p. 31 says:
"However, a ’Mech can spot for indirect fire and TAG a target in the same turn;"
There's no specifying the same target or anything in that sentence (spot" and "tag a target" are genericin this phrase). So yes, if a mech tags one target and spots another target, it's still the same as if it tags and spots the same target as far as the guy making the actual attack is concerned.
So the Tarantula has Extended Torso Twist as a quirk. That normal does nothing for a quad, but are we going to allow the Tarantula to twist one hexside, or change the quirk?
So the Tarantula has Extended Torso Twist as a quirk. That normal does nothing for a quad, but are we going to allow the Tarantula to twist one hexside, or change the quirk?
I forget exactly which ones, but there are units whose unique abilities allow them to fire while sprinting. I can only assume this was meant to cover those cases.
I was trying to be too clever in pre-empting questions (what if they bring up sprinting? I know: I'll mention that too!) to remember that you can't attack while sprinting. In the interests of preventing confusion and cutting text, I'll delete that part.
Savage CoyoteBecause by the IC printing date of 3067, the Coyotes had a ton of them, but so did the rest of the Clans. IIRC, the Savage Coyote got the quirk during the early iteration of the quirk itself, where it was broadly "fluff indicates there's a lot of these things."
Not sure why this 'Mech has the "Ubiquitous" quirk; it's used by one homeworld Clan and isn't introduced until 3059. That hardly fits the description of "Ubiquitous"
More quirks:I'm incredibly hesitant about porting over quirks from XTRO units, since those might be quirks belonging to just the model in the entry, rather than the line as a whole. The MAD-4X is a custom rebuild, thus the Cramped Cockpit. As for Rumble Seat for it and the Shadow Hawk, the Unseen are starting to get loaded down a shedload of quirks, to the point that if we add Rumble Seat and Directional Torso Mount to the Marauder, it will end up with 7 quirks.
-Marauder: Cramped Cockpit or Rumble Seat. Cramped Cockpit because of the MAD-4X fluff and Rumble Seat because of Lori Kalmar riding with Grayson Carlyle.
-Shadow Hawk - Rumble Seat - Same as above, Lori and Grayson
-Zeus - Rumble Seat (has one for the 6Y Zeus)
So how about Cowl for the Direwolf?The 4 point Cowl appears only on Victor Steiner-Davion's Daishi, sorry. O0 I've been thinking about Improved Targeting (Long) though.
Because by the IC printing date of 3067, the Coyotes had a ton of them, but so did the rest of the Clans. IIRC, the Savage Coyote got the quirk during the early iteration of the quirk itself, where it was broadly "fluff indicates there's a lot of these things."We couldn't even justify more than 4 clans having access to the Savage Coyote for the MUL. That quirk should probably be changed.
This damage is applied before the controller of the enemy ’Mech makes its Piloting Skill Roll to dodge the skidding Phoenix Hawk, because if the falling and skidding damage destroys the Phoenix Hawk, then the charge would not occur and the dodging enemy ’Mech would still be able to move normally this turn. The enemy ’Mech’s controller, however, rolls a 3, which means it failed to dodge. In addition, because it has now moved, it cannot move again later in the Movement Phase.
I'm incredibly hesitant about porting over quirks from XTRO units, since those might be quirks belonging to just the model in the entry, rather than the line as a whole. The MAD-4X is a custom rebuild, thus the Cramped Cockpit. As for Rumble Seat for it and the Shadow Hawk, the Unseen are starting to get loaded down a shedload of quirks, to the point that if we add Rumble Seat and Directional Torso Mount to the Marauder, it will end up with 7 quirks.
The Zeus 6Y's Rumble Seat may be specific to that one model (Like the Rifleman III having Multi-Trac, for example) that aren't present on others, as I said earlier. Otherwise the Awesome might have Poor Performance, which is just cruel to the old girl.
Fair enough, Jysmet suggested I recommend these no matter which way. I figured a good chunk of them may be ignored.Not ignoring them at all, just giving my rationale for some of the quirks in this initial list. I've already made changes to several designs based off the thread, and I'm sure CGL will have more changes as more feedback comes in. So keep submitting stuff, it's always good to quadruple and sextuple check.
The fact that the 6Y was an actual production model and that the 6Y art has a similar enough cockpit to the original 6S that I felt it warranted suggestion. You are more than welcome to ignore my suggestions :)
are better cushioned against or otherwise compensated
for the increased inaccuracy caused by moving at high speeds. If the
’Mech runs (or sprints, if using the optional Sprinting rules; see p. 15)
all Target Numbers for that weapon receive a –1 modifier.
'Mechs can be displaced downward any number of levels, though this results in an accidental fall (see page 57).That's, probably, a misleading statement. Suggestion to correct as following:
Page 57, has rules for Accidental Falls from above, which covers what happens if a 'Mech is pushed from a higher level into a hex containing another 'Mech, but says nothing on what happens if the hex is empty.Well, it was implied that the 'Mech simply falls the appropriate number of levels and stays in the hex it was displaced into. Though, it is worth mentioning this somewhere, like I did above.
What happens to a 'Mech pushed 1 level lower into an empty hex? Does it automatically fall? Does it make a PSR to avoid falling? If so, does it apply a penalty to it's roll?Again, see my suggestion above.
As for quirk assignment dose not the fluff for the Loki (Hellbringer) mention that it is an electronics marvel? so improved sensors seem to a good idea.
Let's see. Regarding the displacement and accidental fall issue, does the following close all the needed gaps?
Page 57, replace the entire initial "Accidental Falls from Above" section with the following:
ACCIDENTAL FALLS FROM ABOVE
An accidental fall from above occurs when a ’Mech is displaced by a charge, push, or death from above attack, or as a result of another accidental fall from above or the domino effect (see p. 55). A ’Mech may not intentionally fall from above.
If the hex the ’Mech is moved into is empty, then treat this as a regular fall.
If the hex the ’Mech is moved into contains another ’Mech, and the hex it is entering is 1 or 0 levels lower than the hex from which it was displaced, a domino effect occurs (see p. 55).
If the hex the ’Mech is moved into contains another ’Mech, and is two levels or more lower than the hex from which it was displaced, then the ’Mech already in the hex might be struck by the falling ’Mech. Make an attack roll with a base Target Number of 7, modified by target movement and terrain.
If it does, I have a question about this. How does a mech fall both 0 levels and on top of something, as indicated in the third para there?
Let's see. Regarding the displacement and accidental fall issue, does the following close all the needed gaps?
Page 57, replace the entire initial "Accidental Falls from Above" section with the following:
ACCIDENTAL FALLS FROM ABOVE
An accidental fall from above occurs when a ’Mech is displaced by a charge, push, or death from above attack, or as a result of another accidental fall from above or the domino effect (see p. 55). A ’Mech may not intentionally fall from above.
If the hex the ’Mech is moved into is empty, then treat this as a regular fall.
If the hex the ’Mech is moved into contains another ’Mech, and the hex it is entering is 1 or 0 levels lower than the hex from which it was displaced, a domino effect occurs (see p. 55) and the 'Mech that moved into the hex falls.
If the hex the ’Mech is moved into contains another ’Mech, and is two levels or more lower than the hex from which it was displaced, then the ’Mech already in the hex might be struck by the falling ’Mech. Make an attack roll with a base Target Number of 7, modified by target movement and terrain.
If it does, I have a question about this. How does a mech fall both 0 levels and on top of something, as indicated in the third para there?
Did you mean the third paragraph you wrote yourself? ???
Anyway, the way you put it can create even more confusion. First, one should decide if the Domino Effect and Accidental Falls From Above need separate treatment, because what you just wrote mixes them up.
A passing question. So, the 'Mech can be displaced by Domino Effect rules into a hex 2 levels higher, but for a displacement into a hex 2 levels lower the Accidental Fall From Above rules are in effect ('Mechs can handle 2 level change while deliberate movement)? If true, you can consider adding an entry into the Common Misconceptions Section.
To scrutinize the situation, four options are possible:
1. 'Mech is displaced into a hex which has a level anywhere in a range from 2 levels higher to 1 level lower (both ends including) in respect to the the 'Mech was displaced from, so that:
Ah, that could be clearer. The idea is that if you fire an energy weapon, you get the effects: any energy weapon (as opposed to the quirk being tied to a specific energy weapon). The mech's electronics themselves are what is sufficiently unshielded. A few generic quirks previously tied to a specific weapon (such as Fast Relaod) were given generic location- or whole-mech-based variants like this.
Additionally, that should make the quirk more expensive.
Actually a mech can only be displaced up to 2 levels higher, and any number of levels lower. I.E...pushed off the top of a sky scrapper ;)
Did you mean the third paragraph you wrote yourself? ???
MUD
According to TO (pg. 50), Mechs ignore Mud:
To clarify something, when puzzling out a rule, it needs to match TW usage unless I note otherwise. This book is not about changing rules. As such, for something like the Accidental Falls from Above, I can't change how it works: I can only try to make it clearer compared to how it was originally presented in TW. Only if a situation was not detailed in TW can I do something original.
Along these lines:
That's TW text, so I just copied it over and maybe edited it for clarity and length. Only now I'm taking a real close look at it and wondering what it actually means.
I agree: I posted proposed replacement text above that I think addresses that issue. I agree with Grasshopper that it's not as clean a resolution as I think it could be, but again, stuck with original rules.
My only remaining question is how it's possible for a mech to fall 0 levels on top of something. If no one can think of such a scenario, I'll just delete that reference.
My only remaining question is how it's possible for a mech to fall 0 levels on top of something. If no one can think of such a scenario, I'll just delete that reference.
Personally Xotl, I have no issues with what exists in the Battlemech manual currently.
My Issue is, neither TW nor by extrapolation does the BMM tell me 'exactly' what happens to a 'Mech pushed into a lower Hex that is not already occupied, but is empty.
Does the pushed 'Mech automatically fall?
Does it make a PSR?
If it makes a PSR, is the PSR modified because of lower terrain?
that is all. The rest of the rules (as I read them) seem fine to me.
This was changed in TO errata, so that mechs do not ignore mud.
Isn't a fall of 0 levels another way of saying a fall beginning and ending in the same hex? And stacking rules prvent 2 mechs from being in the same hex, but a mech may share a hex with lesser forces like tanks/infantry. Mech takes 20 damage, fails its PSR, and lands on the tank it was standing next to....
I, actually, found the answer to this, if we are talking about a push attack in particular. On p.40:
Prohibited Terrain: If the target would be displaced into
prohibited terrain, which includes half-hexes (except into a hex
more than two levels lower than the target’s current hex, which
would result in an automatic fall; see Displacement, p. 55), neither
the attacker nor the target move; all other effects occur, however,
including any Piloting Skill Rolls to avoid falling.
Now, the hex more than two levels lower than the target’s current hex is not formally the prohibited terrain, but, from the explanation, we can make the conclusion. If the hex the 'Mech is pushed into is 1 level lower and is not prohibited from entering, then resolve the push as usual, i.e. the "Mech falls if it fails the PSR forced by the Push Attack.
PUSH ATTACKS
Base Target Number: Piloting Skill –1.
A ’Mech uses both arms to make a push attack against its target,
which must be another standing ’Mech. Pushing attacks can only
be made against a target in the hex directly in front of the attacker
(based on the orientation of its feet, not its upper body; a torso twist
does not change what can be the legal target).
A ’Mech may make no arm-mounted weapon attacks in the turn
that it makes a push attack. The target ’Mech cannot be performing
a charge or death from above attack this turn. It must also be at the
same level as the attacker.
A successful push attack does not damage the target. Instead,
it moves the defending ’Mech into the adjacent hex in the direction
that the attacker pushes it. If the push is successful, the attacking
’Mech advances into the hex formerly occupied by its target (unlike
a charge attack, this does not require additional MP expenditure).
At the same time, the defender must make a Piloting Skill Roll (see
p. 53) or fall. See also Displacement, page 55.
Multiple Attacks: A ’Mech may only be the target of one
charge, death from above, or push attack in a given turn.
If two ’Mechs are pushing each other, resolve both attempts
and apply the net effect. If both attacks fail, nothing happens. If both
attacks succeed, neither ’Mech moves, and both must make Piloting
Skill Rolls or fall. If only one push attack succeeds, resolve it as usual.
Prohibited Terrain: If the target would be displaced into
prohibited terrain, which includes half-hexes (except into a hex
more than two levels lower than the target’s current hex, which
would result in an automatic fall; see Displacement, p. 55), neither
the attacker nor the target move; all other effects occur, however,
including any Piloting Skill Rolls to avoid falling.
Shoulder Actuators: Each damaged shoulder actuator on the
’Mech attempting to push adds a +2 Target Number modifier to
the attack.
DISPLACEMENT
’Mechs moved from their hexes as a result of their opponent’s
actions are displaced. Displacement can result from charging,
pushing, and death from above attacks. It can also result from a
domino effect that displaces a string of ’Mechs.
A ’Mech cannot be displaced into a hex it is prohibited from
entering. Typically this means hexes three or more levels higher
than the displaced ’Mech. ’Mechs can be displaced downward any
number of levels, though this results in an accidental fall (see p. 57).
If the rules call for a ’Mech to be displaced into an illegal hex,
the displacement cannot occur. Unless the specific rules of the
attack or action state otherwise, in these cases neither the target
nor the attacking ’Mech moves. All other effects of the displacing
action occur, including damage and any required Piloting Skill Rolls.
Buildings: If a ’Mech is displaced into a building hex, the
building takes damage as if the displaced ’Mech had charged it
(see Charge Attacks, p. 35).
DFA Attacks: If a ’Mech launches a death from above attack
(see p. 35), and all the hexes surrounding the target ’Mech contain
impassable terrain, one of the ’Mechs will automatically be
destroyed. If the target ’Mech is hit by the DFA, it is destroyed. If
the DFA fails, the attacker is destroyed instead.
ACCIDENTAL FALLS FROM ABOVE
An accidental fall from above occurs when a ’Mech is displaced
by a charge, push, or death from above attack, or as a result of
another accidental fall from above or the domino effect (see
Displacement, p. 55) moving it into a hex containing another ’Mech,
and the hex it is entering is two levels or more lower than the hex
from which it was displaced. If the difference in hex levels is 1 or 0,
a domino effect occurs instead (see p. 55).
When a ’Mech accidentally falls two levels or more into a hex
occupied by another ’Mech, make an attack roll with a base Target
Number of 7, modified by target movement and terrain.
A ’Mech may not intentionally fall from above.
Prohibited Level Change: In the case of a forced level change
(such as from a charge, push, or death from above attack), a ’Mech
cannot be displaced into a hex it is prohibited from entering. This
includes hexes at higher levels than the displaced ’Mech can move
upward in a single hex (three or more levels). ’Mechs can be displaced
downward any number of levels, though this results in an accidental
fall (see p. 57).*
DIFFERENT LEVELS
The rules for punching, clubbing, physical weapon, kicking, and
charging attacks assume that the opposing ’Mechs are at the same level.
A ’Mech may make a physical attack against another ’Mech only
if the level of the underlying hexes of both ’Mechs are within one
level of each other. The Different Levels Table shows which types of
physical attacks can be made in various situations. Players must use
different Hit Location Tables to determine the location of damage
from punching, clubbing, physical weapon, or kicking attacks against
an opponent on various levels.
Target is: - Allowed Physical Attack
Standing ’Mech 1 level higher - Charge, Punch (Kick Table), Club (Kick Table), Physical Weapon (Kick Table)
Standing ’Mech 1 level lower - Charge, Kick (Punch Table), Club (Punch Table), Physical Weapon (Punch Table)
Prone ’Mech 1 level higher - Punch, Club, Physical Weapon
Prone ’Mech 1 level lower - None[/quote]
Is this an Ommision? Or is a push something that can only happen to a target at the same level? I can see a 'Mech able to push a target 1 level higher, but not lower, so just curious on this.
The revised Accidental Fall from Above rules I posted: do they resolve the situation?
Reading it again, the exact wording is "If the hex the ’Mech is moved into contains another ’Mech, and the hex it is entering is 1 or 0 levels lower than the hex from which it was displaced,"
It basically says "if you're displaced into a hex that is the same level, a domino effect occurs". There's nothing about falls actually there (again, Grasshopper is right to point out how potentially confusing this is). It's actually a note that effectively says "if this happens, you're in the wrong section and should go to p. X instead."
So I think I can adjust as appropriate:
ACCIDENTAL FALLS FROM ABOVE
A ’Mech may be forcibly displaced into a lower hex. A ’Mech may take none of the following actions deliberately on its own.
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into is empty, then treat this as a regular fall.
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into contains another ’Mech, and that hex is just one level lower, then a domino effect occurs (see p. 55).
However, if the hex the ’Mech is displaced into contains another ’Mech, and that hex is two levels or more lower, then the ’Mech already in the hex might be struck by the falling ’Mech. Make an attack roll with a base Target Number of 7, modified by target movement and terrain.
FALLING DAMAGE TO A MECHWARRIOR
A player makes a second Piloting Skill Roll after every fall. All
modifiers applied to the PSR that caused the fall are applied to this
second roll, with an additional +1 modifier applied to the Target
Number for every level above 1 fallen. If the roll succeeds, the
MechWarrior avoids taking damage. If the roll fails, the MechWarrior
takes 1 point of damage.
To clarify something, when puzzling out a rule, it needs to match TW usage unless I note otherwise. This book is not about changing rules. As such, for something like the Accidental Falls from Above, I can't change how it works: I can only try to make it clearer compared to how it was originally presented in TW.Everything I wrote was based on TW rules (as I understood them) without any enhancements.
And while we are on the rules for PUSH Attacks, Page 34, makes no mention of PUSH Attacks for Different Levels:You do not need the 'Mechs to be on different levels to encounter the problems with the rule. You simply need to push the 'Mech into a lower hex. This line (p.40), though,
Reading it again, the exact wording is "If the hex the ’Mech is moved into contains another ’Mech, and the hex it is entering is 1 or 0 levels lower than the hex from which it was displaced,"
....
It basically says "if you're displaced into a hex that is the same level, a domino effect occurs". There's nothing
My impression would be that, if the text says treat this as a fall, then the fact that you fall is sort of implicit: i.e. no PSR -- you've already fallen. That's certainly what I meant there (that's why it doesn't say "make a PSR", it just says "fall".)
Does it really need further clarification, you think?
This line (p.40), though,
"It must also be at the same level as the attacker,"
tells us that 'Mech can't be pushed from a different level
I think (at least to me personally) that this:
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into is empty, the 'Mech automatically falls.
is clearer than
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into is empty, then treat this as a regular fall.
And again, the confusion comes from in different parts of the rules there was different ways of saying (I guess) the same thing.
I'm going to hazard a guess that the Marauder is meant to have the quirk due to the highly sloped armor rather than volume. Look at the Dragon... it has the quirk and high angles of deflection has to be the explanation.
QUIRKS:
Unlike most products, we're looking for more than just error reports here. We're actively soliciting feedback on the quirk list.
If you want to suggest that a mech should or should not have a quirk, please give your reasoning (be succinct, please). The best support would be based on TRO fluff, but art and other canon sources are good too. Please provide any page numbers with your arguments, where applicable.
Note that this list is only meant to contain quirks for mechs that did not previously have them, rather than being a list of every mech ever made. Mechs that had quirks in their TROs (so TRO Protoypes and later) are not included here.
Thanks!
I do hope they work on a list that includes quirks for variants as well. The Victor is a good example having accurate weapon for the AC/20. Does this translate to variants using the Long Tom Cannon or Gauss Rifle? Or perhaps a variant with HAG, LB, Ultra??That's an absurd amount of work though. I mean, that's literally thousands of units. Sure I'd be willing to work on it, but such a list is absolutely out of the scope of the BattleMech Manual.
For the Axman that would be more of a variant quirk, something that list tries to avoid to make it general to each model.
Example, the Mongoose. Most of the Mongoose variants have a medium laser in the CT, hence its quirk. The 66b Royal variant though has an ER Large Laser in the CT. Some of the other 2750 designs also list having ammo problems that get fixed later, but those still get the negative ammo quirks anyway.
I do hope they work on a list that includes quirks for variants as well. The Victor is a good example having accurate weapon for the AC/20. Does this translate to variants using the Long Tom Cannon or Gauss Rifle? Or perhaps a variant with HAG, LB, Ultra??
May I make a suggestion on that front? Put quirks in the "Notes" section on the MUL.
QUIRK FEEDBACK:Crud you're right, I forgot the Rampage and the other Wolverine mechs. Thanks!
The Rampage is missing from this list and I don't recall seeing its Quirks anywhere. I'd suggest Bad Reputation, though I'm not sure what else.
6 for the Gauss, 2 for the ERPPC, 2 for the MPLs total, and 1 for the Small Laser)4 for MPLs. MPL makes 6 damage, 1 quirk points for every 5 damage makes it 2 points worth each.
4 for MPLs. MPL makes 6 damage, 1 quirk points for every 5 damage makes it 2 points worth each.Either way, the fluff still talks about the inherent accuracy in the Nightstar, and giving it 17 or even 10 points in negatives is excessive, I think. Even a swap to Improved Targeting at all three range bands would end up being 12, rather than 13 points.
onder what is the point of Reinforced legs on Helepolis and Hollanders - none of the known variants has jump-jet thus cannot perform DFA attack.
Awesome - Battlefists. Should probably be like Battlefist (LA)
Blue flame and White flame should probably benefit of Directional torso mounts at least for some weapons.
Still not sure what Extended torso twist should mean for Tarantula: is it 1 hexside twist ability (from 0 to 1) or it does mean that particular quad is able to twist torso and with a quirk it's 2 hexsides (from 1 to 2)?
What should mean Poor cooling jackets on Goliath's MGs? MGs do not generate any heat (unless rapid fire rule, which one I believe is not included in BM manual) to add extra point to, does it mean that with this quirks they now generate 1 heat each?
Directional torso mounts on LRM20s on Grand Crusader. How is it even possible?
But my main concern is Nightstar. According to the qiurks cost in BM manual, Nightstar NSR-9J has Quirks for 17 points. Strategic Operations books states "it is strongly recommended that if a player
chooses a positive quirk for a design, he or she should give
it negative quirks of equal or greater value as well". I know, more that half of mechs in BM manual are not balanced according to this recommendation, but Nightstar is just something beyond any reason.
As for the Tarantula, it was my intent in giving it the quirk that the mech gain the ability to turn 1 hex-side, but making it a hyper unique quad that can torso twist on its own is cool too.
Actually a mech can only be displaced up to 2 levels higher, and any number of levels lower. I.E...pushed off the top of a sky scrapper ;)Also to piggy-back:
... If the DFA is successful, the target is pushed one hex in the direction opposite the attack... This motion might result in an accidental fall from above or a domino effect or even a PSR for entering a building hex; see TW Unit Displacement, p. 151".
Falls, p. 150:
A successful death from above attack may cause both 'Mechs to fall. Both MechWarriors must make PSR's, the target adding a +2 modifier and the attacker adding a +4 modifier. If either unit fails this roll, the unit takes damage as from a 0-level fall.
On a successful attack, the attacker automatically falls, taking damage as though the 'Mech had fallen 2 levels onto its back (see Falling, p. 68).
... If the DFA is successful, the target is pushed one hex in the direction opposite the attack. If the DFA fails, the target chooses an adjacent hex and moves to it, even if immobile or prone. This motion might result in an accidental fall from above or a domino effect or even a PSR for entering a building hex; see Displacement, p. 55.Possible scenario:
Falls After DFA
A successful DFA attack may cause both 'Mechs to fall. Both MechWarriors must make PSR's (see p.53), the target applying a +2 Target Number modifier and the attacker a +4 modifier. If either 'Mech fails this roll, the 'Mech takes damage as from a 0-level fall.
On an unsuccessful attack, the attacker automatically falls, taking damage as though it had fallen 2 levels onto its back (see Falling, p. 56).
A successful DFA attack may cause both 'Mechs to fall. Both MechWarriors must make PSR's (see p.53), the target applying a +2 Target Number modifier and the attacker a +4 modifier. If either 'Mech fails this roll, the 'Mech takes damage as from a 0-level fall, THEN falling effects are applied due to any change in levels from the fall.(to indicate the target was smashed into its current hex, then Displaced [however, this could result in two "falls", PSR's, and consciousness checks.])
A successful DFA attack may cause both 'Mechs to fall. Both MechWarriors must make PSR's (see p.53), the target applying a +2 Target Number modifier and the attacker a +4 modifier. If either 'Mech fails this roll, the 'Mech takes damage as from a fall of 0-levels PLUS the actual change in levels between its original hex, and its destination hex**.(This might need a little wording-refinement to indicate TWO different effects happen to the target, and attacker; the new hex-occupier, and that which was displaced).
A successful DFA attack may cause both 'Mechs to fall. Both MechWarriors must make PSR's (see p.53), the target applying a +2 Target Number modifier and the attacker a +4 modifier. If either 'Mech fails this roll, the 'Mech takes damage as from a fall of 0-levels PLUS the actual change in levels between its original hex, and its destination hex**.(Despite that units ARE displaced, charging rules would indicate the mass of both units will exist in the same hex at that instant - as with stacking rules, when two units move through the same hex of a bridge: a unit moving through a CF100 building/bridge /and not at the ground floor/ at the same time a unit were there, stationary, would cause it to collapse.)
When a DFA takes place on top of a structure such as a building or bridge, it may collapse.calculate the total combined tonnage of units in the hex at the time of the attack, and compare to the building's current Construction Factor. If the tonnage-value exceeds the buildings current CF, the building collapses(see Bridge Movement: Capacity, p20, and/or Collapse, p 73).
So is simply having a large amount of "space glass" in the cockpit artwork instead the guiding principle?Pretty much. The Jinggau was going to have 4 points, because of how much of the torso was glass, but I felt it was a bit much to give it that and no torso twist.
Also to piggy-back:
I still have to come back to my post from a week ago (and, 5? months ago for a TW post)...
Being pushed off of terrain and falling 2+ levels = PSR and/or falling damage. Does not detail if the PSR is successful and does not fall, is damage from levels-fallen applied? If applied, to legs only?
Being DFA'd off of terrain and falling any distance - 2 levels or 20 levels = treat as having fallen 2 levels; Success on PSR = no damage or fall.
Possible scenario:
'Mech-A, PXH-1 beginning movement phase at L0 terrain..
'Mech-B, WSP-1A moving to the top of a 1-hex L5 building with L0 terrain on all sides, having lost initiative.
This DFA-rules as written, seems to create a condition where when 'Mech-A DFA's 'Mech-B... If 'Mech-A successfully executes its DFA-attack to cause 'Mech-B to be hit and displaced, 'Mech-B will fall 5 levels for a 0-level fall (with damage and PSR's according to a 0-level fall). If 'Mech-B succeeds this +2 PSR, it receives no additional damage, and remains standing.
If the DFA attack FAILS, 'Mech-B *is* subject to falling damage and PSR's for having fallen 5 levels from having been Displaced (p. 55).
Both Charge attacks and Push attacks off of a "cliff", will detail Accidental Falls / Displacement / Domino-effect, as per previous discussion.
Suggestion:(to indicate the target was smashed into its current hex, then Displaced [however, this could result in two "falls", PSR's, and consciousness checks.])
OR(This might need a little wording-refinement to indicate TWO different effects happen to the target, and attacker; the new hex-occupier, and that which was displaced).
OR(Despite that units ARE displaced, charging rules would indicate the mass of both units will exist in the same hex at that instant - as with stacking rules, when two units move through the same hex of a bridge: a unit moving through a CF100 building/bridge /and not at the ground floor/ at the same time a unit were there, stationary, would cause it to collapse.)
** Note - these would need verbiage to differentiate displacement from the targets' hex rather than its movement-phase "original" hex.
(Revisiting):
Pg34: Physical Attacks: Grappling
Are Grappling rules being omitted from the BMM, or are they simply missing?
I still have to come back to my post from a week ago (and, 5? months ago for a TW post)...
Being pushed off of terrain and falling 2+ levels = PSR and/or falling damage. Does not detail if the PSR is successful and does not fall, is damage from levels-fallen applied? If applied, to legs only?
Being DFA'd off of terrain and falling any distance - 2 levels or 20 levels = treat as having fallen 2 levels; Success on PSR = no damage or fall.
TW, Death From Above Attacks, Location After Attack, p. 150:
BMM, Death From Above Attacks, Location After DFA, p. 37:Possible scenario:
'Mech-A, PXH-1 beginning movement phase at L0 terrain..
'Mech-B, WSP-1A moving to the top of a 1-hex L5 building with L0 terrain on all sides, having lost initiative.
This DFA-rules as written, seems to create a condition where when 'Mech-A DFA's 'Mech-B... If 'Mech-A successfully executes its DFA-attack to cause 'Mech-B to be hit and displaced, 'Mech-B will fall 5 levels for a 0-level fall (with damage and PSR's according to a 0-level fall). If 'Mech-B succeeds this +2 PSR, it receives no additional damage, and remains standing.
If the DFA attack FAILS, 'Mech-B *is* subject to falling damage and PSR's for having fallen 5 levels from having been Displaced (p. 55).
(Revisiting):
Pg34: Physical Attacks: Grappling
Are Grappling rules being omitted from the BMM, or are they simply missing?
All right, trying to work through these giant falling / dispalcement posts. Forgive me if I miss something.
Being pushed off terrain means you fall. There's no PSR: you just fall, and it's treated in all ways as a normal fall unless you're dealing with a specific fall from above or domino effect scenario.
DISPLACEMENT
’Mechs moved from their hexes as a result of their opponent’s actions are displaced. Displacement can result from charging, pushing, and death from above attacks. It can also result from a domino effect that displaces a string of ’Mechs.
A ’Mech can be displaced upward one or two levels; hexes higher than this are prohibited hexes (see below). ’Mechs can be displaced downward any number of levels. What happens depends on how far the ’Mech falls, and if the hex fallen into is occupied by another ’Mech:
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into is empty and at the same level, make a PSR or fall (see Falling, p. XX).
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into is empty and lower, the 'Mech automatically falls (see Falling, p. XX).
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into contains another ’Mech, and that hex is just one level lower, then a domino effect occurs (see p. XX).
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into contains another ’Mech, and that hex is two levels or more lower, then an accidental fall from above occurs (see p. XX)
SNIP
Does this handle the problems to date? BRIEFLY AND CLEARLY, if I'm still missing anything on this issue, or it's still unclear, what needs fixing? Thanks all.
PILOTING SKILL ROLLS (PSR)
MechWarriors must make Piloting Skill Rolls (PSRs) under a
variety of circumstances. A PSR is usually made to avoid falling;
unless specified otherwise, failing a PSR means the ’Mech falls.
First, please forgive me, as I too would love to see this "put to bed" so to speak.
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into is empty and at the same level, make a PSR or fall (see Falling, p. XX).
Would the above be clearer?
As again, the change still leads me to question...Does a "Mech pushed 1 level lower automatically fall? Or is a 1 level Lower the same as equal level?
The trigger here is the term "treat as a normal fall". That term is used nowhere else in the rules.
DISPLACEMENT
’Mechs moved from their hexes as a result of their opponent’s actions are displaced. Displacement can result from charging, pushing, and death from above attacks. It can also result from a domino effect that displaces a string of ’Mechs.
A ’Mech can be displaced upward one or two levels; hexes higher than this are prohibited hexes (see below). ’Mechs can be displaced downward any number of levels. What happens depends on how far the ’Mech falls, and if the hex fallen into is occupied by another ’Mech:
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into is empty, this is a normal fall (see Falling, p. XX).
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into contains another ’Mech, and that hex is just one level lower, then a domino effect occurs (see p. XX).
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into contains another ’Mech, and that hex is two levels or more lower, then an accidental fall from above occurs (see p. XX)
Buildings: If a ’Mech is displaced into a building hex, the building takes damage as if the displaced ’Mech had charged it (see Charge Attacks, p. XX).
DFA Attacks: If a ’Mech launches a death from above attack (see p. XX), and all the hexes surrounding the target ’Mech contain impassable terrain, one of the ’Mechs will automatically be destroyed. If the target ’Mech is hit by the DFA, it is destroyed. If the DFA fails, the attacker is destroyed instead.
Prohibited Hexes: A ’Mech cannot be displaced into a hex it is prohibited from entering. Typically this means a hex three or more levels higher than the displaced ’Mech. If the rules call for a ’Mech to be displaced into a prohibited hex, the displacement cannot occur. In this case neither the target nor the attacking ’Mech move, unless the specific rules of the attack or action state otherwise. All other effects of the displacing action occur, including damage and any required Piloting Skill Rolls.
One level down is lower, so yes, it automatically falls. Source of the displacement is irrelevant.
One thing I am still confused on myself is the statement under "Prohibited Hexes" that says: In this case neither the target nor the attacking ’Mech move, unless the specific rules of the attack or action state otherwise. Is there any such occasion that states that even with prohibited hexes, one (or both, whatever) of the mechs still moves? Basically I'm trying to figure out why it was felt that caveat needed to be added. If there is no such reason, I want it removed.
Now it does not cover a case when the 'Mech is displaced into an occupied hex of the same level.
'What happens depends on how far the ’Mech falls...' could be changed to 'what happens depends on the level difference...', since at least in the case of no level change 'Mech does not fall automatically.
You definitely know better, but are absolutely, one hundred percent sure that this is correct? Could you point out the line in TW from which it follows. Vehicles and infantry, for example, do not take falling damage from being displaced into a hex 1 level lower (TW and errata for TW, p.151). It's probable, that 'Mechs do not follow the case, but still?
On the topic of other spotted issues.
DFA, Weapon Attack Phase, p.37
The +3 modifier for jumping movement must always be applied to the attacker’s Target Number: it is not already included.
It should be a usual modifier for jumping movement.
Domino Effect, p.55-56 (p.152-153 in TW)
An inconsistency between the example and the description. By the description, the 'Mech B in the example should make 2 PSR's: one for being forced out from the hex, one for forcing out the 'Mech C. The example states it should make one. It's a carry-over from the TW.
Vehicle or infantry displaced into water?
I would think a 1 level difference would require a basic PSR, 2 levels get a penalty unless it is a sheer cliff (is that covered in the BMM?), while anything greater is an automatic fall. As you said, a 6 meter change over a 30 meter hex is roughly a 10% grade or 1 meter up per 5 meters forward.
Or you could have 1 level is psr, more than one level gets penalty per level
Hope its helpful in how your proceed.
Is there ever a scenario in which it is not +3?
I definitely don't know better here: these rules are opaque as all hell, and I'm feeling my way through them with the invaluable help of this thread. A one-level drop being an auto fall is a pure assumption on my part, based on the image in my head of it being a sharp drop. However, what I'd missed is that it could just as easily be a gentle decline, and in any case, what matters is the mechanics (which I of course can't find in TW).
Is there any reference anywhere in TW (or even an older rulebook, if not TW) that clearly explains what happens in a one level drop but without referencing domino effect?
I wish I could just rewrite the whole displacement rules section (rather than just re-orging it, as I am now). It's very cumbersome.
So, even if you rewrite the same rules in a better wording, it's still a no-go?
Anyway, now the Domino Effect, p.55-56 needs clarification.
'If a ’Mech accidentally falls one level or less, or is forced into a hex occupied by another ’Mech...' is better to put as 'If a ’Mech after displacement violates stacking rules...'. Which is, by the way, more in line with the TW wording.
Also, in ACCIDENTAL FALLS FROM ABOVE, FALLING ’MECH HITS TARGET, p.57:
The ’Mech already in the hex is displaced (see p. 55).
Needs clarification into which hex it should be displaced.
I don't want to derail a FWL thread too much, but I'd just say that MultiTrac is concerned with multiple targets, whereas the TR 3058 fluff talks about "almost preternatural accuracy" or something similarly concerned with superb general accuracy.
Pg 131 for Common Misconceptions, Damage 1.
You state that you changed the rule so that for critical hits, the attacking player rolls the dice to see if there is a critical hit, and also where the criticals go. Then on page 132 in the box with the Archer critical locations example, it mentions the Archer's controller rolls the dice locations for the critical hit. This should be the attacking player rolling the dice, since the rule was changed.
Wolfshadow
Where does such interpretation come from? Was it supposed to come from the latter references in your post, because in the case of a push it does not.I guess I had written "Pushed" instead of "Displaced", which might have been a bit more clear to what I was meaning...
...
To begin with, in your example, DFA cannot be made by PHX-1, since it needs 7 jumping MP in order to make it (5 levels+2 levels 'Mech height). But if it could, one should first apply the damage from a successful DFA to Wasp, then displace it into an appropriate adjacent hex, then it will automatically fall 5 levels taking tonnage/10x6 damage (5 levels+1). You'll need a PSR with the modifier +4 (levels fallen above 1) +2 (was DFA'ed)+ all other modifiers (pre-existing damage and underlying terrain) to avoid the damage to the 'Mechwarrior. (Now, Xotl or anyone who can confirm for sure, am I right about the modifier?)
Death from above attacks are declared in the Movement Phase, not the Physical Attack Phase. All that is required is that the attacker can legally enter the hex the target occupies, and has enough umping MP to reach that hex. An attacker must have at least 2 Jumping MP to make a DFA on a tanding ’Mech, since a standing ’Mech is two levels high.
4) Death From Above Attacks, p. 36(Or some other manner to indicate the attacker's starting-hex level).
DFA might need to clarify that the attacker must still be able to jump as high as the off-set difference of terrain-elevation plus two levels:
While covered under the statement: This could indicate that a target atop of a L2 hill could be DFA'd by an attacker from a L0 terrain, 2 hexes away. (This may be valid).
However, it might make more sense to state:
"... must have a Jumping MP to reach at least two levels greater than the target's underlying terrain, minus the difference of the attacker's original elevation".
All that is required is that the attacker can legally enter the hex the target occupies, and has enough Jumping MP to reach that hex, THEN, must have at least 2 Jumping MP to make a DFA on a standing ’Mech, since a standing ’Mech is two levels high.
I noticed the section on FIRE and Accidental Fires in particular does not cover starting a fire through actual combat. (i.e. original rules page 43 Tactical Operations).
Is that an oversight or intentional?
I can't reconcile the numbers of PSR's in the example on p.56 and in the description of Multiple Domino Effects on p.55. Ugh... Can someone explain?
Could you clarify as to what part is unclear, exactly?
Domino Effect, p.55-56 (p.152-153 in TW)Excellent, thanks.
An inconsistency between the example and the description. By the description, the 'Mech B in the example should make 2 PSR's: one for being forced out from the hex, one for forcing out the 'Mech C. The example states it should make one. It's a carry-over from the TW.
You don't need an extra 2 MP though. A mech is treated just like a building or anything else in the case of a jump: if you can clear the obstacle, it costs you 1 MP, BUT you must have enough MP available to clear that target's level. The statement is just there to say that a mech with 1 MP can never DFA a standing mech because it can't get high enough, not that there's an extra 2 MP charge or that the attack would always cost 2 MP minimum. For example, if I want to DFA a standing mech right in front of me, I must have 2 MP available, but would only spend 1 MP to actually make the attack. If the same target was on a level 5 hill, I would need 7 MP available, but would still only spend 1 MP to actually make the attack.
It could be way clearer, though (and and the text also seems to rule out DFAs against prone mechs, which are possible). How about this?
Death from above attacks are declared in the Movement Phase, not the Physical Attack Phase. The attacker must be able to legally enter the hex the target occupies. The attacker must expend only the usual Jumping MP needed to reach that hex, but must have enough Jumping MP available to clear any height requirement (this is the level of the hex the target is in, plus two if the target ’Mech is standing, as a standing ’Mech is always two levels high). For example, to make a DFA attack from a Level 0 hex against a ’Mech standing one hex away on a Level 3 hill would only cost 1 MP, but the attacking ’Mech must have at least 5 Jumping MP available to make the attack. See Jumping, page 14.
Another question about the logic about quirks being justified from artwork:While I'm not the biggest fan of the Reseen, they're 3060s vintage variants, so I didn't use many of their construction queues for this, though IMO pretty much all of them would have somewhat different quirks. As for the Shimseen v Unseen issue, where we have art, I went with the Shimseen as the primary option. Where we didn't have art, I used the Unseen as the basis, because even if Catalyst can't legally use the artwork, the designs are still there down the centuries.
In the case of the Un/Re/NuSeen mechs, which version of the artwork takes precedence, if any?
You might also think on, whether it's fine for the rules in BMM to work only for 'Mechs, or they should be applicable to all types of units. I'm afraid, that if it's the latter, then in some cases a more delicate formulation is needed (not that I can point out any at the moment, though).
The Manual was very deliberately written from a mech-only standpoint (the reason that all mentions of "unit" was replaced by "mech", for the most part). In some cases this was just a matter of emphasis, but in other cases this meant outright rules rewording when a passage didn't make sense when only dealing with mechs (usually this involved stacking issues).
As such, everything is going to stay mech-related whenever possible, rather than generic.
All right, as the displacement stuff is so incredibly annoying, fiddly, and generally not very thoroughly written out (my bad as much as anyone's), I've spent the past while rewriting it. Instead of pasting sections of the rules here over and over, I've decided to just attach a copy of the relevant sections here in MS Word. There's a few notes in the document to explain what's happened.
Feel free to submit any feedback here. Ignore any prior postings of excerpts from me on this: this is the current text.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/357573/Displacement%20Hell.docx
Charges, pushes, and DFA are edited to match.
FALLING DAMAGE TO A MECHWARRIOR
A player makes a second Piloting Skill Roll after every fall. All modifiers applied to the PSR that caused the fall are applied to this second roll, with an additional +1 modifier applied to the Target Number for every level above 1 fallen. If the roll succeeds, the MechWarrior avoids taking damage. If the roll fails, the MechWarrior takes 1 point of damage.
Any chance the DISPLACEMENT rule can be ammended to include this from Falling Damage to a MechWarrior?
All right, as the displacement stuff is so incredibly annoying, fiddly, and generally not very thoroughly written out (my bad as much as anyone's), I've spent the past while rewriting it. Instead of pasting sections of the rules here over and over, I've decided to just attach a copy of the relevant sections here in MS Word. There's a few notes in the document to explain what's happened.
Feel free to submit any feedback here. Ignore any prior postings of excerpts from me on this: this is the current text.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/357573/Displacement%20Hell.docx
Charges, pushes, and DFA are edited to match.
Haven't finished reading yet, but don't you already do it under the rules?
I love it. Much clearer as to what happens, etc.
Any chance the DISPLACEMENT rule can be ammended to include this from Falling Damage to a MechWarrior?
Now...about that Hip Critical....:P @p?
Yes and no.
To avoid damage the PSR is adjusted by a +1 modifier per level fallen.
I am asking if it is possible for the PSR for actual fall to be modified by +1 per level.
So a 'Mech pushed 2 levels downhill would need to make a PSR at +2 for the two levels lower, and if the mech actually falls, then the pilot makes a PSR at +2 for 2 levels fallen to avoid damage.
In other words, I am asking for the various PSRs to be equal numbers, much like every other PSR to Fall vs the PSR to avoid damage.
As I said, there's a few notes by me in there. Comments would be great in this thread, thanks. That way, we can all take a look at them.
Sorry, I'm being brain-dead [drool] and do not get the difference. Could you elaborate the example, especially the difference, there is a chance that I did not get some rule correctly.
While "unstucking" the domino effect chain by destroying the last "Mech is the easiest solution, it's a bit of ouch.
Run that one by me again, please.
Sorry, I'm being brain-dead [drool] and do not get the difference. Could you elaborate the example, especially the difference, there is a chance that I did not get some rule correctly.
While "unstucking" the domino effect chain by destroying the last "Mech is the easiest solution, it's a bit of ouch.
Oh yeah. I fought to kill that one, but lost. Hip crutching remains.
No worries. There's a special PSR modifier for the levels involved, but ONLY for avoiding mechwarrior damage after the fall. That same mod isn't applied to the PSR to avoid the fall in the first place.OK, so my understanding was correct.
True, but in that case you'll have already had at least one mech prior already move and resolve everything. You can't go back. It's the same logic as to why this happens in the case of DFAs and accidental falls: again, there's no going back, and it was decided not to allow a special stacking exception in that case.In the case of DFAs and accidental falls there is, at least, something big falling on other things. Destroying 'Mechs by squeezing seems a bit artificial. I just thought, that some backtracking would be allowed. Anyway, such situations are not that frequent.
Oh yeah. I fought to kill that one, but lost. Hip crutching remains.
Now, if that pilot were pushed down a level 1 hill, the PSR would be 11 to avoid falling, but would be a 12 to avoid taking damage.
I am asking for the +1 per level modifier be added to PSR for avoiding the fall as well. Makes pushing down a hill more desirable tactically.
Actually, as I read the rules, both modifiers are +11 in this examples. In any case, regardless of the following reasoning. And there is a thing, that could be clarified.
Assume, the 'Mech falls in this example.
Concern #1:
How many levels will 'Mech fall? My reasoning is: since the level drop is not sharp (<2 levels), then the 'Mech is first displaced and after that (fails the PSR and) falls. Hence, it falls 0 levels. It could be reasoned, that it falls 1 level instead. The ruling would be appreciated, since it changes the damage.
Concern #2:
Even if it is ruled, that the 'Mech falls 1 level in such example, it still does not get the modifier for the levels fallen. Because 1 level fall is not above 1 level fall. Are you sure that there was no mix up of the # of levels fallen and the # of levels fallen+1, which is a multiplier for damage?
The case of a 'Mech falling into a non-empty water hex?
Also, in Falling ’Mech Hits Target the facing of the fallen 'Mech should be clarified. (I believe there's a question about this in the Rules Questions sub-forum.)
Another thing that could be changed was the difference in the damage allocation to the fallen 'Mech, in a case whether it hits or does not hit the target. Could've been made as per Falling rules in both cases.
Concern #1:
How many levels will 'Mech fall? My reasoning is: since the level drop is not sharp (<2 levels), then the 'Mech is first displaced and after that (fails the PSR and) falls. Hence, it falls 0 levels. It could be reasoned, that it falls 1 level instead. The ruling would be appreciated, since it changes the damage.
Not home but off the top of my head the calcukation does account for a +1.No, it does not, and more so, regardless of the ruling (the one Xotl just clarified).
Sorry, not following what you mean here.If the 'Mech hits the target, it falls on its back (the fallen 'Mech). If it does not -- roll for the facing change and determine the hit location. Why bother with different resolution process? The suggestion was to resolve the fall normally in both cases.
If the 'Mech hits the target, it falls on its back (the fallen 'Mech). If it does not -- roll for the facing change and determine the hit location. Why bother with different resolution process? The suggestion was to resolve the fall normally in both cases.
No idea. I agree that it's strange, but part of that is how it is in TW. If I was to say that a falling mech that doesn't hit something always takes damage to its back, then we have a strange situation where a fall that could have hit something but didn't is handled differently than a just plain-old fall.I meant, it would be more intuitive to roll for the facing change in both situations.
The statement is just there to say that a mech with 1 MP can never DFA a standing mech because it can't get high enough <snip> if I want to DFA a standing mech right in front of me, I must have 2 MP available
I could quibble the physics and fiction of the jump-kick, but rules-wise, yeah, I agree: the attacker has already completed all movement up to the moment of impact, including falling one or more levels. However they word it, every book seems to agree that if the DFA isSo why the difference between attacker and target damage? If the attack misses, doesn't the attacker have 6 more meters in which to brake with its jump jets? Maybe if the attack is
- unsuccessful, the attacker takes 3xtonnage/10 damage (equivalent to 2 levels plus automatically getting knocked prone).
- successful, the attacker takes 2xtonnage/10 damage (equivalent to 2 levels without getting knocked prone yet).
- successful, the target takes 3xtonnage/10 damage (equivalent to 3 levels without getting knocked prone yet).
- unsuccessful, the attacker falls 3 levels, minus 1 for braking.
- successful, the attacker falls 3 levels, but the last 2 count for half (as though falling on another unit were like falling into water).
- successful, the target takes 3 levels of damage.
Xotl, is this thread open to back-and-forth the way the MUL thread is, or would the rest of my post here be better off in the Global Errata Discussion Thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5884.0)?
’Mechs forced into another hex as a result of their opponent’s actions are displaced. Displacement normally occurs due to charge, push, and death from above attacks, and typically just results in one or both ’Mechs moving and then making any required Piloting Skill Rolls. However, more complicated situations can arise.
In a case when the displacement is not prohibited (see below):
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced is of the same level, or one or two levels lower or higher, check if the newly-entered hex contains another ’Mech. If so, see Domino Effect, page XX. Otherwise, follow the normal rules called for by the action that caused the displacement.
• If the hex the ’Mech is displaced into is three or more levels lower, check if the newly-entered hex contains another ’Mech. If so an accidental fall from above occurs (see Accidental Fall From Above, p. XX). Otherwise, an automatic fall occurs (see Falling, p. XX).
Actions that cause a displacement usually call for a Piloting Skill Roll by the ’Mech being displaced. Any fall that occurs as a result is a 0-level fall that happens in the hex the ’Mech is displaced into. However, if a ’Mech is displaced down three or more levels, any such PSR is ignored, as the ’Mech automatically falls; the fall distance is calculated from the ’Mech’s original level before the fall as normal.
Buildings: When resolving displacement, remember that building levels are treated as any other terrain level. If a ’Mech is displaced into a building hex, the building takes damage as if the displaced ’Mech had charged it (see Charge Attacks, p. XX).
DFA Attacks: If a ’Mech launches a death from above attack (see p. XX), and all the hexes surrounding the target ’Mech are prohibited hexes, one of the ’Mechs will automatically be destroyed. If the target ’Mech is hit by the DFA, it is destroyed. If the DFA fails, the attacker is destroyed instead.
Prohibited Displacement: A ’Mech cannot be displaced into a hex three or more levels higher than the displaced ’Mech’s original hex (or into any hex the scenario designates as prohibited). In such a case, the displacement cannot occur, and neither the target nor attacking ’Mech move, unless the action specifically states otherwise. All other effects of the displacing action occur.
Ah, I see: the example offers two PSRs. The first is just whether or not you dodge, and the second is whether or not you actually fall.
I've changed the example so that there's only one test. That still leaves three possible results:
Pass and dodge
Pass and don't dodge: moved into new hex, but stays upright there
Fail: moved into new hex, falls there
CrazyGrasshopper, I agree on all points. However, it's also quite obvious that the designers tried to be consistent on at least some points, and there are other places throughout the rules (e.g., engine masses, weapon stats, prone Target Modifiers) where a unifying logic isn't strictly necessary but appears to have been used anyways. The question at hand is how many Jump MP are required to attempt a Death From Above attack--it's certainly true that the text may not hold clues to the answer; but saying so isn't itself an answer, and doesn't really move us any closer to a solution.
I was showing how the damage values could be used to measure how many Jump MP are required for a DFA, and you appeared to be contesting the validity of that method.
Just noticed something...The 'highlighted' chapter info on the right side of the pages (i.e Combat, Damage, etc) flows from Bottom to Top, where in every other current rule book flows top to bottom.
That was a deliberate choice on Ray's part. I can't remember the exact reason he gave for it, but I'm not going to argue with the guy who does layout for a living. :)
Quirk suggestion:Aside from the Banshee, which has a Bad Reputation for centuries that eventually goes away, the aim was to have quirks that wouldn't apply to only one variant or for a short period of time like that. Unless it's a Blakist mech, in which case, REMOVE WORD REMOVE WORD.
Caesar should have Bad Reputation (Clan Invasion Only), as the fluff from TRO 3050 Upgrade says that the mech was unpopular with FedCom troops when it was first introduced.
Snip
The BMM doesn't deal with BV at all. This is the wrong book to suggest that change.
Ok, so maybe the suggestion should be that it does (at least what BV is and how to adjust for skill).
And then adjust the skill BV costs :).
Ok, so maybe the suggestion should be that it does (at least what BV is and how to adjust for skill).
And then adjust the skill BV costs :).
Does BV affect how a 'Mech pilots? It emphatically does not; a 'Mech with a displayed BV is identical to the same 'Mech with no BV printed on its sheet.
That, plus the fact that Xotl was not allowed to change BV for another thing that was already in the book despite wanting to (C3) makes me pretty sure this book is not the place for it, one way or another.
No worries--appreciate the reminder.
Quick check of my own: have you checked your concerns against the downloadable dropbox displacement document (alliteration!) as downloaded today? I updated the same document continually as I went through that chapter with you and Neon, and want to make sure that you've seen the resulting rules as they stand right now.
If the concern still exists, I'll go over it.
I've just realized that there's nothing in TW about forcing two PSRs if in a multiple domino effect chain.
I am STILL poking my way through this thing. Again, not sure if this stuff was already mentioned or not:
p.37: In the example at the top of the page, it mentions a Griffin and a Warhammer. However, in the graphic, both mechs are Timber Wolves. Should probably be changed to 'Mech A' and 'Mech B' or something like that for clarity.
Given some of the mockups shown previously, I tend to think the Mad Cats are just placeholders for later art (remember that the cover we were shown earlier for the Manual was of a Rifleman)
I can understand the desire not to give the Celestials Improved Communications in order to work with their c3i, so I'm not going to really argue that, but I will suggest that they as a whole should get the "Distracting" quirk, considering their fluff and the reaction to them during and after the Jihad. Under the Archangel fluff it states "infused their military with bold new unit, and filled the ranks of the elite with machines that can strike fear into the enemy's heart while providing a symbol the fanatics can rally behind."That's... actually something I hadn't thought of. I'll add Improved Communications to what I can. I'm less enthused about Distracting, but that's because I think the quirk isn't very good.
I'd also suggest either Command Mech or Battle Computer for the Archangel, considering its fluff. "Intended as a command unit or an anchor for assault..." and they're also as fluffed as being part of command units.
Pedantic correction here. The torpedoes in the quote "Damn the torpedoes" refers to Confederate mines that had been laid, not submarine-launched weapons. :D
Sorry, I may be too late here but I was wondering if someone could explain the choices behind the Grand Titan's traits?What part are you having issues with? It's got a lot of fiddly weapons and an XLFE, and the Multi-Trac gives it the ability to beat on units that get close while hitting stuff at range.
That said, none of what you've said/done is wrong. In fact, a closer reading of TRO3055U shows you're right in issuing Difficult to Maintain to it; the TRO entry notes the unit had constantly shifting engineering goals and challenges and it's fair to infer that flaw from it. Nothing in the entry supports or disproves Multi-Trac, but I'm merely noting that this trait doesn't really help it with what it wants to do in the first place.There's not a lot of material in general for the Grand Titan for getting quirks. The only one I really wanted I couldn't have, and that's because "Matrix of Leadership" isn't actually a quirk.
(Compare this with the Anvil's traits, which directly enable its main combat style and make it more viable in post 3075 play. ...Not that the ANV-3R sucks in that era. It's still good. This just made it even better)I wanted to salt the FWLM with some good designs to make Guerrero's massive success on that front make a little bit more sense.
I am almost 100% certain that, despite CampaignAnon above mentioning the FWL having some good designs, the purpose of the quirks assigned in the BMM were not to correct balance issues or improve poorly performing 'Mechs.Correct, since the Mackie is now RUINED FOREVER. At any rate, all but one or two designs I gave their quirks based on fluff (Grand Crusader 1), or some wink wink, nudge nudge kind of thing. The Guerrero comment was just because obviously the AFFC was Devastators and Nightstars as far as the eye can see at the time. 8)
Heh, I hear ya. Well, if I'm offering requests/suggestions on improving the Grand Titan... I would say the Grand Titan's biggest problem is actually hitting anything. Most of the time it will be taking Long Range firing mods on its attacks, since its effective combat ranges are... really small. That is to say, I'd give it the same sort of improved targeting treatment the Anvil got.Unfortunately, that's pretty much why I didn't give it that quirk. I did 3058 first and realized that perhaps that was a bit too many units with the Improved Targeting Quirks.
This is, however, a huge improvement to the unit and my suggestion should be taken with significant caution; it's basically like adding a quasi-Targeting Comp onto the thing for free.
That's fair. That said, there is something fluff-related I can point out: The Grand Titan is a plausible candidate for Command Mech or whatever it's called.It's an assault mech that isn't a gauss boat or something like a Berzerker though. So of course it's going to end up being used as a command ride. Heck, we have Luther Fisk commanding (well, XOing anyway) from the seat of a Salamander. The Grand Titan is, Optimus Prime aside, pretty generic. If I was doing a specific variant list, I might give Command 'Mech to the -13M, but it would need Peter Cullen at the wheel.
Consider the following:
- All of the notable pilots in the TRO are leaders of some sort, and one inherited theirs from a regiment CO (Clarisse Boyer giving hers to her daughter, I believe). There appears to be some tendency for the machine to find its way into officers' hands.
- Several of the variants/refits of the chassis are tooled toward making it more viable as a leadership-riding machine.
While not as obvious a slam-dunk choice for the trait as a Cyclops would be (and there's certainly room to say "No" to the idea, thus), I can make a realistic case for it.
Aimed Shots, p.30, Targeting Computer, p.113
In neither of these entries it's not explained how aimed shots are made against an immobile target in a presence of a Targeting Computer.
From TW p.143: If using a targeting computer to make an aimed shot against an immobile target, apply an additional –1 modifier (representing the targeting computer) to the –4 immobile target modifier. All other rules for an aimed shot remain the same.
Multiple Firing Arcs, p.27
Multiple Firing Arcs: Through torso twisting, a ’Mech with both upper-body and leg-mounted weapons may have more than one firing arc at once. Regardless of its number of firing arcs, a ’Mech may only have one primary target each turn.
The thing that I got from this sentence is that there can be only one primary target in a turn. I understand that a torso twist changes arcs... But was really meant by this sentence?
Indirect Fire, p.30
Pedantic comment about style. The entry lists modifiers under bullets, but then suddenly drops the habit before a start of the paragraph "Finally, if a spotter..." I suggest to make another bullet to list that final modifier. Also, a +1 modifier for weapon fire that comes from spotting in the same turn could be mentioned under Other modifiers in the Target Number Modifiers Section starting at p.25.
Piloting Skill Roll Table, p.54 and p.137
In Physical Attacks Against ’Mech and Unit’s Actions the word 'Mech is repeated needlessly and clutters the table. You can probably do without it.
Physical Attacks And Water, p.35
Partial Cover: Depth 1 water provides partial cover to a standing ’Mech against physical attacks. A physical attack made against a ’Mech in Depth 1 water by an attacker that is itself not completely underwater adds the +1 partial cover modifier to its Target Number. If the attack resolves to the legs, the attack is ignored.
From the underlined I understand that the kicks were not considered in this paragraph (because you can kick and kicks land on legs). A notion about kicks should be added.
That's because that TW line isn't a rule. "Against immobile targets apply the immobile modifier" is no different than also saying "targets at medium range apply the medium range modifier", and I tried to remove all such redundancies within the text. Assume the standard rules hold unless mentioned otherwise.
Torso twisting, which can give a mech two "front" firing arcs (torso and legs), raised the question as to whether or not you could have two primary targets (one in each arc). This says no.
It does say this is possible at the start of the section, but this is definitely not as clear as it could be: will clarify.
When attempting to locate replacement parts for this ’Mech, add +2 to the Target Number.
When attempting to locate replacement parts, add +2 to the Target Number.
The ’Mech has a powerful communications suite that can burn
through standard electronic countermeasures. Standard enemy ECM
suites (see p. 112) do not interfere with this ’Mech, but Angel ECM
(see p. 112) still has its normal effect.
A flaw in the design can result in the ’Mech generating excess
heat. Whenever the ’Mech executes or receives a physical attack, falls,
or is forced to make a Piloting Skill roll because it received 20 points
or more damage, roll 2D6. On a result of 10+ the ’Mech will generate
5 points more heat each turn for the rest of the battle.
Another quirks item I would like to addAccording to SO, yes.
A little clarity on exactly what Improved Communications DOES
Does this mean that Imp Comm keeps BAP and C3M/S(i) alive or just everything in that ECM block??
Hostile Guardian ECM or Clan ECM systems do not interfere with this unit, but Angel ECM (see p. 279, TO) still has its normal effect.That's sort of the point.
Did you look in the Machine Gun section? Or are you referring to something else?Ack, my copy of the book was messing up. i didn't see it. please delete my post. :(
Sand
The Expanded Movement Costs and Planetary Conditions Table lists two MP costs for sand. The 1 MP cost applies to all units except infantry and Wheeled Vehicles; the 2 MP cost applies to infantry units and Wheeled Vehicles (except in the case of a Wheeled Support Vehicle that mounts the Dune Buggy Chassis and Controls modification). Infantry can avoid the increased MP cost by using Jumping MP, however.
⑤ Sand (p. 39)
First paragraph, first and second sentences
The Expanded Movement Costs and Planetary Conditions Table lists two MP costs for sand. The 1 MP cost applies to all units except infantry and Wheeled Vehicles; the 2 MP cost applies to infantry units and Wheeled Vehicles (except in the case of a Wheeled Support Vehicle that mounts the Dune Buggy Chassis and Controls modification).
Change to:
Sand applies a +1 MP for Wheeled Vehicles (except in the case of a Wheeled Vehicle that mounts the Dune Buggy chassis modification) and infantry using ground movement.
SAND
Sand terrain has no effect on ’Mech or ProtoMech units, and most vehicle motive types, but will affect any infantry (including battle armor) that uses ground movement, and wheeled vehicles that lack the Dune Buggy (DUN) special ability.
In addition to the above, wheeled vehicles without the Dune Buggy (DUN) special may also get stuck (see Bogging Down, p. 70).