Register Register

Author Topic: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers  (Read 6247 times)

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1289
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #30 on: 28 June 2018, 00:09:31 »
If anything with the easier to-hit numbers kicks, punches, and clubbing attacks might just be -1 across the board. Each of the three have (or would have) pros and cons:

Kicking: higher damage and can force a PSR, but are limited to the legs
Punching: lower damage, but much more likely to strike the cockpit
Clubbing: same damage as the kick, uses normal hit location table, and can now force a PSR

My only comments to add are that I am not really a fan of being able to punch twice in one round. I would say that if a 'mech is going to punch, it is going to put it's weight behind it and swing with one arm. FF disagrees with me on that, but I understand his point and yield to that.

Maybe a bonus on critical roles with clubbing attacks is something to consider to represent the crushing or cutting action of clubs/hatchets/swords. Even something as small as a +1 would help giving clubbing attacks a greater than 50% to score a critical hit. This way kicks are still totally viable, but not so strong as to disregard other options; and 'mechs with hatchets get a boost to make the tonnage worthwhile.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #31 on: 28 June 2018, 11:38:54 »
If a single punch can do more damage, like a kick or maybe +50% more than what they do now, then sure.

The same boost should then be applied to physical attack weapons and clubs.

The new ranges makes brawling far less appealing so some changes could be good.

Wildonion

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 710
  • I'm just a few onions short of a patch.
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #32 on: 28 June 2018, 17:48:51 »
After having played the new computer game, I think it would actually be better for the game if punches and kicks were rolled into a single attack. Call it a "Melee Strike" or something along those lines, set the damage somewhere between punches and kicks, give it a -1 to hit, and use the full body chart. The idea being that the MechWarrior is punching or kicking as fits the given situation.

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1289
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #33 on: 28 June 2018, 21:35:06 »
Eh, I'm not feeling a damage increase either. I would rather there be serious pros and cons to attacks that force a player to make a choice of either/or rather than all options are great. I think being able to attack twice with a 1 in 6 chance of striking the head is super powerful. I'm just not convinced that the possibility of a miss with the second punch is enough of a con. And then if we increase the damage by 50% on the punch, then that puts anything 65 tons and higher in the threat range for killing a fresh 'mech. But I get it: allowing a 'mech to punch twice isn't that big of a deal; it's just one I don't like.

Wildonion, in regards to just letting there be a melee strike, that is an interesting point. But then I don't know if I like the reduction in options. The other problem is in the math; however, I see your point. It definitely gives favor to 'mechs with melee weapons.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #34 on: 28 June 2018, 22:37:24 »
How about this as a compromise between the video game and board game.

Punches:  Roll for both arms, -1 difficulty modifier, damage = (weight/10) per hit
Kick:  -1 difficulty modifier, damage = (weight/10) * 2
Clubbing:  Requires 2 hands, -1 difficulty modifier, damage = (weight/10) * 2
Charging:  No modifier, damage to target = (weight/10) * hexes moved, damage to attacker = weight of target/10, all damage is in 5 point clusters
DFA:  No modifier, damage to target = (weight/10) * hexes jumped, damage to attacker = (weight of target/10) * 2, all damage is in 5 point clusters

For the punch location table, reroll leg hits (like we do now for partial cover)
For the kick location table, reroll arm and cockpit hits.

All of the math is similar.

There are now 2 less tables to look at.  For punches, the odds are now different enough where cockpit hits are not as likely.  For kicks, they are no longer an instant-death to legs, and can now damage torso locations.  To make clubbing/physical attack weapons better, make it where they can choose either chart to their advantage.  I imagine a hatchetman unloading its weapons a few turns, opening up a location, and choosing a chart for the hatchet to connect a good hit.

Considering the new charts, and movement rules, I would also change how death from above attacks work.  To keep them deadly I would make them work like a charge attack.  The further you jump, the more damage you do to the target and to yourself.  Charges would also require movement restrictions like the DFA, meaning you would have to move in a straight line or limited to a facing change.
« Last Edit: 28 June 2018, 22:41:41 by Fear Factory »

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1289
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #35 on: 28 June 2018, 22:43:13 »
Eh, I'm not feeling it. And I don't see much of a benefit in kick damage being weight/10*2 over weight/5.

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1289
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #36 on: 28 June 2018, 22:49:08 »
What I'm saying is that just because there is something I don't like, I also don't think trying to gut & remodel the whole thing is the answer. I do think reducing the kick advantage from -2 to -1 has merit because suddenly it means that punches and clubbing attacks have more of a tactical advantage in game.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #37 on: 28 June 2018, 23:13:39 »
Eh, I'm not feeling it. And I don't see much of a benefit in kick damage being weight/10*2 over weight/5.

It's all the same thing (except for DFA).  All I did was make everything based off of dividing by 10.


Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #38 on: 06 July 2018, 18:45:13 »
Abou and I were discussing a change that probably needed to happen for a long time; making the 7 result on the 2 cluster hit chart a 2 instead of 1.  This would boost a lot of underwhelming weapons that use that chart, like the SRM-2.  We both agreed to it.

Because of that discussion, and seeing other threads about reducing rolls for LBX cluster munitions, I thought a good idea would be to increase cluster damage for LBX 10 and 20 autocannons to 2 instead of 1.  Something like this:

LB 2-X = 2 damage total, use 2 on the cluster chart, 1 point clusters
LB 5-X = 5 damage total, use 5 on the cluster chart, 1 point clusters
LB 10-X = 10 damage total, use 5 on the cluster chart, 2 point clusters
LB 20-X = 20 damage total, use 10 on the cluster chart, 2 point clusters

Two ways to handle this.  Either 1) Old rules, roll on cluster hit chart then roll each location OR 2) use a to-hit roll for each cluster.  Using option 1 or 2, smaller autocannons will still get their bonus to hit airborne units AND cluster munitions still get a -1 to-hit bonus.  For larger autocannons, keep their crit-seeking ability, provide a bonus on the critical hit chart (either a +1 or +2).

We probably won't do this, but we're throwing it out here so we can get some outside input on this.

Retry

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 292
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #39 on: 06 July 2018, 21:45:50 »
Abou and I were discussing a change that probably needed to happen for a long time; making the 7 result on the 2 cluster hit chart a 2 instead of 1.  This would boost a lot of underwhelming weapons that use that chart, like the SRM-2.  We both agreed to it.
I feel this is more aimed at UACs than the SRM-2, since a large UAC hitting less than half the time with both rounds on a "hit" is indeed underwhelming, a bit less so with 2-point plinkers.  However, the SRM-2 and the 2 column in general actually has a higher % of its barrage hitting on average than other cluster weapons.

The SRM-2 hits with ~71% of its full barrage on average, the well-liked SRM-6 hits with marginally less at 2/3rds of its barrage on average (66.67%), and the SRM-4 hits with a smaller percentage than both.  If you make the 7 result result in a 2, cluster barrages for 2-chart cluster weapons would hit with more than 79% of its barrage on average which would eclipse other cluster weapons which usually average in 60-65% of their barrages hitting.

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1289
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #40 on: 06 July 2018, 22:03:32 »
I follow your logic, Retry, but my counter would be that all cluster weapons cross the 50% mark at or before a roll of 7. Because an SRM 2 only has two missiles, it is a 50:50 weapon. Of course, you could say that you should just replace all of your larger SRM weapons with several 2 racks, but you then have to hit with all of those racks AND consistently roll a 7 or greater. You might replace your SRM 6 with three SRM 2s, but only connect with one or two of the three in a round.

But maybe you are right and a jump in damage on average is unbalancing. It is something we intend to look at next time we play and report back. In my head, I don't see the bump in damage being that unbalancing from SRMs though.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #41 on: 06 July 2018, 22:52:59 »
I follow your logic, Retry, but my counter would be that all cluster weapons cross the 50% mark at or before a roll of 7. Because an SRM 2 only has two missiles, it is a 50:50 weapon. Of course, you could say that you should just replace all of your larger SRM weapons with several 2 racks, but you then have to hit with all of those racks AND consistently roll a 7 or greater. You might replace your SRM 6 with three SRM 2s, but only connect with one or two of the three in a round.

But maybe you are right and a jump in damage on average is unbalancing. It is something we intend to look at next time we play and report back. In my head, I don't see the bump in damage being that unbalancing from SRMs though.

However, we could have it where you roll for each UAC shot, which would address his concern.  I would prefer rolling for each, with a +1 modifier on the 2nd shot.  The risk is increased for a jam but there is a much higher payoff.

Retry

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 292
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #42 on: 06 July 2018, 23:11:00 »
I follow your logic, Retry, but my counter would be that all cluster weapons cross the 50% mark at or before a roll of 7. Because an SRM 2 only has two missiles, it is a 50:50 weapon. Of course, you could say that you should just replace all of your larger SRM weapons with several 2 racks, but you then have to hit with all of those racks AND consistently roll a 7 or greater. You might replace your SRM 6 with three SRM 2s, but only connect with one or two of the three in a round.

But maybe you are right and a jump in damage on average is unbalancing. It is something we intend to look at next time we play and report back. In my head, I don't see the bump in damage being that unbalancing from SRMs though.
I wouldn't say it's unbalancing, usually just not necessary, unless you compared the effectiveness of ex: a MML-3 firing SRMs vs a (modified) SRM-2, but that's an edge case.

If you want to bump, say, UACs, I'd recommend something almost exactly like Fear Factory's suggestion with rolling for each UAC shot.  Doing it like that has the added bonus that you don't miss ~50% of the time on the valuable 2nd shot when you're firing at the broad side of a barn, which is nice.

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1289
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #43 on: 06 July 2018, 23:39:13 »
That is a possible solution for UACs. But what about rotaries? Are those left using the cluster hits table?

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #44 on: 06 July 2018, 23:50:58 »
That is a possible solution for UACs. But what about rotaries? Are those left using the cluster hits table?

It could work for Rotary AC's as well.

1 Shot = No modifier, no jam
2 Shots = +1 to hit, jam on 2
3 Shots = +1 to hit, jam on 2
4 Shots = +2 to hit, jam on 3
5 Shots = +2 to hit, jam on 3
6 Shots = +3 to hit, jam on 4

The end result, both RAC's and UAC's hit more often but have a higher risk of jamming per shot.  I think it works out nicely considering that we made it where UAC's can unjam.

The UAC rule is something that has been in MegaMek for a LONG time and it works.
« Last Edit: 07 July 2018, 00:00:50 by Fear Factory »

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1289
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #45 on: 07 July 2018, 00:01:38 »
True. My one concern is the number of die rolls. A full burst rotary where all shots hit is something like 12 die rolls versus 8.

Otherwise it is a wash in bluffs versus nerfs.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #46 on: 07 July 2018, 11:25:28 »
I know.  It's one of those cases where some more dice rolls can be a good thing.

I really think the box of doom should be part of the game.  It's one of those things where a bunch of rolls seems like a problem, but it is a simple enough solution that works without compromising how a simple game mechanic works.  It was a staple for me after I got sick of rolling LB-X clusters.  I understand having LB-X clusters/HAG's/SRM's/LRM's use the cluster table because those would be random scatter shots.  I don't think weapons like UAC's or RAC's are as random, hence why I feel they should roll for each shot.  The dice rolls might be a wash, but it's enough of a bump that I think will improve how they work and make them feel way different than cluster weapons.

Yes, we're trying to eliminate dice rolls, but if we have to add a bit more or move them around to improve the meta, I think those dice rolls are welcome and justified.  Sometimes a little complexity can be good, and we did experience this while we were testing out some of our new rules (like missile weapons firing into woods).

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #47 on: 07 July 2018, 11:46:11 »
Just some more examples where I think some complexity helps.  We had a quick discussion a while ago on how HAG's and ATM's could work.

HAG's.  They really don't feel much different than LRM's because they do 5 point clusters.  So I had an idea that gave them the same amount of damage clusters per weapon, but the damage for them increased per class:

HAG-20 - 4 point clusters, 5 clusters total
HAG-30 - 6 point clusters, 5 clusters total
HAG-40 - 8 point clusters, 5 clusters total
They will use 5 on the cluster hit chart.

They work the same, but each weapon now has a unique feel that makes them feel different than LRM's.  There are reasons to take each

ATM's.  Like HAG's, they don't feel much different than LRM's.  So instead of doing 5 point clusters, group them by 3 missiles and adjust damage.

ATM-3 uses 3 on the cluster hit chart
ATM-6 uses 6 on the hit chart
ATM-9 uses 9
ATM-12 uses 12

All hit in 3 missile clusters.
ER does 1 damage per missile (so 3 point clusters)
Standard will do 2 per missile (6 point clusters)
HE does 3 per missile (9 point clusters)

They work the same, but now like HAG's, they feel different and are a competitive alternative to LRM's.  Now each class of missile has a different penetration value which makes each type of ammunition useful.  On top of that, the damage spread makes way more sense.

EDIT:  There is probably a better way to explain this.  I would also argue that this kind of stuff is OK considering the crazy amount of weapons that exist now, which does actually over complicate things.  Part of our goal is improving the meta.
« Last Edit: 07 July 2018, 11:52:26 by Fear Factory »

Retry

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 292
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #48 on: 07 July 2018, 15:07:12 »
The alternative ATMs look like gold to me, I might use that.

The modified HAG/40 sort of looks like a rotary LGR.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #49 on: 07 July 2018, 17:11:03 »
The alternative ATMs look like gold to me, I might use that.

Right?  I even suggested it when they were getting TW together.  I guess they decided on 5 point clusters because it's easy, which is fine, but it is also the reason no one really uses ATM's over LRM's.  AND if they do, the only use HE or ER ammo.

A lot of decisions like this are why so many weapons feel vanilla.  It's why you see certain weapons being spammed in custom designs, why you only see certain units on the field, etc.  If the core game mechanics are easier more time can be spent on making weapons and equipment unique.

It's why I spent so much time here trying to make weapons and terrain more than a +1 or -2 modifier.

The modified HAG/40 sort of looks like a rotary LGR.

That was my intention.  It was scary before, but now it's really scary.

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1289
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #50 on: 08 July 2018, 00:25:25 »
The SRM-2 hits with ~71% of its full barrage on average, the well-liked SRM-6 hits with marginally less at 2/3rds of its barrage on average (66.67%), and the SRM-4 hits with a smaller percentage than both.  If you make the 7 result result in a 2, cluster barrages for 2-chart cluster weapons would hit with more than 79% of its barrage on average which would eclipse other cluster weapons which usually average in 60-65% of their barrages hitting.
Question: how did you come up with this math, Retry? On the current chart for an SRM-2 to get a full barrage you need to roll an 8 or higher. That is only a 41.67% chance. So on average across a match, I don't see how an SRM-2 achieves a 71% chance of two missiles striking.

I want to make sure I understand this since understanding the math is pretty important if we are going to change rules.

Retry

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 292
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #51 on: 08 July 2018, 11:48:37 »
Question: how did you come up with this math, Retry? On the current chart for an SRM-2 to get a full barrage you need to roll an 8 or higher. That is only a 41.67% chance. So on average across a match, I don't see how an SRM-2 achieves a 71% chance of two missiles striking.

I want to make sure I understand this since understanding the math is pretty important if we are going to change rules.
Not a 71% chance to hit with its full barrage, hitting with 71% of its full barrage on average.  8+ for a SRM2 is 100% of its full barrage, 7- is 50% of its full barrage.

Basically you do a weighted average based on the missiles that hit per roll.
1*1+1*2+1*3+1*4+1*5+1*6+2*5+2*4+2*3+2*2+2*1=51 missiles
/36rolls=1.4166667 missiles/roll (avg)
/2(missiles/full barrage)=.708=70.8% full barrage/roll hits on average

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #52 on: 08 July 2018, 12:58:06 »
Ah.  So changing the chart probably isn't a good idea because it would give the SRM-2 and advantage over the 4 and 6.  From a custom design perspective, it would encourage spamming the SRM-2 to achieve better results.  Yes, you would generate more heat, but it would still greatly increase average damage over an SRM-4 or 6.  I think the short range bonus for SRM's (+1 on the cluster chart) is enough.

Depending on where we want to go with UAC's or RAC's a bonus on the cluster chart would fix this:

Ultra AC's
+1 bonus on the 2 cluster chart
Weapon jams on 2
Weapon can now unjam, but a result of 2 disables it for the game (blown circuitry)

Rotary AC's
2 Shots = +1 mod on chart, jam on 2
3 Shots = +0 mod on chart, jam on 2
4 Shots = -1 mod on chart, jam on 3
5 Shots = -1 mod on chart, jam on 3
6 Shots = -1 mod on chart, jam on 4

RAC's would basically be efficient firing 2 to 3 shots, giving them an edge over UAC's, however recoil from firing more than 3 shots makes it harder to hit.  This would make them feel different from LRM's/SRM's and balance them considering RAC's 2 and 5 now do 3 and 7 damage per shot with our new rules.
« Last Edit: 08 July 2018, 13:00:18 by Fear Factory »

garhkal

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4887
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #53 on: 08 July 2018, 14:05:25 »
A number of conversations have gotten me thinking about how to improve the game. It seems to keep coming down to the math involved: both in calculating and the high to-hit numbers. These are stumbling blocks to the speed. However, I personally want to preserve the stats and the meta of the game.

BattleTech works very differently than a lot of other mecha. In anime, you tend to have the main characters in their 'mechs, but the enemy are in fragile machines that collapse easily and blow up. BattleTech is the gradual reduction in combat capabilities of units: either through loss of limbs and weapons or through soaking up so much damage that a critical event happens which causes the destruction of the unit. Keeping in mind tactical movement, positioning, and advantage of the terrain, what I propose is basically a left shift in terms of numbers.

I look forward to reading what you have come up with..


1. walking is now a +0 modifier for the attacker

Interesting.  Was this, to counter those who either ran or just sat there?

2. units cannot fire when running (optional trait to allow firing when running)

That sounds strange?   Are they allowed to fire when jumping? 

3. TMM is the same as in Alpha Strike with running generating an additional +1 modifier

So running makes it harder to BE hit, but you can't shoot back..

4. jumping gives a +2 modifier for the attacker, but always generates full heat because it always generates the max TMM of movement +1

So whether i jump 3, or 8, my spider always gets a TMM of +4??

5. standing still gives a -1 bonus to-hit for the attacker

I've always wondered why there wasn't a rule for that as is..

6. one-hexside facing changes do not cost a movement point; 2 or 3 hexside facings cost one point in order to force 'mechs to use backwards movement and their restrictions for level changes.

Kind of gimps quads with their side stepping movement then..  Or do quads get something better?

7. water reduces TMM by 1 to a minimum of 0 in addition to their movement reduction and increased cover bonuses

8. Woods for line of sight purposes are not changed -- i.e.: three light woods or one light and one heavy woods block line of sight. However, only the occupied woods hex affects the to-hit modifier. Intervening terrain such as a level 1 hill for partial cover still applies. Credit to iamfanboy for this idea.[/color]*The more I think about this, the more unsure I am about it as woods provide not just a LOS impediment, but a physical impediment of firing between objects.

Not sure i like this one, but i will have to see how it would play out, before making a call.

9. Skidding is removed

Do vehicles still get their 'skidding'?

10. Partial cover gives a +2 modifier to hit. Roll 2D6 for hit location, but leg hits are re-rolled.

So as is now, but upped from just +1..  Nice.

11. Clubbing attacks force a PSR on hit. This gives more viability to hatchet and sword carrying 'mechs when compared to just kicking instead.

VERY nice.  Do clubs/hatchets still roll on the full body chart? 

12. Ranges are calculated based on absolute ranges rather than each weapon's traditional range bracketing. For example, a small laser only has a maximum range of 3 hexes, but because it is within the new short-range bracket, it will only ever generate a +0 range modifier. This is similar to Alpha Strike, but keeps intact individual weapon maximums.

Not sure i like this one..

OR, you could even make it where you just don't get a TMM for using water, but you get a HUGE boost for heat dissipation.  Maybe heat sinks operate at +50% efficiency?  It would be more in line with the novels, IMO.

If you have leg heat sinks, don't they already dissipate twice their heat, when in water as is?  Or was that removed from the rules?

Punching: restrict to 1 arm only

Wouldn't that make punching even Worse, compared to kicking?

Side hit locations: Allow for rear torso shots for the corresponding side. So for hits to the left side and right side, change die result 9 from the opposite torso to the corresponding rear torso. For punch location, change die roll 1 to the corresponding rear torso.

Now that makes it more worth while to get into a mech's flank..

Physical attack weapons now force a PSR.  We ran a Hatchetman and it was a little scary knowing that it could make a 'Mech fall.  Outside of that, no, but I'm open to ideas.

I think kicks, DFA, and charges are fine.  Punches are tricky because you can punch with both hands with a 1 in 6 chance to whack the cockpit.  That is pretty powerful, but I can understand why people think they're underwhelming.  Maybe we can flip the modifiers so punches are easier than kicks?

One change i'd love to see, is for quads, when making a charge, their +2 quad PSR bonus, APPLIES to the charge roll..  Similar to how having a lower piloting than the target, gives you a bonus does..

It's not who you kill, but how they die!
You can't shoot what you can't see.
You can not dodge it if you don't know it's coming.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #54 on: 08 July 2018, 14:35:03 »
Interesting.  Was this, to counter those who either ran or just sat there?

That sounds strange?   Are they allowed to fire when jumping? 

So running makes it harder to BE hit, but you can't shoot back..

So whether i jump 3, or 8, my spider always gets a TMM of +4??

I've always wondered why there wasn't a rule for that as is..

The idea here was to combine Alpha Strike, the PC game, and the classic system.  You still count hexes, but the need to keep track of that for the combat phase is removed because you get the full TMM for at least moving 1 hex.  There is no more waiting for someone to figure out how to get the highest TMM.

Stand Still = Like Alpha Strike, no TMM, -1 to hit a target.  If you turn more than 1 hex side you don't get stand still and your full TMM (prevents turret tech).
Walking = Standard movement like Alpha Strike
Running = Basically sprinting/evading, you get full TMM plus a bonus.
Jumping = +2 modifier to fire, full TMM for the movement with full heat.  Critical hits, water, things of that nature will lower this TMM and adjust heat.  This was decided to prevent getting a full TMM for minimal heat (3).

Kind of gimps quads with their side stepping movement then..  Or do quads get something better?

I didn't think of that.  I think giving quads a bonus for facing changes, like 2 hexsides without losing stand still, could work.

Not sure i like this one, but i will have to see how it would play out, before making a call.

This was changed because of how we decided to handle missile weapons.

Woods apply their modifiers the same way as standard BattleTech.  Missile weapons do not suffer woods modifiers on their to hit numbers, they apply them as a negative modifier on the cluster hit chart.  This gives woods hexes a tactical advantage outside of stacking modifiers.  Missile weapons hit more often than other systems but will do less damage.

If you check out the weapons PDF I posted you'll get the idea.  Even pulse lasers changed.

Do vehicles still get their 'skidding'?

Skidding is gone.  Vehicles are a little more squishy, using the old BMR hit locations combined with TW's critical hit system.

So as is now, but upped from just +1..  Nice.

Yes, as it is now, but you re-roll leg hits so weapons still connect.

VERY nice.  Do clubs/hatchets still roll on the full body chart?

Yes. 

Not sure i like this one..

We were skeptical too, but it'll impress you.  Games stay between medium/short range, there is more tactical maneuvering (see our new flanking charts), and games are A LOT faster.

If you have leg heat sinks, don't they already dissipate twice their heat, when in water as is?  Or was that removed from the rules?

Yes they do.  We decided to give water a boost with this because we're trying to make terrain more than a to hit modifier.  This is also more in line with fluff/novels.

Wouldn't that make punching even Worse, compared to kicking?

He dropped that rule.  It did make it worse.

Now that makes it more worth while to get into a mech's flank..

Yes.  After two games using these charts, maneuvering was more of a thing.

One change i'd love to see, is for quads, when making a charge, their +2 quad PSR bonus, APPLIES to the charge roll..  Similar to how having a lower piloting than the target, gives you a bonus does..

That seems like a really good idea.  Thanks!   :)

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 951
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #55 on: 08 July 2018, 19:53:53 »
So a simple change I thought of that could speed up play would be to make the hit locations for the legs be 3 and 11 rather than 5 and 9. I've found when playing MWO, or Mechawarrior or even the new PC game that rarely do my legs take appreciable hits because typically center mass is aimed for. This will likely drop units faster as those side torsos pop sooner and it makes a great deal of sense that arms would get hit appreciably more often.

As to your above Cluster and Rotary thoughts, it's obviously your game, but all those added die rolls scare me. I'd much rather see MOS used as a factor.   

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #56 on: 08 July 2018, 21:02:07 »
As to your above Cluster and Rotary thoughts, it's obviously your game, but all those added die rolls scare me. I'd much rather see MOS used as a factor.

How so?  Just curious.

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1289
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #57 on: 08 July 2018, 21:31:27 »
I'm going to answer these out of order.

As to your above Cluster and Rotary thoughts, it's obviously your game, but all those added die rolls scare me. I'd much rather see MOS used as a factor.
I admit I'm not a fan either, but I am willing to give it a shot. I think the rapid fire nature of the autocannon makes the cluster roll chart the most appropriate. I think if we used the +1 recoil effect on the UACs that could work, but leave the cluster for the rotaries.

Then again, we haven't played with those rules yet. We are in the part where easy fixes don't really work anymore for a lot of things. Playtesting is going to bear out here.

Quote
So a simple change I thought of that could speed up play would be to make the hit locations for the legs be 3 and 11 rather than 5 and 9. I've found when playing MWO, or Mechawarrior or even the new PC game that rarely do my legs take appreciable hits because typically center mass is aimed for. This will likely drop units faster as those side torsos pop sooner and it makes a great deal of sense that arms would get hit appreciably more often.
This I wouldn't change mainly because this makes leg hits too rare. Currently leg hits are 11.11% with arm hits being 13.89%. If we flip those numbers how you suggest, then arm hits are only 8.33% and leg hits 16.67%

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1289
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #58 on: 08 July 2018, 21:37:45 »
Not a 71% chance to hit with its full barrage, hitting with 71% of its full barrage on average.  8+ for a SRM2 is 100% of its full barrage, 7- is 50% of its full barrage.

Basically you do a weighted average based on the missiles that hit per roll.
1*1+1*2+1*3+1*4+1*5+1*6+2*5+2*4+2*3+2*2+2*1=51 missiles
/36rolls=1.4166667 missiles/roll (avg)
/2(missiles/full barrage)=.708=70.8% full barrage/roll hits on average
I have not taken enough statistics in school.

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 951
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #59 on: 09 July 2018, 12:22:41 »
I'm going to answer these out of order.
I admit I'm not a fan either, but I am willing to give it a shot. I think the rapid fire nature of the autocannon makes the cluster roll chart the most appropriate. I think if we used the +1 recoil effect on the UACs that could work, but leave the cluster for the rotaries.

Then again, we haven't played with those rules yet. We are in the part where easy fixes don't really work anymore for a lot of things. Playtesting is going to bear out here.
This I wouldn't change mainly because this makes leg hits too rare. Currently leg hits are 11.11% with arm hits being 13.89%. If we flip those numbers how you suggest, then arm hits are only 8.33% and leg hits 16.67%
I explained poorly. I advocate making arm hits more common.

2  CT Crit
3  R Leg
4  R Arm
5  R Arm
6  R Torso
7  CT

Etc. You get the point. That would change leg hits to about 5% and an Arm hit about 20%.

 

Register