Register Register

Author Topic: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers  (Read 12772 times)

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3595
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #90 on: 15 December 2018, 17:44:30 »
I don't know... it's a nice idea but I think it may be a little too much for the introductory setting. But hey, if it works for your game, go for it.

The boost we gave to AC's in our games really has a good feel and it's not a huge rules change. It also affects the meta so it makes since out of AC/2's and 5's on 'Mech designs. I mean, we've actually discussed how cool an AC/5 Awesome design would be... that say's a lot.

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1340
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #91 on: 30 December 2018, 14:56:00 »
Someone over on one of the Facebook pages offered an alternative for ammo explosions that I think is worth exploring. Essentially, ammo explodes with only 1/10th of the total potential (round up). So a full ton of machine gun ammo would explode with 40 points of damage rather than 400 points. In general, this would make ammo explosions potentially survivable rather than the general death blow they tend to be. I think this meta change is good overall, but I know that some would think that maybe it is too much of a reduction. So let me explain a bit more.

1. CASE and CASE II are still viable and useful. Damage transfer from ammunition explosions transfer directly to the internal structure (eg. right arm internal to right torso internal) and therefore can cause further critical hits. CASE mitigates that.

2. This rule makes the 2 points of pilot damage from an explosion an actual factor in game play in the 3025 era and later eras for Inner Sphere 'mechs mounting XL engines. It is totally possible that a mechwarrior could be knocked unconscious from pilot hits rather than 'mech destruction.

3. As a boost to the potential damage effects, I would propose a +1 bonus to determining critical hits. This means at a 7+ you can get a critical, which pushes that probability to greater than 50%.

4. Gauss rifles still cause the full 15 points of damage. After all, they are long-distance head-cappers and only produce 1 point of heat.

So as a result, an ammo explosion is still a nasty event that can ruin your day, but it won't necessarily destroy your 'mech. It is more likely to knock your pilot unconscious thus giving those rules a greater impact on the game than they had before. It gives you a better chance at salvaging your opponent's 'mechs as well.

So take those torso bomb 'mechs and field them with pride.

Garydee

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 166
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #92 on: 27 January 2019, 18:28:22 »
With all weapons having their short ranges extended to range 6 wouldn't that make the medium laser even better than it already is?

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1340
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #93 on: 31 January 2019, 21:28:07 »
With all weapons having their short ranges extended to range 6 wouldn't that make the medium laser even better than it already is?
Sort of. Within the meta, the damage-boosted ACs perform well. But considering that medium range extends to 12 hexes your large lasers, missiles, and autocannons have a larger window of efficacy that can out-range the medium laser. So your Enforcer has a better time dancing out of range of the Hunchback while still having its guns at a medium range compared to the long range it would be in standard play.

I think the real big winners are the small lasers, flamers, and machine guns.

But overall, in all the games we have played, we didn't notice that medium lasers suddenly outperformed other weapons in efficiency compared to before. If anything, we noticed that the games take a bit longer to get to knife-fight range.

Does that make sense?

Garydee

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 166
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #94 on: 01 February 2019, 13:22:29 »
Sort of. Within the meta, the damage-boosted ACs perform well. But considering that medium range extends to 12 hexes your large lasers, missiles, and autocannons have a larger window of efficacy that can out-range the medium laser. So your Enforcer has a better time dancing out of range of the Hunchback while still having its guns at a medium range compared to the long range it would be in standard play.

I think the real big winners are the small lasers, flamers, and machine guns.

But overall, in all the games we have played, we didn't notice that medium lasers suddenly outperformed other weapons in efficiency compared to before. If anything, we noticed that the games take a bit longer to get to knife-fight range.

Does that make sense?

That does make sense. Thanks!

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1340
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #95 on: 08 February 2019, 00:30:08 »
Tonight we played a game and we wondered about whether hatchets could use one more buff. So the idea is that while punching, kicking, and clubbing are all now to-hits of -1, hatchets still don't quite have enough power despite the added PSR to the target. So we are considering the idea that for hit location we treat hatchets similar to partial cover: standard 2D6 roll, but leg hits are re-rolled. This avoids the 1-in-6 for a head hit, but focuses damage to the torso and arms.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3595
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #96 on: 16 July 2019, 21:27:10 »
It's been a while, but I've had some random thoughts about this thread... some ideas for minimal improvement without changing stats (starting from a clean slate here).

Fixing Autocannons

I know in this thread we liked increasing damage to 4/8/12/22 (from 2/5/10/20). I thought of something different, using a bit of fluff to justify it. Autocannons have recoil and sometimes they don't do full damage.

Rule: When making your to-hit roll against the target, a result that is equal to the TN causes listed damage. This means if you roll a 7, and the TN was 7, your Autocannon 5 did 5 damage. Any to-hit roll above the TN increases damage by +1/+2/+3/+4 (EDIT: I'm thinking of having this just a flat +2 for all weapons. I think it's much more fair; the AC/2 actually becomes a more viable choice but heavier autocannons don't need to rely on it as much. Class 10 is still a head capper). So in the case of the Autocannon 5, if you rolled an 8, it would cause 7 damage. This only applies to standard autocannon ammunition (for all types of Autocannons). Rotary autocannons can only do this up to a rate of fire of 2.

The dreaded 2 column on the cluster table

We changed the 7 result to 2 missiles hitting and liked it. SRM-2 makes more sense now.

Weapons that have really short range

Basically a way to make machine guns and flamers better. Any weapon that has a long range value of 3 or under treats all range brackets as short range. So machine guns and flamers fire in short range no matter how far.

Boosting machine guns and flamers (again)

Machine guns get a +1 bonus on critical hit chances. Flamers cause both heat and damage to the target. Simple enough.

Melee weapons act in the weapons attack phase

This is a way to give them a chance to cause that little bit of damage to force their opponent to fall. Melee weapons would basically fire/take effect in the weapons attack phase instead of the physical attack phase, but still count as a physical attack. These weapons are specialized, and I figure a buff like this would give them an edge over a punch and kick in some cases.
« Last Edit: 02 September 2019, 19:46:12 by Fear Factory »

Frantic Pryde

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 99
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #97 on: 20 July 2019, 08:56:14 »
This actually looks pretty fantastic!

A small idea to consider: Remove cluster hit table rolls and instead modify the chart to use the margin of success of the to-hit roll. I can see that cutting 30 minutes out of a game easy :)

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9279
  • CR 21 Bullshit Elemental
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #98 on: 20 July 2019, 14:52:43 »
We changed the 7 result to 2 missiles hitting and liked it. SRM-2 makes more sense now.

finally someone brave enough to do it

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3595
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #99 on: 20 July 2019, 15:26:53 »
finally someone brave enough to do it

You can thank Abou for that one. He's more keen on math than I am. It's not really that big of a deal... even if you spam SRM-2's instead of 4's now it is way more heat.

beachhead1985

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3492
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #100 on: 20 July 2019, 17:38:13 »
This actually looks pretty fantastic!

A small idea to consider: Remove cluster hit table rolls and instead modify the chart to use the margin of success of the to-hit roll. I can see that cutting 30 minutes out of a game easy :)

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to be subscribed to your newsletter.
Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,      Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
The hour when earth's foundations fled,         They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
Followed their mercenary calling,               What God abandoned, these defended,
And took their wages, and are dead.             And saved the sum of things for pay.
     
A.E. Housman

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3595
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #101 on: 20 July 2019, 18:03:11 »
A small idea to consider: Remove cluster hit table rolls and instead modify the chart to use the margin of success of the to-hit roll. I can see that cutting 30 minutes out of a game easy :)

You could just use Variable Damage like this:

SRM's: Roll to hit, then Roll 1d6 per missile fired. 3+ is a hit, 2 damage minimum (per launcher).
LRM's: Roll to hit, then roll 1d6 per cluster (see below). 3+ is a hit. (minimum damage is per launcher)
                LRM-5: 1 damage minimum, 1d6 per missile, apply in 5 point clusters.
                LRM-10: 2 damage minimum, 1d6 per 2 missiles, apply in 5 point clusters.
                LRM-15: 3 damage minimum, 1d6 per 3 missiles, apply in 5 point clusters.
                LRM-20: 4 damage minimum, 1d6 per 4 missiles, apply in 5 point clusters.

Mine is more intricate than DFA Wargaming's method. Theirs is more focused on raw damage for faster play, mine is focused on matching the odds on the missile cluster chart.

Do the same for LB-X AC's... 1d6 per cluster, hits on 3+

List goes on.

idea weenie

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1967
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #102 on: 20 July 2019, 23:59:24 »
This actually looks pretty fantastic!

A small idea to consider: Remove cluster hit table rolls and instead modify the chart to use the margin of success of the to-hit roll. I can see that cutting 30 minutes out of a game easy :)

How about rolling 3d6 for missiles, subtracting the target number from the total on the dice, and looking up the result on the cluster chart?  So if you have a difficult to-hit, you are not likely to fire unless you have a lot of ammo.  But if the to-hit is relatively low, then that Archer will be volleying LRMs as much as possible.

An idea for Flamers was that they would ignore terrain modifiers

For Machine Guns firing on internal structure, imagine if they got 2 rolls on the critical chart (where you determine if/how many critical hits are rolled)?  So Mechs with Machine Guns become vultures trying to attack units that have lost armor, in order to crit them to death.  Makes the Piranha scary to an armor-stripped Atlas.

Nicoli

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 205
Re: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #103 on: 18 August 2019, 16:00:44 »
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).
The issue with the box if doom is that it is not just a very brute force way simulating something, it a brute force way to poorly simulate something. If I shoot a person standing spread eagle in the hand with a shotgun from a foot away, the pellets don't mystically shift and spread out like I aimed at the chest. This is how the cluster hits system works. This gives it the double problem of being time consuming on the large scale and being a poor abstraction of what should happen.

As for melee attacks the only reason not to combine them is when you want a different non-damage effect to it. This would limit it to just Melee, Push, DFA and maybe a Trip attack.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3595
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #104 on: 21 August 2019, 13:07:17 »
For cluster weapons, if you want to concentrate damage a lot more, you could go with DFA's hit location method.

1d6 pilot die, 1d6 per cluster that hit, combine the results.

Example, LB10 hits with 7 clusters:

Pilot die result: 3
Cluster results, 3,4,3,2,5,4,4

Hits: RT,CT,RT,RL,LT,CT,CT

Results should spread around a central location. The only thing that gets weird are head hits and TAC's since their on the far sides of the bell curve.

wolfspider

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 627
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #105 on: 23 August 2019, 22:56:08 »
I really like what your doing here with the rules, any chance that you have an updated pdf with the rule changes to this point? I think using this in the RPG would provide a faster resolution to combat between PCs and NPCs.
I may have a low amount of posts but I have a PHD in Battletech and mechs older then most people on this board!

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1340
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #106 on: 31 August 2019, 23:46:15 »
It has something we have talked about. I think though we hit a wall when the whole idea of our bracket ranges came crashing down on us. It was pointed out by MadCapellan how it was actually unfair and broke the game -- and he was right to do it.

So yeah, we've thought about it.

wolfspider

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 627
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #107 on: 02 September 2019, 18:30:19 »
It has something we have talked about. I think though we hit a wall when the whole idea of our bracket ranges came crashing down on us. It was pointed out by MadCapellan how it was actually unfair and broke the game -- and he was right to do it.

So yeah, we've thought about it.
How so? Feel free to PM if you need too
I may have a low amount of posts but I have a PHD in Battletech and mechs older then most people on this board!

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3595
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #108 on: 02 September 2019, 20:00:05 »
How so? Feel free to PM if you need too

Start here.

Honestly, I get it, but I am still not fully convinced. If this was the case then Alpha Strike would be totally imbalanced, and it's not. However I do feel static range brackets will only work with movement that mimics Alpha Strike (flat TMM's). Good luck convincing anyone otherwise. It's a losing battle.

Retry

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 605
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #109 on: 02 September 2019, 20:38:24 »
The dreaded 2 column on the cluster table

We changed the 7 result to 2 missiles hitting and liked it. SRM-2 makes more sense now.
Am I missing something?  The 2 column is already the most efficient column (~71% hit rate, compared to ~66% for column 4, ~63% for column 5, ~67% for SRM-6).  That change brings the 2's hit rate to ~79%, something of a league in itself as far as clusters go.

wolfspider

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 627
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #110 on: 02 September 2019, 21:02:00 »
Start here.

Honestly, I get it, but I am still not fully convinced. If this was the case then Alpha Strike would be totally imbalanced, and it's not. However I do feel static range brackets will only work with movement that mimics Alpha Strike (flat TMM's). Good luck convincing anyone otherwise. It's a losing battle.
Personally I think that you fellows were on to something but I also have friends that are as rabid as some of the posters in the link that you posted so I know it is an uphill battle. I have been playing BT since 86 and I have always felt the game can be improved so don’t give up just yet and I have a core group of players that are going to give your rules a testing so I will get back to you about our findings.   ;)
I may have a low amount of posts but I have a PHD in Battletech and mechs older then most people on this board!

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3595
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #111 on: 02 September 2019, 21:22:52 »
Personally I think that you fellows were on to something but I also have friends that are as rabid as some of the posters in the link that you posted so I know it is an uphill battle. I have been playing BT since 86 and I have always felt the game can be improved so don’t give up just yet and I have a core group of players that are going to give your rules a testing so I will get back to you about our findings.   ;)

Awesome. Keep us posted.

Am I missing something?  The 2 column is already the most efficient column (~71% hit rate, compared to ~66% for column 4, ~63% for column 5, ~67% for SRM-6).  That change brings the 2's hit rate to ~79%, something of a league in itself as far as clusters go.

The other charts consistently hit with over half of their throw weight. Most of them above and below the 7 result (6 and 8). It's higher but it gives the SRM-2 a boost.

Retry

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 605
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #112 on: 02 September 2019, 21:57:34 »
The other charts consistently hit with over half of their throw weight. Most of them above and below the 7 result (6 and 8). It's higher but it gives the SRM-2 a boost.
No, that's what I'm saying.  Other columns have most of their locations getting >=50% hits (for net accuracy hovering around ~65%, slight variations depending on column).  But the 2 column ALWAYS gets >=50% hits, and it ends up slightly more accurate (and more efficient) than the rest of the columns.  So changing the 7 on the 2-column turns the 2-column from only slightly more accurate than the rest to substantially more accurate and efficient than the rest of the columns.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3595
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #113 on: 03 September 2019, 11:51:45 »
No, that's what I'm saying.  Other columns have most of their locations getting >=50% hits (for net accuracy hovering around ~65%, slight variations depending on column).  But the 2 column ALWAYS gets >=50% hits, and it ends up slightly more accurate (and more efficient) than the rest of the columns.  So changing the 7 on the 2-column turns the 2-column from only slightly more accurate than the rest to substantially more accurate and efficient than the rest of the columns.

Chance for 1 missile: 41.66
Chance for 2 missile: 58.3

Not sure what the problem is... 100% of the SRM 2 launcher will still never match the output of the SRM 4 or 6 unless you spam SRM 2 launchers, but custom designs can break anything. I would argue the 2 should work better anyway since it's throwing less missiles. Also, it's better for using ultra AC's or anything else using the 2 chart.

I'm fine with it.

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1340
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #114 on: 01 January 2020, 19:22:53 »
Bit of a necro for you guys. Dan and I had a chance to play today and after the session we were discussing some ideas about hatchets and other melee weapons.

Quick summary: hatchets pale in comparison to standard physicals -- particularly when considering weight and critical slots. Previously we had ideas such as altering To-Hit bonuses, giving hatchets the ability to force a PSR, and maybe a bonus when rolling for a critical hit. These options helped, but did not really provide much in the way of flavor.

New proposal: Dismemberment bonus. Give hatchets and swords a chance to cut off limbs and the head even if there is still armor on the location. This would give melee weapons a lot more flavor, bite (literally), and actually help it match the fiction. Basically after a successful hit you roll for location, if the location is a limb or head roll again. On a 10+ for hatchets or 11+ for swords, the extremity hit is cut off. This would symbolize a strike against a joint -- knee/elbow, shoulder/hip, neck -- and would functionally be severe enough to incapacitate the location. This would make even light 'mechs such as the Scarabus a major threat while offering incentive to use a melee weapon instead of a kick or punch.

Target numbers chosen were because we would not want the chance to be so rare it cannot happen. And something like a 5% chance seemed too low. 10s are rare enough, but also anxiety-inducing. I know there are players who complain about dice rolls, but this is something that can provide major consequences and thus worth rolling for.

Options:
1. Bronze standard (a bit conservative) -- Dismemberment bonus
2. Silver -- Dismemberment bonus + Forcing PSR for target
3. Gold (ie. crazy good) -- Dismemberment bonus + Forced PSR + critical hit bonus
4. A possible SPA to lower the target number for dismembering.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3595
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #115 on: 01 January 2020, 20:21:48 »
Personally, I like the silver option because it makes them better than a kick.

Atarlost

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 203
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #116 on: 01 January 2020, 20:52:39 »
It seems wrong for the dismemberment chance to be completely unconnected with the relative sizes of the mechs and the armor remaining.  A heavier mech invested more tonnage into its hatchet and if the only benefit a hatchet has over fists doesn't scale with size you've only fixed the problem for light mechs. 

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1340
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #117 on: 01 January 2020, 21:05:42 »
Sure, but the effectiveness of the kick is a problem for all weights - a Locust can trigger a PSR for an Atlas. And the hatchet weights negatively affect all 'mechs whose tonnages are not a multiple of 15. I suppose if you wanted, you could do something along the lines of a series of modifiers depending on weight class -- i.e. +1 for assault, +0 for heavies, -1 for mediums, and -2 for lights.

However, no matter what you have a machine swinging a multi-ton weapon that has an edge. It isn't much of a stretch to see such a weapon cleaving through a joint.
« Last Edit: 01 January 2020, 22:13:34 by abou »

dgorsman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 692
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #118 on: 02 January 2020, 01:37:19 »
The cleave still feels a bit much to me.  It adds more mechanics, but perhaps only with a sufficient MoS on the attack roll?  It avoids improbable long shots like a Scarabus cleaving an Atlas leg on a 11+ target number, and gives an incentive to risk the attack with better odds.

Maybe apply the MoS as the PSR penalty as well.
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society

abou

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1340
Re: BattleTech 2.0: New rules for modifiers
« Reply #119 on: 02 January 2020, 22:50:16 »
MoS crossed our mind as well, however, it is more math. It also overly benefits veteran and elite pilots rather than being random.

Personally, my goal is to make a hatchet attack scarier than it has been rather than a guarantee. If is far less likely to happen than a critical hit. We haven't played with it yet, so we will report. But bear in mind that a light mech moving in for a hatchet attack has to survive the weapon attack phase.

I mean, Stingers can defeat an Atlas simply by kicking it until it fails a PSR and falls over, but no one is complaining about that. Even though it is a -2 bonus on two-hit and forces a PSR regardless of damage. An ultralight 15 ton 'mech could do the same if it wanted.

 

Register