Register Register

Author Topic: TacOps rules I wish were standard  (Read 1944 times)

NeonKnight

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4318
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #30 on: 12 April 2019, 13:29:39 »
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8881
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #31 on: 12 April 2019, 13:30:27 »
In the suggestions thread I asked for some BMRish formatting and my handle is in the credits so I’ll go ahead and take credit for that  ;D

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16893
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #32 on: 12 April 2019, 13:35:15 »
No, my point was he said BMM included optional rules in its format . . . and then in the next sentence said he wanted a core rulebook that included TacOps rules.  BMM is the new core rulebook (technically TacOps is as well), its like Table Top 1.0, TW is Table Top 1.5 and then you go from there.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4789
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #33 on: 12 April 2019, 13:50:48 »
No, my point was he said BMM included optional rules in its format . . . and then in the next sentence said he wanted a core rulebook that included TacOps rules.  BMM is the new core rulebook (technically TacOps is as well), its like Table Top 1.0, TW is Table Top 1.5 and then you go from there.
I'll fix my post for you and restate, then. It would be nice if Total Warfare included TacOps rules as "optional", in whatever version it eventually becomes. The BMM has a very nice flow and format, and one which would save players a lot of flipping between pages and books.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2051
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #34 on: 24 April 2019, 15:16:40 »
Careful stand is good as it does not make a gyro hit anywhere as crippling . Floating Crits alters the value of skirmishing units like Hovertanks moving to left or right side of an enemy mech hoping to get snake eyes shooting for an ammo explosion . A machine gun array /4 hitting a head floating crit should disincline people from using the optional rule .

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33121
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #35 on: 24 April 2019, 15:33:41 »
A machine gun array /4 hitting a head floating crit should disincline people from using the optional rule .

Why would it disincline folks from using the rule? Are there players who don't want their games to be awesome?
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 859
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #36 on: 24 April 2019, 16:08:53 »
Careful stand is good as it does not make a gyro hit anywhere as crippling . Floating Crits alters the value of skirmishing units like Hovertanks moving to left or right side of an enemy mech hoping to get snake eyes shooting for an ammo explosion . A machine gun array /4 hitting a head floating crit should disincline people from using the optional rule.

A head TAC is a 1/1296 chance, and only a fraction of those will actually kill a mech. It's exactly as likely as a three-crit TAC to the CT in vanilla rules, and three crits to the CT will cripple most mechs about as effectively as one to the head. At that point, you just have to admit that the dice gods hate you today, and move on.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33121
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #37 on: 25 April 2019, 01:14:29 »
The wrath of the dice gods is still a victory, as you often end up with a hilarious story to share later.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2051
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #38 on: 26 April 2019, 11:35:42 »
Where as the odds stated is correct you are missing the point . People use really fast hover tanks to deliberately position themselves at a right or left aspected attack .  This is so both 7 and 2 locations hit that aspected torso you lose some the hits to that torso with the oprional floating crit and devalues the efficacy of scirmishing units period .

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33121
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #39 on: 26 April 2019, 11:42:33 »
From the side, a 2 is still more likely to hit a location on that side. So yeah, basic tactics are still a thing.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

Cannonshop

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1725
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #40 on: 26 April 2019, 11:47:35 »
Artillery

Minefields

Setting Fires.

basically take the rules that USED to be standard in BMR play, and put them back into TW.
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #41 on: 26 April 2019, 14:59:50 »
Where as the odds stated is correct you are missing the point . People use really fast hover tanks to deliberately position themselves at a right or left aspected attack .  This is so both 7 and 2 locations hit that aspected torso you lose some the hits to that torso with the oprional floating crit and devalues the efficacy of scirmishing units period .
I'm assuming that floating crits are resolved on the same chart as you would have used for any other shots from that direction, rather than being resolved on the front chart regardless of direction.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33121
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #42 on: 26 April 2019, 18:04:31 »
You are correct. So if you hit someone, roll on the right side chart and get a floating crit, said crit will also be rolled on the right side chart. So no issue.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #43 on: 01 May 2019, 16:29:24 »
Normally, I prefer to use the Floating Critical Hits rule, because having ALL critical hits land in the same spot is ridiculous.

I prefer the "Setting Fires" rules, because what's not to like about having a bonfire to gather around.....or several bonfires to navigate between.

The Extended Range rules also make sense, because laser beams and cannon shells don't magically stop after travelling some specific distance, but do tend to lose some punch.

Then there's the "Firing while prone" rule.  Regardless of whether I've got one or two functional arms to shift the 'Mech around on, I can still point a torso weapon in the right direction, with a penalty.  Not being able to fire it because the one arm is gone doesn't make sense.

There have been a couple of rare situations where I've taken a pair of engine hits and lost a heat sink in the process.  I had the 'Mech fall back into hard cover, but could do nothing to stop the inevitable rise in heat each turn until the ammo exploded.  One needs some way to be able to shut the 'Mech down in an emergency, especially in a campaign setting where there IS a tomorrow to consider.  Manual startup/shutdown solves that problem without ejecting and having to replace the expensive cockpit.

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4789
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #44 on: 01 May 2019, 17:41:16 »
Setting Fires is one of those rules that has the potential to be awesome, but creates far too many opportunities for nonsense. If you have a short-ranged force (think a Lance of Guillotines or a force of Piranha), you can just ignite random terrain and drag every fight into a melee engagement. While that might be fun once-in-a-while, it creates a situation where BV no longer works due to the terrain literally changing on-the-fly.

If the fires did something like burn down woods but caused no To-Hit penalties (sensors should see through that anyhow... it's smoke, not chaff), then this would be a fantastic rule. Perhaps separating them into "Starting Fires" and "OPTIONAL: Smoke Causes To-Hit Penalties" would be better. (Not trying to drag this into thread drift -- just my reasoning).
« Last Edit: 02 May 2019, 00:12:44 by TigerShark »
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16893
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #45 on: 01 May 2019, 23:08:38 »
I know its on MM, but does TacOps have a rule to burn down woods?
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4789
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #46 on: 02 May 2019, 00:12:14 »
I know its on MM, but does TacOps have a rule to burn down woods?
Yes. There is a rule for it reducing CF over time, of both woods and structure.


TacOps, Page 45
Quote
Terrain Factor: If using the Terrain Factor rules (see p. 64),
if all terrain conditions in a hex reach 0, then there is nothing
left in the hex to burn and the fire will go out during
the End Phase of that turn. For example, if a fire in a woods
hex reduces the wood’s Terrain Factor to 0, during the End
Phase of that turn, the fire in that hex is extinguished.

Although I don't see a line specifically saying how to burn-down woods, it's clear that the TF is equating to the CF of buildings. So you could assume a 2 TF deterioration/turn. So heavy woods would take 20 turns to reduce to light woods, while light woods would take 25 turns to reduce to rough terrain.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #47 on: 02 May 2019, 09:19:32 »
I believe it reduces construction factor by 5 points per round, which is just about enough to remove a hex of heavy woods over the course of a typical scenario.  I've used this in a MegaMek scenario where my hovertanks got deployed on a map with no clear path to the other side, and a mission to exit the opposite map edge.  I've also set fires to drive parked LRM boats out of cover, and in one case to remove a pesky infantry platoon from a hardened building to clear a safe route past.  Oh yes, I've used it to wipe out a bunch of infantry and vehicles hiding in the woods in several scenarios, with no return fire in the process.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8881
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #48 on: 02 May 2019, 09:37:36 »
fire burns buildings at 2 CF per turn. nothing in the terrain factor rules (TO, 64) countermands that so i assume it's the same for woods unless i missed something

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10225
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #49 on: 02 May 2019, 13:43:49 »
The reason fire is never going to be a standard rule is because determining the spread and smoke is a separate sub-simulation by itself and a massive pain to actually do by hand.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 250
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #50 on: 03 May 2019, 01:15:57 »
these are the ones i generally play with as a matter of course. do you have any you wish you could force get other people to use?

*hull down for quads
i think quads need more love
As some one who faces quads a lot, I do not think that they do, right now with partial cover shooting a quad you hit the berm more than half the to hit chart (6 of 11), now adding an extra +2 to hit for only 2mp does not sound good to me, (sounds great if I am the quad). We have one guy who loves his quads and they are such a pain right now just do to how many hits miss. I have seen many times where mediums can take on assaults and win just do to the fact that it is difficult to hit them. Having said that I think it makes perfect sense from a real world view.

*walk backward up/down hills
filed under: logical extension of the rules
This one I 100% agree should be standard rule, just makes sense.

*careful stand
i'm not as firm on this one after realizing I read the rule wrong and see you can't take the bonus if you only have 1 or 2 mp (we used to use it to make losing a leg less catastrophic but that doesn't work as written)
I like having this rule there even though I rarely use it, as I have found that when you need it to get up, you can not afford to not move after getting up.

*floating crits
maybe the most popular one among players?
I really like this one, but everyone else in my local group hates this so much. We almost never use it and when we do all they do is complain about it

*called shots
it gives you an option to concentrate fire a little without a TC.
I am mixed on this, as called shots are over powerful from what I have seen, but on the other hand they are more realistic.

*firing when down with one arm destroyed
filed under: logical extension of the rules
One more that just does not make sense to not use.

*single arm flipping
filed under: logical extension of the rules
Unless I am not remembering correctly (has happened before) this used to be the norm, and I agree it should be again.

*shutting off equipment
especially gauss weapons
Not being able to shut it down just never made sense to me.

*BAP expanded hidden units
I understand why for simplicity's sake that you generally only see hidden units when you finish movement, but it really diminishes the value of that ability.

*BAP -1 woods penalty
i'm not a fan of dead weight gear and if you're not using hidden units, BAPs are dead weight. this provides a modicum of utility
The BAP really needs some love, and with out them you are right it is nothing but dead weight.

*hotloading LRMs
if you're playing with small forces on small maps, it's not always possible to have "correctly" deployed forces and escort units. it's also fun.
I have never used them, so not sure how well it really works out, but did think they always sounded like fun.

*infantry digging in
i like being annoying
Infantry are one more of those things that are in a weird state I think, one they are supper weak and yet tough. A well used infantry platoon can be a pain to get rid of (as they should be), and this helps with that makes me love it. However I think infantry really need a complete overhaul, but maybe that just me.

Some other ones that I like (not sure if it is TacOps or not), the expanded hit chart, it just makes sense to me that if I am shooting on one side that I could hit the back.

The expanded piloting check for each 20 points, along with the bonus/penalty for weight classes. If 20 points of damage may make you fall, why does 100 not make it easier to fall?

and last one I have been using in MegaMek and found that I kind of like it is the alternate energy damage, where you do one extra point for point plank, and one less at long range.

Cannonshop

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1725
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #51 on: 09 May 2019, 12:57:38 »
Setting Fires is one of those rules that has the potential to be awesome, but creates far too many opportunities for nonsense. If you have a short-ranged force (think a Lance of Guillotines or a force of Piranha), you can just ignite random terrain and drag every fight into a melee engagement. While that might be fun once-in-a-while, it creates a situation where BV no longer works due to the terrain literally changing on-the-fly.

If the fires did something like burn down woods but caused no To-Hit penalties (sensors should see through that anyhow... it's smoke, not chaff), then this would be a fantastic rule. Perhaps separating them into "Starting Fires" and "OPTIONAL: Smoke Causes To-Hit Penalties" would be better. (Not trying to drag this into thread drift -- just my reasoning).

gotta disagree with you here.  your assumption seems to be that that LOS blockage and heat effects wouldn't also hit units doing it, one, and two, that all terrain is properly combustible, and three, that BV is somehow terrain related or subjective, rather than an objective measure of a unit's specific equipment and movement profile.

Lemme give you a counter example:  AC/20 assault 'mech on a map with nothing for terrain whatsoever, up against an equal BV 'mech with long-range headcappers (Gauss rifles or Clan ERPPC's.)

Guess what?  just because that ac/20 assualt can't close to effective range against that gauss-boat, doesn't mean it's got lower BV.

other examples being: fighting an equal BV of boats on a lake map, or an equal BV of aerospace fighters on a space map.  it doesn't change the BV of the unit simply because a specific tactic or terrain is more difficult or some other unit is better optimized (potentially even with LESS BV on the sheet.)

in your 'firestarter' Example, I counter with "I brought an Arrow-IV catapult/and or a Naga, go ahead, start your fires."

or a stand of FA infantry, or...get it?  How about something goofy, like a Yellowjacket Artillery mod? that's got a pretty low BV...

or calling down an airstrike on a given hex. that's not even a Tac-Ops thing, that's in your core rulebook.

it's not that intentional (or accidental) fires are OP, it's that they consume mass quantities of time to deal with in a game.  They're like the "let's make vehicle hit tables more complicated!" choice.  it extends the time it takes to resolve a turn and ends up grindy as a result.
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4789
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #52 on: 09 May 2019, 13:49:30 »
gotta disagree with you here.  your assumption seems to be that that LOS blockage and heat effects wouldn't also hit units doing it, one, and two, that all terrain is properly combustible, and three, that BV is somehow terrain related or subjective, rather than an objective measure of a unit's specific equipment and movement profile.
1. No, it wouldn't hit units by attempting to start fires. I can ignite woods or buildings far away from any targets and especially in intervening terrain between our forces. You don't need to target a unit or even an enemy unit's occupied hex to start a fire. It can be any hex on the board with combustible material.

2. I did assume that since we're talking the "starting fires" rule. If there's no combustible terrain on the board, there's no reason to use the rule or discuss its balance/usefulness.

3. BV is subjective. An ARC-2R's BV is not representative of its actual "value" (and that is what it stand's for -- a unit's real value on a board) if 100% of the map restricts LOS so that all fire MUST be within the minimum range penalty area. i.e.: a map with 100% heavy woods. Put a Lance of Archers against a Lance of Guillotines on said forest map and you'll find out quickly how large a factor terrain plays in making BV function.

Terrain doesn't have a number associated with it, but it is the primary factor in how well a unit performs on the field. And it can completely negate BV's usefulness as a tool of balancing forces. 
« Last Edit: 09 May 2019, 14:02:11 by TigerShark »
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33121
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #53 on: 09 May 2019, 14:11:36 »
This thread is not about BV, or any connection(or lack thereof) between it and terrain. Keep things on topic, please. C:-)
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

Cannonshop

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1725
Re: TacOps rules I wish were standard
« Reply #54 on: 10 May 2019, 10:39:08 »
1. No, it wouldn't hit units by attempting to start fires. I can ignite woods or buildings far away from any targets and especially in intervening terrain between our forces. You don't need to target a unit or even an enemy unit's occupied hex to start a fire. It can be any hex on the board with combustible material.

2. I did assume that since we're talking the "starting fires" rule. If there's no combustible terrain on the board, there's no reason to use the rule or discuss its balance/usefulness.

3. BV is subjective. An ARC-2R's BV is not representative of its actual "value" (and that is what it stand's for -- a unit's real value on a board) if 100% of the map restricts LOS so that all fire MUST be within the minimum range penalty area. i.e.: a map with 100% heavy woods. Put a Lance of Archers against a Lance of Guillotines on said forest map and you'll find out quickly how large a factor terrain plays in making BV function.

Terrain doesn't have a number associated with it, but it is the primary factor in how well a unit performs on the field. And it can completely negate BV's usefulness as a tool of balancing forces.

Let's take this off the board so as not to agitate things.
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

 

Register