Alternative rule for attacking cluster weapons; replacing to-hit attack

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

It would be the replacement of 116. TW, Cluster Hits.


--------------------------------
Replace the first sentence of the second paragraph of Cluster hits, 116. TW.

If the player attacks with the weapon with Cluster Weapon effect, instead of making to-hit roll, rolls 2d6+3-(total to-hit modifier of the weapon) and compares the result to the appropriate column of the Cluster Hits Table (see 116.TW).

Add this sentece to the end of the second paragraph.

If the result is less than 2, no shots are hits.

---------------------------------

So, it eliminates the to-hit roll, and simply roll for a cluster hit table instead, while keep the advantage of skills and situations.

Why 2d6+3-(to-hit modifier)? The answer is simple - it is because it results most similar damage output with simply attack with the same modifier and roll for the cluster hit. With this, 7+ to 10+ provides around 87% to 96% of the original rules.

Sure, it weakens the cluster rolls a bit, but it also ensures the easier and faster calculating, as well as ensures to hit at least small amount of the missiles/fragments in the most times, rather than all or nothing.

I think that it is more suited for the nature of the cluster attacks, for you are expected to hit by only a fraction in the most times, rather than just struck by most fragments or dodge it completely. Also you don't need to be swayed by the random number twice in an attack unlike the other attacks.

[Sabelkatten]

I floated the same idea some time ago, thought with 3d6 rather than 2d6+3. Haven't had a chance to test it, thought. :(

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

I guess that adopting 3d6 will alts the probability greatly, for the table is based on a 2d6 roll. But perhaps it would be more close to the similar damage output with the basic rules.

[Charistoph]

I'm not too strong on this for several reasons.  Even shotguns can miss with shot.  LRMs and artillery are often used indirectly, which is easy to miss with by not even hitting the same "hex" they target.  Streaming fire weapons, like the HAG, also can easily miss.

There is a reason the ability to miss is put in to the system.  We're not talking about infantry running in to a flamethrower, but using indirect and shot weapons to hit large targets with who are rather far away.

Yes it would speed things up to not have to track hitting, but one could say that about any weapon system, especially with the "advanced" systems of the 31st Century.  So, I'm going to say no, due to it losing out on part of the granularity that Battletech provides as opposed to how abstract 40K is.  Even if the Cluster table was set up to include a fair amount of "zero" in the cluster table, I still think it would be a bad thing to introduce.

[Sabelkatten]

I guess that adopting 3d6 will alts the probability greatly, for the table is based on a 2d6 roll. But perhaps it would be more close to the similar damage output with the basic rules.

Technically the number of missile hits (as is) is based on a 4d6 roll - 2d6 to hit, then 2d6 cluster roll... But as it's split in two, any attempt to combine them into one roll will end up skewing the result. As I wanted to skew the results 3d6 wasn't a problem for me, but I don't really know which alternative is "worst".

[Hptm. Streiger]

Technically the number of missile hits (as is) is based on a 4d6 roll - 2d6 to hit, then 2d6 cluster roll... But as it's split in two, any attempt to combine them into one roll will end up skewing the result. As I wanted to skew the results 3d6 wasn't a problem for me, but I don't really know which alternative is "worst".

OK lets take it from this perspective.... say your toHit-Roll is an eight.... so its ~0.4. However the cluster table on its own is not a cumulative bell curve (don't know the exact term) - so to roll a 8 or a 6 have the same chances of 5/36. In sum that means chances to hit with 3,4 or 10 missiles is 3.4% to hit with 8 missiles for cluster hit is 8% and finally to hit with 6 missiles is 24%.

So given those numbers, I don't think the important factor is the reduction of the to-hit roll but to remove the cluster roll. Just say that 6 out of 10 missiles will hit.

Or in my personal words, unless you port everything into 1d20 don't screw with the numbers.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

I'm not too strong on this for several reasons.  Even shotguns can miss with shot.  LRMs and artillery are often used indirectly, which is easy to miss with by not even hitting the same "hex" they target.  Streaming fire weapons, like the HAG, also can easily miss.

There is a reason the ability to miss is put in to the system.  We're not talking about infantry running in to a flamethrower, but using indirect and shot weapons to hit large targets with who are rather far away.

Yes it would speed things up to not have to track hitting, but one could say that about any weapon system, especially with the "advanced" systems of the 31st Century.  So, I'm going to say no, due to it losing out on part of the granularity that Battletech provides as opposed to how abstract 40K is.  Even if the Cluster table was set up to include a fair amount of "zero" in the cluster table, I still think it would be a bad thing to introduce.

But still, even with my idea, it doesn't hit by a frag all the times, and actually most of them are turned to zero as you have pointed out. For example, a +9(assumed that a regular gunner, walks, shoots against the enemy that moves 5 hexes, that is in the medium range bracket) results -6 in the cluster roll, makes 7 or less(which is about 58%) results no hits at all, and only scores the minimum fragments on 8+. A +9 to hit is hit by around 27.7%, and the penalized cluster roll will represent the difficulty to hit well, I think. Even with this the chance to actually damaging the target is not so weirdly different with a to-hit roll, so I think that it still represent the rate of miss enough.

You cannot hit with a full salvo with the lucky roll with this, and it can be a problem. But is there anyone that seriously expects all the salvos are actually hits? SRM and LRM are shoot in groups rather than one by one for a reason - to make the target harder to evade the attack. SRM and LRM, and LB-X are not the streak SRM. Streak SRM requires the mark and all the missiles are hits. But SRM, LRM, and LB-X are designed to be spread and pray to hit at least some of them. That's why I think that it will better represent the cluster weapons of real Battletech worlds. Roll for the hit then also roll for the independent cluster roll is more suited for the Streak SRM's trait, and it does not represent the actual clusters correctly.

It doesn't makes the game like 40k. Actually, attack process in 40k have much more steps, and they use 1d6 per a roll. But Battletech is different - 2d6 is the basis, and you are required to roll once per a case. The idea does not advocate of 1d6s either(and I hate 1d6 to determine something and I prefer 2d6 or more).

Technically the number of missile hits (as is) is based on a 4d6 roll - 2d6 to hit, then 2d6 cluster roll... But as it's split in two, any attempt to combine them into one roll will end up skewing the result. As I wanted to skew the results 3d6 wasn't a problem for me, but I don't really know which alternative is "worst".

No I didn't mean like that. That's because the expected result of 2d6 and 3d6 are different.

2d6 may results 11 possible results, which are;
2 - 1/36
3 - 2/36
4 - 3/36
5 - 4/36
6 - 5/36
7 - 6/36
8 - 5/36
9 - 4/36
10 - 3/36
11 - 2/36
12 - 1/36

And 3d6 may results...

3 - 1/216
4 - 3/216
5 - 6/216
6 - 10/216
7 - 15/216
8 - 21/216
9 - 25/216
10 - 27/216
11 - 27/216
12 - 25/216
13 - 21/216
14 - 15/216
15 - 10/216
16 - 6/216
17 - 3/216
18 - 1/216


It means, bring 3d6 instead of 2d6, with the chart that is expected to be use with 2d6, will cause much problem than just a flat number of add or subtract. In my idea, still a total modifier of +3 makes the roll just same as the normal to-hit modifier, although it rarely happens. Perhaps it would be possible if the target is immobile and get a -4 to the modifier?

That's why a 4d6 and two separated 2d6s are totally different, if you consider the chance to get a result.

[Sabelkatten]

Ah, I misunderstood your point.

But I think you're overstating the problem of 3d6. Sure, you can hit at some ridiculous TNs (16! Thought 2d6+3 can still hit TN13). But mostly it gives a much wider possible spread in the number of missiles that can hit at a given TN; TN7 means 0-11 on the cluster table, with 2d6 it's 0-8 - but 3d6 gives a bigger risk of missing.

[Charistoph]

But still, even with my idea, it doesn't hit by a frag all the times, and actually most of them are turned to zero as you have pointed out. For example, a +9(assumed that a regular gunner, walks, shoots against the enemy that moves 5 hexes, that is in the medium range bracket) results -6 in the cluster roll, makes 7 or less(which is about 58%) results no hits at all, and only scores the minimum fragments on 8+. A +9 to hit is hit by around 27.7%, and the penalized cluster roll will represent the difficulty to hit well, I think. Even with this the chance to actually damaging the target is not so weirdly different with a to-hit roll, so I think that it still represent the rate of miss enough.

I missed how you were basically using the To-Hit roll on the Cluster Chart and anything that went below the Chart's minimum was considered a full miss.  This is what lead to the confusion.

On the other hand, with this system, how likely are you to get an LRM-20 to hit will all its rounds?  Or a HAG/40?

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Ah, I misunderstood your point.

But I think you're overstating the problem of 3d6. Sure, you can hit at some ridiculous TNs (16! Thought 2d6+3 can still hit TN13). But mostly it gives a much wider possible spread in the number of missiles that can hit at a given TN; TN7 means 0-11 on the cluster table, with 2d6 it's 0-8 - but 3d6 gives a bigger risk of missing.

Perhaps it is an answer for lacking the possibility of high rolls....

I missed how you were basically using the To-Hit roll on the Cluster Chart and anything that went below the Chart's minimum was considered a full miss.  This is what lead to the confusion.

On the other hand, with this system, how likely are you to get an LRM-20 to hit will all its rounds?  Or a HAG/40?

That's difficult, and it is the problem of the idea, I concede. On the basic cluster roll you need a 11+ to make a full hits(unless the table is 3 or less), but with the idea it is virtually impossible on the most situations for you need +4 to hit or less in order to get any roll with 11 but I guess that most attack's modifier in the real games are around 8+ to 11+.

Perhaps +3 instead of +1d6 solves the issue? It raises maximum value to 3, and allows +7 to have very low chance to get a full salvo hits.

An another idea is, adopt some kind of 'critical hit' concept and ruled that an unmodified roll of 12 makes the full hits regardless of the modifier. And I forgot to mention the Modified to-hit number rule on TW. The cluster weapon attack automatically fail if total to-hit modifier of the weapon is exceeds 12.