BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

Catalyst Game Labs => BattleTech Game Rules Questions => Strategic Operations => Topic started by: Bandit Queen on 21 December 2018, 08:55:31

Title: (Answered) Capital Missiles and to-hit Rolls
Post by: Bandit Queen on 21 December 2018, 08:55:31
The rules for using Capital Missiles are quite varied.  When using only a single launcher, every single rule plays out well.  It is when they are combined into bays that all of the problems arise.  I know the main reason for the weapon bays (TW, p.235) is to speed up play, and it has a positive side effect of increasing the chance for a threshold Critical Hit.  However, when Capital Missiles are placed into a weapon bay, they are actually harder to play.  This is due to the ruling that Advanced Point Defense Weapons (SO, p.97) must engage every single missile from a bay.  Bays greatly reduce the chance for a special Critical Hit (TW, p.239) and multiple rolls appear to be required when they are attacked by PDW bays.

1)   When using a PDW bay against a Capital Missile bay attack, does the PDW bay's damage apply only to the first missile or may it make an exception by attacking all missiles from that bay?

2)   When using an AMS bay against a Capital Missile bay attack, if the AMS bay has only enough heat/ammo to engage part of that bay's attack, does it effect all or part of that bay's attack?  This same question has also been asked in another topic.

3)   Concerning the two above questions, if only part of that bay's attack is effected, how are the to-hit rolls made?  Is a to-hit rolled made for every single missile in that bay's attack?

4)   When making a Capital Missile Bearings-Only Launch (SO, p.101), may each missile from a Capital Missile bay be preprogrammed with a different set of instructions?

There is not a construction requirement (TM, p.194; SO, p.154). to place Capital Missiles into bays.  I know that I along with several others, allow Capital Missile bays to fire their missiles individually.  Each has their own to-hit Roll, Location Roll, and special Critical Hit Roll.  Though the standard heat rule must be used, meaning that all missiles in that bay have to be fired.  I believe allowing each missile in a bay to resolve separately is the simplest method to solve all of the above problems.

5)   Is it okay to treat each launcher in a Capital Missile bay as a separate weapon?  The advantage being that this makes for cleaner TROs and Record Sheets, while not having to list every single launcher individually.
Title: Re: Capital Missiles and to-hit Rolls
Post by: Xotl on 27 July 2019, 20:46:52
We've decided to errata SO:

Capital Missile Bays: For the purposes of PDW fire, treat all missiles fired from a single bay as a single combined missile (i.e. PDW fire damages and inflicts to-hit penalties on the entire group, not against individual missiles). Similarly, the damage value of the missile flight is not reduced unless the entire flight is destroyed by PDW fire.

Is there anything that this fails to clear up at this point?  Any new issues that arise as a result?
Title: Re: Capital Missiles and to-hit Rolls
Post by: Bandit Queen on 12 September 2019, 07:30:54
Okay, I was able to play test the new rules.  Let me give an staged example to see if I am playing the new rules properly.

I have a custom WarShip attacking a Leviathan III (XTRO:Republic III, p.17) with a 10 "tube" Barracuda Capital Missile Bay.  The attack LoS will pass through the Leviathan's Fore-Right hex and the Leviathan is able to defend the attack with a total of 2 AMS Bays and 2 Laser AMS Bays.  At 2 Capital Damage each, the Leviathan can destroy any Capital Missile Bay with a listed damage of 8 or less.  Against Capital Missile Bays with 9 or more damage, the Leviathan applies a +8 to-hit modifier.  The Barracuda Bay has a DV of 20, so the +8 to-hit modifier is applied.

The attacking WarShip is making a Bearings-only (SO, p.101) attack set at Short Range.  The Leviathan has Velocity, is not evading, and has active ECM.  We'll assume that the Bearings-only attack's activation hex was skillfully plotted, and it finds the Leviathan at Short Range.  "Artillery" attacks are the best way for a WarShip to survive the Leviathan's Capital Lasers.

1)   Is the total to-hit number for this attack 14 (Gunnery +4, Side Attack +2, Barracuda -2, ECM +2 AMS +8)?

Let's say this same attacking WarShip is using a Kraken-T Capital Missile Bay with a single "tube", and the ship is undamaged.  Let's assume the Kraken is skillfully guided to the Leviathan, it has fuel, doesn't use thrust on the turn of attack, and (amazingly) ends up in the Leviathan's hex.

2)   Is the total to-hit number for this Kraken-T attack 10 (Special Base TN of 2 [LoS is not used], AMS +8)?

The new rule seems to make Capital Missiles more viable, while speeding up the game.  Going by these numbers, a well designed ship should provide enough AMS per arc to provide 7 Capital Damage.  An attacker's only real chance of damage seems to be from "overheating" the enemy ship and not allowing more AMS to fire.  It looks like the Piranha and Barracuda are now the most viable missiles, and all the others have become obsolete.  The special Capital Missile Critical Chance seems to not matter, since you only get one roll per bay.

Looking at the big picture, the Barracuda is hands-down the biggest winner of this new rule.  It went from being useless with a DV of 2 to now having a DV of 2-40.  Pulse Lasers and Sub-Capital Lasers work well for attacking ASFs, but Barracudas can now defeat ASF Squadrons' AMS.  The -2 to-hit, range brackets, and +0 to-hit for Small Craft make the Barracuda the most impressive Anti-ASF weapon.  It will even play well against most Large Craft, due to AMS now being to-hit focused!
Title: Re: (Research) Capital Missiles and to-hit Rolls
Post by: Hammer on 19 April 2020, 17:25:19
1)   Is the total to-hit number for this attack 14 (Gunnery +4, Side Attack +2, Barracuda -2, ECM +2 AMS +8)?

Yes, that's correct

2)   Is the total to-hit number for this Kraken-T attack 10 (Special Base TN of 2 [LoS is not used], AMS +8)?

Yes, that's correct