69 replies to this topic

[Sprouticus]

Gigaton, on 24 April 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

That's about as arbitary as the default model though. In the end it's the first 2D6 that dictates if you crit anything or not, the second just determines what exactly was it that you critted. If i used a house rule on that, I'd just assign -1 or -2 to the first roll depending on how empty the location was.

The problem with the initial rule is that it assumes all crit slots are taken. Example

Mech A has: 4 slots taken in its RT by equipment and weapons
Mech B has 1 slot taken in its RT by equipment and weapons.

According to the crit hit table, you have the same % of doing critical damage on either mech if you roll a 2. That is a load of crap, and completely illogical. IMO the reroll rules is intended to simply make crits more common and speed up games. Then again it has been years since I played TT.

[LackofCertainty]

William Petersen, on 24 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

That's not a bad game mechanic. It (like damage transfer) is meant to eliminate 'false positive' rolls.

You have already rolled and succeeded at getting a critical hit. And then you think it logical to hit 'empty slots' or 'nothing' effectually *not* getting a critical hit when you've successfully scored one? *That* is bad game mechanics.

This is all up to personal tastes.

A system that allows you to hit empty slots is nice, because it reflects that it's harder to get a crit on a location with fewer critable things in it. If all I have in my LT is a tiny ammo bin, there should be a lot lower chance of you critting my LT compared to my RT which is jammed full of critables. Likewise, you could argue that Damage Transfer is a bad mechanic, because it doesn't account for the fact that when your mech loses an arm it now has a smaller profile and should be harder to hit.

As I said at the start, though, it all comes down to personal tastes. Personally, I think the base BT rules are fine.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Although a TT player as far as crits go in a PC game its quite simple. You have a damage model which works out if anything is hit depending on the direction and position of the shot.. If theres nothing there inside then it's a "miss"

[Vollstrecker]

Most of the fun for me comes from using the flawed designs in TT. It's more amusing (and impressive) to kill something with a teacup as opposed to a gun.

[Mason Grimm]

Vollstrecker, on 24 April 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Most of the fun for me comes from using the flawed designs in TT. It's more amusing (and impressive) to kill something with a teacup as opposed to a gun.

[Suskis]

Small lasers not only have a value, but they can be damn useful too.
I made a Locust variant with 20 small lasers: once you sneak behind a mech, an alpha strike can penetrate its internal structure except in the biggest assault ones. (This also, due to questionable rules, makes you earn a lot of xp points in Mechwarrior)

[Vollstrecker]

Mason Grimm, on 24 April 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Basically what was going through my mind at the time.

[Mechteric]

Mason Grimm, on 24 April 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Arbitrary or not, it's what we do.

Roll the dice to check for critical: "YES, Critical Hit!!!!!"
Roll the dice to determine location: "Damn it!!! I didn't hit anything. I guess it punched through an already existing hole or just didn't impact anything critical"

The end.

It works for us, speeds up games and doesn't add a level of complexity to our already overtaxed nerd brains.

thanks for the house rule idea, I'll definitely have to remember that one!

[ArcaneIce]

I think they're all flawed in some way but that's to be expected. Think it shows realistic limitations and it helps gameplay as well.

[Kasiagora]

I prefer a lot of things in life to be flawed. I usually just play 3025 tech, maybe some 2750 thrown in for spice. When I play racing games I don't care for the high-level endurance races where all of the vehicles have been perfected to the point of being nearly identical other than sponsor stickers. I'd rather see what I can do with a Fiat than a Ferrari 9 times out of 10. (Bad example. Chose Fiat for alliteration. I'd totally take the Ferrari.) But yeah! Give me a Marauder over a Mad Cat any day of the week!

I think those design flaws and the snake-eyes through-armor-critical hit are there in part to show that when weapons of war are made they can not anticipate every possibility. Supposedly in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 there was a pamphlet published on a few locations where you could shoot a Russian T-34 tank with a .30 caliber rifle that would disable or severely impair the vehicle's operations. I don't know how much truth there is to this little story, but I think the game rules and flaws want to represent the chance that these sorts of things can happen through mistake or blind luck.