| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shadowking
Kell Hounds
Captain
Joined: 22-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 365
Location: United States
|
 Posted: 13-Jul-2004 01:20 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
  |
|
I suppose I might as well throw my 2 cents onto the pile.
I, and those to with whom I generally play against have always taken into account that the torso section is destroyed in that turn, then the corrosponding section is also gone and no longer takes damage.
Though just to also throw a wrench into the works, by the way the rules work for battle armor infantry, a single soldier that is killed during that turn and still be hit again that turn even though it is already dead. Thus, 4 Gauss rifles fired at a 4 person BA unit that actually, could all potentially hit the same guy (sucks to be him) rather than each rifle hitting a different person.
This all of course then supports the idea that 1 of these ruling is perhaps wrong given that each seems to follow a completely different logic. But then, what game does? 
It all of course simply comes down to the fact that every person seems to play and understand the rules in their own way. Which as long as their group agrees, isnt really a problem. Only when those who are unknown to that group join in on it is where the problems can be, IE at a convention or such. But really, most every game has this sort of problem so it's really not at all surprising that something like this would happen.
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Pinhead
The Bloody Clans
Joined: 25-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1258
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 13-Jul-2004 05:43 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
Warner,
But by claiming that is the over riding rule, you are ignoring that all damage takes place simultaneously during the phase.
Like I said, if that is in fact the ruling, then the player that has initiative should cause damage first, and any weapons in those arms that are blown off of player 2 should not be available for fire.
The rule as you are interpreting it does not make sense.
Pin
_________________
"My Blood is not mine to give, it belongs to my Brothers"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
SaberDance
Federated Suns
Colonel
Joined: 07-May-2004 00:00
Posts: 837
|
| Posted: 13-Jul-2004 22:42 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
It's been a while since I glanced through this, so it might already have been brought up...
I was talking with my brother (an old GM of BT and MechWarrior) and he pointed out that a very good reason to count damage to the arm, even though the arm has been blown off by the loss of the side torso is salvage.
This is obviously a campaign thing, but the damage that would have hit the arm would have blown off armor and weapons, so when the arm hits the ground it will be badly damaged, rather than the victor pulling a pristine arm off the ground that he can strap onto his mech.
_________________
"Politics is the Art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing the problem, and applying the wrong solution."
-Groucho Marx
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mordel
Mordel.Net
Administrator
Joined: 03-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 6030
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2004 15:34 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
I brought the campaign point up and was completely ignored. What's worse is when the CT is destroyed the other damage is ignored. THAT hurts campaigning even more so. But it doesn't suprise me the people who supported the arm blown off idea didn't feel the desire to respond to that inquiry.
Nor did they respond to the question about a leg being blown off, especially with Quads. If the torso is blown and the leg is immediately gone, then the 'mech must immediately fall. No response there.
It's my opinion that many people see the rules as they want to, and use the rules they want to while blatantly ignoring other rules that contradict their belief.
_________________
Mordel Blacknight - Site Administrator
|
|
| Back to top |
   
|
Horhiro
Draconis Combine
Samurai
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1625
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2004 18:58 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
Quote:
|
It's my opinion that many people see the rules as they want to, and use the rules they want to while blatantly ignoring other rules that contradict their belief.
|
|
For sure. 
_________________
"I have lived my life trying to be a virtuous man. The Dragon admires tenacity, and the code of the samurai upholds it as well." -Minobu Tetsuhara
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2004 19:02 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-14 15:34, Mordel wrote:
I brought the campaign point up and was completely ignored. What's worse is when the CT is destroyed the other damage is ignored. THAT hurts campaigning even more so. But it doesn't suprise me the people who supported the arm blown off idea didn't feel the desire to respond to that inquiry. |
|
Okay, I'll respond. I would rather have my second shot transfered to the CT instead of impacting the arm. It is more important to kill the enemy than to get salvage.
Quote:
|
Nor did they respond to the question about a leg being blown off, especially with Quads. If the torso is blown and the leg is immediately gone, then the 'mech must immediately fall. No response there. |
|
I must have missed this question. If the leg gets shot off the mech falls. Yeah, so what?
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mordel
Mordel.Net
Administrator
Joined: 03-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 6030
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2004 19:57 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-14 19:02, Gangrene wrote:
Okay, I'll respond. I would rather have my second shot transfered to the CT instead of impacting the arm. It is more important to kill the enemy than to get salvage.
|
|
I understand what you would rather do. I would rather kill my opponent as well, but that's not the point. The point is what SHOULD be done.
Quote:
|
I must have missed this question. If the leg gets shot off the mech falls. Yeah, so what?
|
|
It was actually asked on HMP, not here. But you miss the point of the question. If the arm is immediately blown off and can not take further damage, then the leg is immediately blown off and the 'mech MUST fall at that time. This means they take falling damage as well as change their facing.
Many people on HMP were adamant about pointing out the line that states the arm immediately falls off and can not take further damage. Well, the rules also state the quad mech immediately falls. Do you see the dilemna here?
_________________
Mordel Blacknight - Site Administrator
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2004 20:37 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-14 19:57, Mordel wrote:
I understand what you would rather do. I would rather kill my opponent as well, but that's not the point. The point is what SHOULD be done. |
|
Then why are you guys arguing the campaign point? That's not a matter of what should happen, but a matter of preference.
Quote:
|
It was actually asked on HMP, not here. But you miss the point of the question. If the arm is immediately blown off and can not take further damage, then the leg is immediately blown off and the 'mech MUST fall at that time. This means they take falling damage as well as change their facing.
|
|
Yeah, so what? That seems appropriate, and that's how I've played for years.
Quote:
|
Many people on HMP were adamant about pointing out the line that states the arm immediately falls off and can not take further damage. Well, the rules also state the quad mech immediately falls. Do you see the dilemna here?
|
|
No, I don't. The application of "simultaneous" takes lowest precedence in damage resolution, and is trumped by damage transfer, falling, and whatever else. Its not a big deal.
[ This Message was edited by: Gangrene on 2004-07-14 20:41 ]
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oafman
Draconis Combine
Tai-sho
Joined: 18-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1657
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 15-Jul-2004 08:39 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
I'll pick this one up. This IS a big deal. If when the torso is destroyed the arm immediatley falls off and can take no further damage then 2 things are impacted. #1 any rolls that would hit the arm that round would transfer to the CT instead of hitting the arm. This could cause a mech to die a premature death. #2 when playing campaigns those random shots that would hit the arm can mean the difference between getting a 'free' PPC and having to spend money and tech skill to fix it.
I see these being the key points in this whole argument. They way I see it, if all the damage is simultaneous, (a word that means all at the same time) then the arm would still be a valid target until the end of the weapons phase.
_________________
Festina Lente!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 15-Jul-2004 21:33 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-15 08:39, Oafman wrote:
#1 any rolls that would hit the arm that round would transfer to the CT instead of hitting the arm. This could cause a mech to die a premature death. |
|
Your assertion that the death would be "premature" is a value judgement on your part. It is not evidence that Randalls ruling is flawed.
Quote:
|
#2 when playing campaigns those random shots that would hit the arm can mean the difference between getting a 'free' PPC and having to spend money and tech skill to fix it.
|
|
Campaigns are an add-on to the single battle game, not vice versa. When determining the affect of rules on the game as a whole, I see no justification for putting precedence on campaign issues. There is no reason someone playing a single battle game should interpret rules that favor campaigns. This is a non-issue.
Quote:
|
I see these being the key points in this whole argument. They way I see it, if all the damage is simultaneous, (a word that means all at the same time) then the arm would still be a valid target until the end of the weapons phase.
|
|
I know what simultaneous means, do you know what "immediate" means? The simultaneous nature of the weapons fire is merely the product of game time being broken into discrete chunks, and thats where it ends. Any result of weapons fire that has an immediate effect should take precedence over simultaneous fire.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mordel
Mordel.Net
Administrator
Joined: 03-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 6030
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 15-Jul-2004 23:11 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-15 21:33, Gangrene wrote:
Campaigns are an add-on to the single battle game, not vice versa. When determining the affect of rules on the game as a whole, I see no justification for putting precedence on campaign issues. There is no reason someone playing a single battle game should interpret rules that favor campaigns. This is a non-issue.
|
|
It's a non-issue for YOU. Leave it at that!
Quote:
|
I know what simultaneous means, do you know what "immediate" means? The simultaneous nature of the weapons fire is merely the product of game time being broken into discrete chunks, and thats where it ends. Any result of weapons fire that has an immediate effect should take precedence over simultaneous fire.
|
|
So when you lose a leg as a result of the torso blown away on a quad, do you fall at that instant? Or do you wait until all the fire is resolved? Mean, you fall before others fire, therefore changing your facing? I ask because the word "immediate" is used there as well?
_________________
Mordel Blacknight - Site Administrator
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 15-Jul-2004 23:24 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-15 23:11, Mordel wrote:
It's a non-issue for YOU. Leave it at that!
|
|
But not for Randall. His interpretation affects everyone who plays the game according to the rules.
Quote:
|
So when you lose a leg as a result of the torso blown away on a quad, do you fall at that instant?
|
|
I resolve the fall immediately, and continue on with resolving fire afterwards.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
SaberDance
Federated Suns
Colonel
Joined: 07-May-2004 00:00
Posts: 837
|
| Posted: 16-Jul-2004 00:00 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
Understanding as I say this that the only people who will agree with me are the people who already agree with me and that none of us will ever convince them otherwise...
One page 11 of the Battletech manual, c. FASA corporation 1987, it says:
"8. Weapons fire is resolved one unit at a time. As all combat is considered simultanious, the order of resolution does not matter. Note that players should resolve all the weapons attacks by one unit before begining those of any other unit.
9. Players determine damage from weapons attacks. Damage is recorded as attacks are resolved, but does not affect the unit until ALL weapons attacks bave been resolved. At that point, all damage takes effect immediately."
The order of attacks does not matter in step 8. No damage is done during step 8 when hit locations are determined.
Therefore, in step 8 when damage locations are determined, the arm is still a viable target area until step nine, when it is destroyed by the damage which takes effect immediately.
In physical combat step 10, the arm will not be there.
To recap. At the time the damage location is rolled for the Arm hit, the arm is still there because the side torso has not yet taken any damage (remember, we're still in stepl 8). After all the hit locations are rolled, all damage take effect immediately, damaging the arm at the same time it damages the side torso.
_________________
"Politics is the Art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing the problem, and applying the wrong solution."
-Groucho Marx
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mordel
Mordel.Net
Administrator
Joined: 03-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 6030
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 16-Jul-2004 09:58 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
Does the fire that comes in afterwards hit a different location based on the way you fell? For example, if you were facing forwards but fell back, would any new fire come in on your back?
_________________
Mordel Blacknight - Site Administrator
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 16-Jul-2004 12:39 Post subject: RE: Torso destruction |
|
|
Yes.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
