|
|
|
Mordel's Bar & Grill |
|
  |
» |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AlayneLeung
Lyran Alliance
Staff Sergeant
Joined: 03-Jan-2015 18:40
Posts: 133
Location: United States
|
 Posted: 03-Jan-2015 18:49 Post subject: Probes find minefields? SO unit design quirks? edited Feb 1 |
  |
|
note: read my most recent reply to this topic for edited Feb 1 edit.
1. Is this true that a probe can locate hidden mines of any minefield in said probe's radius as long as said probe isn't in effect raidus/radii of opposing ECM(s)?
2. Is this true that a unit can have both the narrow profile and low profile design quirks from SO for a +2 defensive to-hit modifier bonus on all attacks against said unit? Since the rules say a unit can have "a narrow or low profile", this indicates it could have both because, by using Boolean Algebra (the algebra of electronics and BattleTech uses a huge amount of electronicstech), that unit could use both "OR" options.
[Last edited by AlayneLeung on 01-Feb-2015 17:23; edited 3 times in total]
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Vagabond
Mercenary
Mr. Referee
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 5741
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 03-Jan-2015 20:52 Post subject: Re: Probes find hidden minefields? SO narrow low profile quirk? |
|
|
| AlayneLeung wrote: | | 1. Is this true that a probe can locate hidden mines of any minefield in said probe's radius as long as said probe isn't in effect raidus/radii of opposing ECM(s)? |
| TacOps pg210 wrote: | Finally, anytime a unit mounting an active probe ends its
movement (or at any point during its movement if using
the expanded active probe rules; see p. 99) and the effective
radius of the probe covers any hex with an enemy minefield,
the controlling player of that minefield must make a roll. On
a result of 7+, any weapon-delivered minefields are revealed;
on a result of 10+, any pre-designated minefields laid at the
start of the scenario are revealed (see Active Probes in Advanced
Combat, p. 99).
|
| wrote: | | 2. Is this true that a unit can have both the narrow profile and low profile design quirks from SO for a +2 defensive to-hit modifier bonus on all attacks against said unit? Since the rules say a unit can have "a narrow or low profile", this indicates it could have both because, by using Boolean Algebra (the algebra of electronics and BattleTech uses a huge amount of electronicstech), that unit could use both "OR" options. |
I would say NO. The quirk is narrow/low profile @ 3pts. Its a single quirk for 3 pts and not two separate quirks, and while it is not stated outright i do believe it is implied that a quirk can only be applied to the target unit/item once.
_________________
one must work hard to cultivate the mind and body. and one must always cultivate the mind.
//^(^_^)^\\
|
|
| Back to top |
|
AlayneLeung
Lyran Alliance
Staff Sergeant
Joined: 03-Jan-2015 18:40
Posts: 133
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 09-Jan-2015 17:25 Post subject: Re: SO narrow low quirk, positive quirks, negative quirks? |
|
|
while i agree that it's totally obvious and totally realistic that a unit can't have multiple narrow profiles or multiple low profiles given how that the rules clearly say "a narrow or low profile", i'm not so sure a unit can't have both a narrow profile quirk and a low profile quirk for 6 points because i remember reading BT rules some years ago how that a player can use fire symbols provided by Topps or he/she could make her/his own (this most likely indicated she/he could use both), actually i think the book said exactly "use fire counters provided by Topps (or maybe it said "FASA") or make your own"; and also in theory, it's possible for a unit to have both a narrow and low profile in real life. it would probably be a good idea to allow for such a 6 point quirk for a +2 defensive to-hit modifier (+2 isn't that great an upgrade from +1); i mean, there are big businesses leaders with support from their multitudes of employees that would be willing to have the FTC fine Topps for any falsely advertised product(s); i'll elaborate more on this as soon as i'm allowed to post on The Saloon forum. personally, i don't like the idea of a unit having a "narrow and low profile" quirk given how i don't like narrow-minded people and lowlife people.
3. how about a compromise such as replacing "narrow or low profile" quirk with a new quirk called "smaller profile" quirk for 3 points and allowing for another new quirk called "aerodynamic" for 6 points that provides 'Mechs and conventional vehicles with angle of attack defensive to-hit modifier bonuses? this aerodynamic quirk could be available for 'Mechs, conventional vehicles, and other units that aren't spacecraft/aerospace fighters/conventional fighters.
also speaking of positive quirks:
4. why is it that some units can't use some positive design quirks similar to how other units can use them? Other vehicular units should be capable of using a Battle Computer like a 'Mech/combat vehicle/support vehicle can. A DropShip could in real life given how that DropShips can be used as command units (in MechCommander Gold, the personnel in the DropShip that lands during the intro obviously uses a computer for initiative purposes), and the BattleTech cartoon had an episode in which Rachel Specter of the 1st Somerset Strikers put some kind of computer in Kylie's Banshee aerospace conventional hybrid fighter to attempt to provide initiative bonuses. Other vehicular units could use Multi-Trac; the Partisan Heavy Tank in TRO 3026 is described to have some kind of multiple units targeting and tracking system that can track about 200 targets simultaneously.
5. when will Battle Armors/aerospace fighters/conventional fighters be able to have a Narrow or Low Profile? The Sloth battle armor is designed to have a low profile; and aerospace fighters and conventional fighters each have an elevation level of 6 meters, so it seems like these fighters could have a low profile and the Slayer fighter looks like it has a narrow profile. Other units should be capable of using multiple search lights per firing arc like a battle armor (a battle armor can mount a medium laser), conventional fighter, aerospace fighter, Spheroid DropShip, or Aerodyne DropShip.
and about negative quirks:
6. would any or all of the following rules adjustments be wise so that these negative quirks can be in accordance with the Tactical Operations fumble roll of 2 rule? why or why not?
a. Ammunition Feed Problem: omit "result of 10+" and replace with "result of 4 or less", and omit "on a roll of 12" repace with "on a roll of 2"; yes xor no?
b. Exposed Weapon Leakage omit "on a roll of 10+" and replace with "on a roll of 4 or less", yes xor no?
c. Fragile Fuel Tank omit "result of 8 or more" and replace with "result of 6 or less", yes xor no?
Note that "xor" is Boolean Algebra for "exclusively or" as in exclusively one or exclusively the other.
7. and, since a roll of 2 is automatic failure if using roll of 2 fumble rule from TO, do any of you believe that the mechanical jump boosters from Tactical Operations should be a -1 design quirk trait point since a piloting skill roll has to be made when landing while using them? why or why not?
_________________
"Okay friendlies, you're not paid to be exclusively a 'MechWarrior', vehicle/spacecraft crewer, fighter pilot, or infantry trooper. You're just paid to follow my orders!" So says me to my personnel.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vagabond
Mercenary
Mr. Referee
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 5741
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 16-Jan-2015 22:25 Post subject: Re: SO narrow low quirk, positive quirks, negative quirks? |
|
|
After writing all of the following comments, I have one over arching comment: do more research before posting an idea. Many of your questions could be answered elsewhere in the rules or with equipment in other books. Review the material more completely and then evaluate for interactions.
| AlayneLeung wrote: | | while i agree that it's totally obvious and totally realistic that a unit can't have multiple narrow profiles or multiple low profiles given how that the rules clearly say "a narrow or low profile", i'm not so sure a unit can't have both a narrow profile quirk and a low profile quirk for 6 points |
For the RAW (rules as written), it does not appear that a unit can have both a narrow profile and a low profile as it is a single quirk for 3 pts. Game Mechanics wise, I as a GM would not allow it as that is just attempting to minmax a mech/unit defensively. If allowed, i'd bet the designer would also want to put NullSig and Chameleon LPS on the unit alongside a 7 jump MP.
It would also be like allowing a Masakari C to take 4pts of Accurate Weapons (2pts x 2 LPL), 4pts Improved Targeting, and 2pts MultiTrac.
You just don't allow some things.
| AlayneLeung wrote: | | because i remember reading BT rules some years ago how that a player can use fire symbols provided by Topps or he/she could make her/his own (this most likely indicated she/he could use both), actually i think the book said exactly "use fire counters provided by Topps (or maybe it said "FASA") or make your own"; |
What?
| AlayneLeung wrote: | | and also in theory, it's possible for a unit to have both a narrow and low profile in real life. it would probably be a good idea to allow for such a 6 point quirk for a +2 defensive to-hit modifier (+2 isn't that great an upgrade from +1); |
+1 is the difference between 41% chance to hit and a 27% chance to hit while a +2 is the difference between 41% and 16%. An average fight to-hit is: 4 pilot, +1 walking, +1 target move, and +2 range = 8 or 41% chance. Your suggestion pushes this up to 10+.
And yes, something like the spider or locust might very well have a low and narrow profile in real life (try shooting them in MWO), but the board game does not operate on real life but instead on game balance. If you want realistic, then allow it... otherwise the RAW says no.
| AlayneLeung wrote: | | i mean, there are big businesses leaders with support from their multitudes of employees that would be willing to have the FTC fine Topps for any falsely advertised product(s); i'll elaborate more on this as soon as i'm allowed to post on The Saloon forum. |
What? This has seemingly nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If I was a professor, I would give the discussion an F and hand it back with instructions to rephase, refocus, and better research the points of your argument.
| AlayneLeung wrote: | | personally, i don't like the idea of a unit having a "narrow and low profile" quirk given how i don't like narrow-minded people and lowlife people. |
See my above point. If this was an attempt at humor, your earlier comments set the reader up to take this as a statement... not a joke.
| AlayneLeung wrote: | | 3. how about a compromise such as replacing "narrow or low profile" quirk with a new quirk called "smaller profile" quirk for 3 points and allowing for another new quirk called "aerodynamic" for 6 points that provides 'Mechs and conventional vehicles with angle of attack defensive to-hit modifier bonuses? this aerodynamic quirk could be available for 'Mechs, conventional vehicles, and other units that aren't spacecraft/aerospace fighters/conventional fighters. |
In a game with flying units, a trait named aerodynamic would hold an entirely different meaning at first thought. Its a poor choice for a new quirk involving mechs and tanks.
However, the word choice aside I have already stated why narrow/low profile is not two separate quirks and how if you want to allow its use as 2 quirks in your games... feel free to do so. The creation of two new quirks just to allow you to double up on a defensive bonus for a system that is already optional is redundant and silly.
Side note, good luck getting players to even allow quirks in a match.
| AlayneLeung wrote: | also speaking of positive quirks:
4. why is it that some units can't use some positive design quirks similar to how other units can use them? Other vehicular units should be capable of using a Battle Computer like a 'Mech/combat vehicle/support vehicle can. A DropShip could in real life given how that DropShips can be used as command units (in MechCommander Gold, the personnel in the DropShip that lands during the intro obviously uses a computer for initiative purposes), and the BattleTech cartoon had an episode in which Rachel Specter of the 1st Somerset Strikers put some kind of computer in Kylie's Banshee aerospace conventional hybrid fighter to attempt to provide initiative bonuses. Other vehicular units could use Multi-Trac; the Partisan Heavy Tank in TRO 3026 is described to have some kind of multiple units targeting and tracking system that can track about 200 targets simultaneously.
|
And all of this is covered by the Communication Equipment found in the TechMan (pg.212) and TacOps (pg.194-195). A large craft is ALWAYS consider to have 7 tons of communications equipment.
| AlayneLeung wrote: | | 5. when will Battle Armors/aerospace fighters/conventional fighters be able to have a Narrow or Low Profile? The Sloth battle armor is designed to have a low profile; and aerospace fighters and conventional fighters each have an elevation level of 6 meters, so it seems like these fighters could have a low profile and the Slayer fighter looks like it has a narrow profile. Other units should be capable of using multiple search lights per firing arc like a battle armor (a battle armor can mount a medium laser), conventional fighter, aerospace fighter, Spheroid DropShip, or Aerodyne DropShip |
Again, for game balance. BUT BA technically already have this trait as is reflected by the +1 to hit BA found in TW. As for fighters, ALL fighters in real life have narrow profiles. And as the game really only sees an interaction between aero and ground units via special attacks and mods... this trait (like in BA) is accounted for in the mechanics.
BA mounted Searchlights pg.269. Battlemech/Vehicle searchlight pg.237 which has no unit restriction. So just mount a Battlemech scale search light on a Dropship using the normal rules fr equipment. The quirk exists for canon units that do not have them offical mounted as equipment such as a WHammer.
| AlayneLeung wrote: | and about negative quirks:
6. would any or all of the following rules adjustments be wise so that these negative quirks can be in accordance with the Tactical Operations fumble roll of 2 rule? why or why not?
a. Ammunition Feed Problem: omit "result of 10+" and replace with "result of 4 or less", and omit "on a roll of 12" repace with "on a roll of 2"; yes xor no?
b. Exposed Weapon Leakage omit "on a roll of 10+" and replace with "on a roll of 4 or less", yes xor no?
c. Fragile Fuel Tank omit "result of 8 or more" and replace with "result of 6 or less", yes xor no?
Note that "xor" is Boolean Algebra for "exclusively or" as in exclusively one or exclusively the other.
|
Its a matter of semantics really. If you want to use low than versus great than, there is no mechanical difference to doing so as each presents the same odds of occurrence. They likely chose greater than as to be in line with other such effects.
| AlayneLeung wrote: | | 7. and, since a roll of 2 is automatic failure if using roll of 2 fumble rule from TO, do any of you believe that the mechanical jump boosters from Tactical Operations should be a -1 design quirk trait point since a piloting skill roll has to be made when landing while using them? why or why not? |
Why? As the fumble is universal across all PSRs, I see no reason to single out 1 piece of equipment for special treatment.
_________________
one must work hard to cultivate the mind and body. and one must always cultivate the mind.
//^(^_^)^\\
|
|
| Back to top |
|
AlayneLeung
Lyran Alliance
Staff Sergeant
Joined: 03-Jan-2015 18:40
Posts: 133
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 17-Jan-2015 17:02 Post subject: Re: SO narrow low quirk, positive quirks, negative quirks? |
|
|
Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | For the RAW (rules as written), it does not appear that a unit can have both a narrow profile and a low profile as it is a single quirk for 3 pts. Game Mechanics wise, I as a GM would not allow it as that is just attempting to minmax a mech/unit defensively. If allowed, i'd bet the designer would also want to put NullSig and Chameleon LPS on the unit alongside a 7 jump MP. |
i see. be sure to read my topic on Off Topic forum about China if you don't like min&max units/persons.
Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | +1 is the difference between 41% chance to hit and a 27% chance to hit while a +2 is the difference between 41% and 16%. An average fight to-hit is: 4 pilot, +1 walking, +1 target move, and +2 range = 8 or 41% chance. Your suggestion pushes this up to 10+. |
i see. i do think the "accurate weapon" quirk, when used on an opposing unit, could balance a "narrow & low profile" double quirk used by a unit, though.
Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | What? This has seemingly nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If I was a professor, I would give the discussion an F and hand it back with instructions to rephase, refocus, and better research the points of your argument.
|
i was trying to give you a heads up as to what some businesses leaders, that really dislike BT, would do if they claim that one or more BT rules aren't typed genuinely; in this case, this rule for "narrow or low profile", which in theory according to them, should say "narrow xor low profile".
Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | See my above point. If this was an attempt at humor, your earlier comments set the reader up to take this as a statement... not a joke. |
well, actually i thought i was understanding this "narrow or low profile" quirk from your perspective because i originally thought you disliked or were very afraid of very munchy players given your previous reply when you said or typed: "NO" instead of "no".
Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | In a game with flying units, a trait named aerodynamic would hold an entirely different meaning at first thought. Its a poor choice for a new quirk involving mechs and tanks. |
well, there are WiGEs  how about "streamlined profile" instead of "aerodynamic profile"? see definition of streamlined including "streamlined passenger trains" example using this link
www.google.com/#q=define:+streamlined&spell=1
Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | Its a matter of semantics really. If you want to use low than versus great than, there is no mechanical difference to doing so as each presents the same odds of occurrence. They likely chose greater than as to be in line with other such effects. |
i think you missed reading my #6 question. since the TO fumble roll of 2 rule could apply in games (the games that players agree to use this TO fumble roll of 2 rule), it changes the odds of unit(s) suffering from any one of these three a & b & c negative quirks i listed because if your unit is going to receive the effect of any one of them when 2D6 is rolled 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12, (6 possible rolls) then it has a greater stance of suffering from said effect, than if the 2D6 roll was 6, 5, 4, 3, or 2 (5 possible rolls).
_________________
"Okay friendlies, you're not paid to be exclusively a 'MechWarrior', vehicle/spacecraft crewer, fighter pilot, or infantry trooper. You're just paid to follow my orders!" So says me to my personnel.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vagabond
Mercenary
Mr. Referee
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 5741
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 17-Jan-2015 21:15 Post subject: Re: SO narrow low quirk, positive quirks, negative quirks? |
|
|
| wrote: | Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | +1 is the difference between 41% chance to hit and a 27% chance to hit while a +2 is the difference between 41% and 16%. An average fight to-hit is: 4 pilot, +1 walking, +1 target move, and +2 range = 8 or 41% chance. Your suggestion pushes this up to 10+. |
i see. i do think the "accurate weapon" quirk, when used on an opposing unit, could balance a "narrow & low profile" double quirk used by a unit, though. |
And that is not what a quirk is meant to be and perform as. A quirk is:
| wrote: | | "Classic BattleTech story and sourcebook fiction is filled with descriptions of various designs whose unique quirks affect their abilities... However, game design and balance cannot be dictated by fiction or illustrations... Design quirks are a set of optional rules that allow players to bring the individuality of illustrations and story and sourcebook fiction—not to mention the uniqueness that can result from an endless series of field patches by a resourceful tech—to the gaming table" (SO pg.193). |
Quirks are intended to simply provide flavor that originates from fluff to a unit to use in the boardgame. You keep suggesting quirks as if they were character traits to be bought and sold by a role playing character. A quirk is NEVER used on a unit unless a) all players agree and b) the unit's fluff in a TRO gives reasonable evidence of the existence of said quirk. Not everything good nor bad in BT needs or should even have a quirk. A quirk should only exist if another rule does not cover the situation or a canon unit cannot obtain the needed trait through existent equipment (ie. a WarHammer possessing a spotlight, it would require a complete change of 30 years of technical data to add the searchlight equipment to a WHammer).
| wrote: | Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | What? This has seemingly nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If I was a professor, I would give the discussion an F and hand it back with instructions to rephase, refocus, and better research the points of your argument.
|
i was trying to give you a heads up as to what some businesses leaders, that really dislike BT, would do if they claim that one or more BT rules aren't typed genuinely; in this case, this rule for "narrow or low profile", which in theory according to them, should say "narrow xor low profile".
|
What? This is such a weak argument that no business leader would ever in their right mind take it to court. It ludicrous. And even if they did, all Catalyst Labs would need to do is add it to the errata... end of case.
Furthermore, the trait's official name is "Narrow/Low Profile". A quick search on wikipedia defines a "/" in the english language as "The slash is most commonly used as the word substitute for "or" which indicates a choice (often mutually-exclusive) is present" (Wikipedia, 2015). Again, i would advise more research on topics of comment.
| wrote: | Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | In a game with flying units, a trait named aerodynamic would hold an entirely different meaning at first thought. Its a poor choice for a new quirk involving mechs and tanks. |
well, there are WiGEs how about "streamlined profile" instead of "aerodynamic profile"? see definition of streamlined including "streamlined passenger trains" example using this link
www.google.com/#q=define:+streamlined&spell=1
|
Streamlined would work for the purpose you suggest.
| wrote: | Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | Its a matter of semantics really. If you want to use low than versus great than, there is no mechanical difference to doing so as each presents the same odds of occurrence. They likely chose greater than as to be in line with other such effects. |
i think you missed reading my #6 question. since the TO fumble roll of 2 rule could apply in games (the games that players agree to use this TO fumble roll of 2 rule), it changes the odds of unit(s) suffering from any one of these three a & b & c negative quirks i listed because if your unit is going to receive the effect of any one of them when 2D6 is rolled 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12, (6 possible rolls) then it has a greater stance of suffering from said effect, than if the 2D6 roll was 6, 5, 4, 3, or 2 (5 possible rolls). |
Again, you need to do more research on topics of comment.
| wrote: |
Whenever a player makes a to-hit roll with a result of 2, a fumble has occurred and the attack always misses; note that even if the modified To-Hit Number is 2 or less, under this rule the player always makes a die roll and on a die roll result of 2 the shot misses.
Additionally, the controlling player should immediately roll 2D6 again. On a result of 12, the weapon that missed automatically receives a single critical hit - (TO pg.77)[emphasis added] |
| wrote: | | The ammunition feed for one ballistic or missile weapon or bay has a tendency to jam at inconvenient moments. After making a to-hit roll, roll 2D6 (SO pg.196)[emphasis added] |
The fumble rules a exclusive to Piloting Skill Rolls (PSR) and To-Hit Rolls (THR). The negative traits you mentioned occur after and separate of the to-hit roll. Therefore, no... they do not fail on a 2, 10, 11, or 12.
_________________
one must work hard to cultivate the mind and body. and one must always cultivate the mind.
//^(^_^)^\\
|
|
| Back to top |
|
AlayneLeung
Lyran Alliance
Staff Sergeant
Joined: 03-Jan-2015 18:40
Posts: 133
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 18-Jan-2015 16:29 Post subject: Re: SO narrow low quirk, positive quirks, negative quirks? |
|
|
Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | Quirks are intended to simply provide flavor that originates from fluff to a unit to use in the boardgame. You keep suggesting quirks as if they were character traits to be bought and sold by a role playing character. A quirk is NEVER used on a unit unless a) all players agree and b) the unit's fluff in a TRO gives reasonable evidence of the existence of said quirk. Not everything good nor bad in BT needs or should even have a quirk. A quirk should only exist if another rule does not cover the situation or a canon unit cannot obtain the needed trait through existent equipment (ie. a WarHammer possessing a spotlight, it would require a complete change of 30 years of technical data to add the searchlight equipment to a WHammer). |
actually, using AToW rules, design quirks can be traits acquired for characters to use for vehicles in which positive quirks are multiplied by 100XP xor 1,000XP (i'm not sure which), and subtracted from the character's total current XP, while negative quirk points are multiplied by 100XP xor 1,000XP (again, i'm not sure which), and subtracted from the character's current total XP.
Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | Furthermore, the trait's official name is "Narrow/Low Profile". A quick search on wikipedia defines a "/" in the english language as "The slash is most commonly used as the word substitute for "or" which indicates a choice (often mutually-exclusive) is present" (Wikipedia, 2015). Again, i would advise more research on topics of comment. |
fair enough
Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | Streamlined would work for the purpose you suggest. |
excellent; let's use "streamlined" for this new quirk.
Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | Again, you need to do more research on topics of comment.
The fumble rules a exclusive to Piloting Skill Rolls (PSR) and To-Hit Rolls (THR). The negative traits you mentioned occur after and separate of the to-hit roll. Therefore, no... they do not fail on a 2, 10, 11, or 12. |
i did do research because using AToW rules for a fumble roll of 2 rule, this rule applies to all dice rolls from what i understand. and a roll of 12 indicates an automatic success, so this seems like we must amend these three negative quirks as i've suggested.
also, about mechanical jump boosters imposing a -1 quirk for vehicle, when it's landing when using them, well a fumble roll of 2 means it falls and takes damage.
_________________
"Okay friendlies, you're not paid to be exclusively a 'MechWarrior', vehicle/spacecraft crewer, fighter pilot, or infantry trooper. You're just paid to follow my orders!" So says me to my personnel.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vagabond
Mercenary
Mr. Referee
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 5741
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 18-Jan-2015 22:06 Post subject: Re: SO narrow low quirk, positive quirks, negative quirks? |
|
|
| AlayneLeung wrote: |
actually, using AToW rules, design quirks can be traits acquired for characters to use for vehicles in which positive quirks are multiplied by 100XP xor 1,000XP (i'm not sure which), and subtracted from the character's total current XP, while negative quirk points are multiplied by 100XP xor 1,000XP (again, i'm not sure which), and subtracted from the character's current total XP. |
First, if you are going to reference a rule in a discussion as proof against my statement you need to QUOTE the book and page number. This is part of doing proper research. You are making an assertion of opinion based on your interpretation of a rule so you need to provide were others can find said rule easily. Otherwise, you just look like you are attempting to dodge the response and continue to look like you are in the right. Burden of proof.
Second, how am I supposed to believe you if you are unsure of the rule yourself? You weakened your argument because of lazy writing because you failed to properly reference the book.
Third, after looking the appropriate trait (Design Quirk [Vehicle], AToW pg.113) you are correct that it is an element that can be purchased by a character during play (positive quirks) or during creation (positive and negative quirks). Thus I will amend my statement:
A quirk is NEVER used on a unit unless a) all players agree and b1) the unit's fluff in a TRO gives reasonable evidence of the existence of said quirk or b2) a player appropriately explains why their character's vehicle possesses the trait, obtains the GM's approval, and pays for the Design Quirk Trait. No GM should allow you to add Narrow/Low Profile to a unit whose fluff does not support said quirk at which point if using design specific quirks it should be provided by the design. This trait is intended for things like a technically inclined character tinkering with say the PPC on his Panther until it becomes "accurate".
However, this does not change the overall point of my response which is that quirks are intended to give flavor to a unit that is not reflected in their TRO stats. A quirk should still only exist if another rule does not cover the situation or a canon unit cannot obtain the needed trait through existent equipment.
| wrote: | Vagabond said or typed:
| wrote: | | Again, you need to do more research on topics of comment. |
i did do research because using AToW rules for a fumble roll of 2 rule, this rule applies to all dice rolls from what i understand. and a roll of 12 indicates an automatic success, so this seems like we must amend these three negative quirks as i've suggested. |
| wrote: | Fumbles
In any Action Check, a natural, unmodified dice roll of 2 represents an automatic failure, even if the modified roll result is higher than the action’s TN (or lower than 2). - AToW pg.41 [Emphasis Added] |
| wrote: | | Action Checks in A Time of War come in two main forms: Attribute Checks and Skill Checks. - AToW pg.38 [Emphasis Added] |
| wrote: | | The flipside of a fumble, the “stunning success” may occur if the player’s 2D6 Action Check roll yields an unmodified 12. - AToW pg.41 [Emphasis Added] |
And this is why I keep telling you to do more research. The fumble rules in AToW still only apply to action checks of which the quirk's roll is not. It is an effect roll that is separate of any PSRs, THRs, and Action Checks.
| wrote: | | also, about mechanical jump boosters imposing a -1 quirk for vehicle, when it's landing when using them, well a fumble roll of 2 means it falls and takes damage. |
And here is why I want quotes and references AND MORE RESEARCH, where does it say in the latest ruleset that a Mechanical Jump Booster requires a PSR? I shouldn't have to be finding all of this up myself.
| wrote: | | Mechanical Jump Boosters: Mechanical Jump Boosters must be placed in all of the ’Mech’s legs, and require 2 critical slots per leg to install. Critical damage to any one of these slots disables the entire booster system. The boosters weigh 5 percent of the ’Mech’s tonnage for every Jumping MP desired (rounded up to the nearest half ton). Unlike standard jump jets, the Jumping MP bestowed by boosters is not limited by the ’Mech’s Walking MP. - TO pg.292 |
| wrote: | Game Rules: Mechanical Jump Boosters act like standard jump jets, with the following exceptions:
• BattleMech Mechanical Jump Boosters generate no heat and may be used even underwater.
• Units using BattleMech Mechanical Jump Boosters cannot steer in mid-flight and so begin and end their jumps with the same facing.
• BattleMech Mechanical Jump Boosters may not be used to execute a Death From Above attack.
• While a single unit may mount standard jump jets and Mechanical Jump Boosters, the unit may not use both systems in the same turn. - TO pg.293 |
No mention what so ever of a PSR upon landing. I even checked the errata: bg.battletech.com/errata_files/CAT35003_Tactical_Operations_Errata_2.1.pdf
However, lets say the booster required a PSR. Still does not warrant a quirk. A quirk for MJBs would add or subtract from the PSR or give a Mech such as say a Marauder the ability to "hop" up a level 3 hill as if it had a MJB because of an odd design in its legs. You do not simply make a quirk because something in the rules has a negative aspect.
So in completion, you need to start doing the following:
1. Do more research.
2. Do more complete research.
3. Quote supporting phrases and text.
4. Reference quotes and supportive evidence; include URL and date or Book Title and page number.
Failure to do the above 4 things will receive a comment to go back and do more research with citations.
_________________
one must work hard to cultivate the mind and body. and one must always cultivate the mind.
//^(^_^)^\\
|
|
| Back to top |
|
AlayneLeung
Lyran Alliance
Staff Sergeant
Joined: 03-Jan-2015 18:40
Posts: 133
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 23-Jan-2015 19:03 Post subject: ? about streamlined quirk. This reply edited Feb 1 |
|
|
okay i understand; and, i'll do more research.
can you get the streamlined positive quirk rules emailed to whoever types the TO revised rulebook? i'm guessing that a LAM would most likely have this streamlined quirk. and i think this quirk should be 3 points instead of 6 points since 6 points seems too much.
and about the mechanical jump boosters, i do have a couple of recommendations: 1, allow a unit to use its center of gravity like a ballerina to change its facing by 1, 2, or 3 hexsides when using them to land at a cost of 1 MP per facing change; and 2, allow a unit that uses them to jump to make an intentional fall onto a unit/structure/hex (i think this is already in accordance with TW & TO rules but i'm not sure). also, mechanical jump boosters do have the disadvantage of usually massing more than jump jets/improved jump jets for the same tonnage and jumping movements of a unit.
edited part added Feb 1: also, given how a LAM has a piloting skill roll whenever it has to land in AirMech mode, should it therefore have a -1 negative quirk point since a roll of 2 is TO fumble rule and LAM crashes because of that roll?
_________________
"Okay friendlies, you're not paid to be exclusively a 'MechWarrior', vehicle/spacecraft crewer, fighter pilot, or infantry trooper. You're just paid to follow my orders!" So says me to my personnel.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
» |
All times are GMT-04:00 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
