Karagin
05/22/16 05:19 PM
61.40.222.5
|
Okay opening round of the fight, your Caesar gets hit with enough damage to crit the Gauss rifle, now since the weapon has not fire, does it still blow up and give the damage to the mech? Question being is the weapon charge and ready to fire the round or not?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akalabeth
05/22/16 05:46 PM
108.180.183.124
|
Gauss Rifles always explode unless they're specifically powered down, which is an optional rule (TO) and declared in the end phase of a turn.
|
ghostrider
05/22/16 08:02 PM
66.74.61.223
|
I would think it would be, the weapon just fired, meaning all charge is out of the weapon.
That removes the chance it was 'holding a charge' for the next round.
There were a few story lines suggesting the pilot has to charge weapons to fire, but nothing said about that in older rules.
I would think it would be determined by the declaration of fire. You pick your target and specify what is to be fired. If you are not firing the gauss rifle that round, I would say the weapon is not powered.
Depending on how strict you are with that rule, that would also mean no firing off other weapons as you realize you are dead.
I know my group tends to gloss over that at times.
So my vote would be if you don't declare you are using the weapon, then it should be powered down.
|
Akalabeth
05/22/16 09:47 PM
108.180.183.124
|
"If a gauss rifle takes a critical hit, treat the result as a 20-point ammunition explosion in the location containing the rifle".
This is the rule. Verbatim.
There is no mention of whether it has fired or not. It does not say "If a charged gauss rifle takes a critical hit" nor does it say "If a gauss rifle which has not fired this turn takes a critical hit". Which means that whether the weapon has fired or not is irrelevant.
Further the existence of the Tactical Operations rule confirms that the weapon is always powered unless specifically powered down. Any other interpretation is a house rule. A house rule created without precedence and without support from the rulebook itself.
Here are two examples of text,
#1 "If a Gauss rifle takes a critical hit, treat the result as a 20-point ammunition explosion"
#2 "If a Gauss rifle takes a critical hit, treat the result as a 20-point ammunition explosion regardless of whether the weapon has fired or not this turn"
#1 is the rule. #2 is the rule expanded. Both pieces of text can co-exist, they do not contradict the other. #2 does not change or invalidate #1.
And now another piece of text:
#3 "If a Gauss rifle takes a critical hit on a turn it hasn't fired, treat the result as a 20-point ammunition explosion"
In this case, #1 and #3 cannot co-exist. Example #3 adds critical information which makes rule #1 incomplete. People characterize #3 as their "interpretation" of the rule, but ultimately an interpretation is how you read a text. Example #3 is not an interpretation, it is an addition. The rule is fundamentally being re-written.
So the best way to test "your interpretation" of a rule is to write out your rule and compare it to the original, and if your rule has more information and makes the original incomplete then you are adding rules and the interpretation is wrong.
Further ghostrider, since you yourself just admitted that Gauss Rifles explode in the previous thread:
Quote:
Not worried about ammo explosions, only 20 points if the weapon gets hit.
It's fairly apparent that you're just being contrary to the rules for the sake of it. You know the rule, you've stated the rule, and yet here when asked, you choose to interpret the rule contrary to how its written. Seriously, quit trolling, and stop wasting everyone's time.
|
happyguy49
05/22/16 11:13 PM
98.30.242.159
|
I think you are right Akalabeth, but this raises the question though, of whether that should be the case. I only feel I should step up and voice my two cents here because, if I were a mechwarrior and my Gauss rifle was out of ammunition, or if the ammunition bins had been hit and rendered inoperable, YOU BET YOUR **** I would power that thing down. Why risk a big explosion from the Gauss being critted? A rule allowing voluntary charge-down of any Gauss weapon is needed, in my humble opinion.
I do know the rules, and I know they generally don't have exceptions. A gauss taking a crit does damage from the explosion of the capacitors, with different damage depending on the gauss in question. That said, I am unclear on how much damage each class does???? With some it is clearly stated in Tech Manual, etc. Others I am having a hard time finding how much damage it does when critted. I will list what I know below:
Regular Gauss Crit = 20 damage
Silver Bullet Gauss Crit = 20 damage
Improved Heavy Gauss Crit = 30 damage (ouch)
Magshot Gauss Crit = 3 damage
but then...
Light Gauss Crit = ?????
regular Heavy Gauss Rifle Crit = ?????
AP Gauss Crit = ?????
if others can find and cite the damage for critting the 3 above Gauss types, I'd be thankful.
EDIT: found some of the remaining damages.
Light Gauss Crit = 16 damage
Heavy Gauss Crit = 25 damage
HAG Gauss = (forgot about those above) HAG 20 = 10, HAG 30 = 15, HAG 40 = 20
still looking for AP gauss crit damage.
Edited by happyguy49 (05/22/16 11:45 PM)
|
ghostrider
05/22/16 11:26 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Might want to reread what you posted before suggesting rule 1 and 3 can not coexist as they same the same thing.
No where in any of that suggest the weapon isn't charge.
And as you have seemed to miss the point in most of these discussions, I guess it should be pointed out, this is meant to promote discussion without suggesting the rules are at fault or need to be changed. This is simple hyperthetical conversation.
Again you contradict yourself and accuse others of trolling without knowing this is not meant to replace the written rules, but to question what you would do in this situation. You stated you can keep the weapon shut down as an alternate rule, but on the first round, there is no previous round.
Again. Read the question and study it before going off with a personal attack on someone since they have shown you do not understand the rules like you think you do. And I can see this thread getting shut down for this reason like the others that were shut down.
Now taking things out of context. Gauss rifles being less of a danger to the carrying unit then normal ac's was the point of that one. As well as skewering the range, heat and damage over the other acs.
I don't have an issue with adding in things like no explosion if the weapon is hit as long as the rifle isn't charged.
I do suggest you reread your statements before hitting continue.
As I have to keep erasing other comments that would be considered continuing the inflamitory comments, I will end this here.
|
Akalabeth
05/23/16 01:33 AM
108.180.183.124
|
Quote:
happyguy49 writes:
I think you are right Akalabeth, but this raises the question though, of whether that should be the case. I only feel I should step up and voice my two cents here because, if I were a mechwarrior and my Gauss rifle was out of ammunition, or if the ammunition bins had been hit and rendered inoperable, YOU BET YOUR **** I would power that thing down. Why risk a big explosion from the Gauss being critted? A rule allowing voluntary charge-down of any Gauss weapon is needed, in my humble opinion.
The rules for voluntary shutdown of a gauss rifle are in Tactical Operations (page 102). Though if dumping ammo is a tournament legal rule in Total Warfare, then I would think shutting down weapons like Gauss Weapons and Improved Heavy Lasers should be standard as well.
The rule also specifically says Gauss Rifles, not for instance AP Gauss, or Hyper Assault Gauss (which don't have "Rifle"). Though maybe the errata for Tac Ops has since changed that to include all such weapons that explode
Not 100% sure but I think Magshot Gauss = AP Gauss.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Gauss rifles being less of a danger to the carrying unit then normal ac's was the point of that one.
The first point of damage to a standard Thunderhawk's internal side torso has a 35% chance to kill the mech. Odds say the third internal hit should put it completely out of action. This is not true for any mech that mounts an autocannon in a similar set-up
|
ghostrider
05/23/16 02:16 AM
66.74.61.223
|
I will assume you mean the first point of critical damage.
Using 3 gauss rifles on one unit does modify some of the argument, but they can have ammo without worries. It is most likely the thunderhawk will take down its target long before penetration to hit the rifles. Running an 3025 atlas, you are more likley to lose the ac ammo to a hit before you get to even discharge a single round as the range bites. One ammo hit and there is no chance of survival. Now having a unit with 3 ac 20's would be more comparable. A single rifle against a single cannon is comparable.
the old jagermech, is about the only 3 plus cannon I can think of off hand that isn't a clan mech.
Since the rifle has more range then anything but the 2, and does 7 times the damage, with the same heat, I would think it would survive more then an ac 2. The 5 and 10 start showing more power, but a single ammo hit before they fire is wow.. 100 points per tons as well. You can take a single 20 point shot, without an xl. So the range/power/weight is out of sync with the rest of the cannons.
So there is less danger of losing your mech with a gauss rifle. then having an full ton of ac ammo.
A weapons hit on the cannon isn't the issue. The amounts of crits needed does say the cannon is more likely to be hit then the ammo. The rifle itself is, but I still say 20 points is nothing compared to a full ton of ac ammo.
Ok. the lb5x has a hex range on the gauss as well.
|
Akalabeth
05/23/16 04:06 AM
108.180.183.124
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I will assume you mean the first point of critical damage.
No, I mean the first internal hit.
My math was a bit off the first time around, it's actually 29% chance of the mech going boom with the first internal.
Chances of a critical
1 Critical Hit = 25% (58.3% chance of hitting the Gauss)
2 Critical Hits = 13.8% (84.8% chance of hitting the Gauss)
3 Critical Hits = 2.7% (97.2% chance of hitting the Gauss)
Which when you add them all together, accounting for the probabilty of each result, is 29% chance the Gauss will get hit and destroy the mech for ANY internal damage.
This is true for any IS mech with a Gauss mounted alongside an XL Engine.
Marauder 5S
Atlas K (3050)
Cestus 6Y
Thunderhawk 7Y
Banshee 5S
Pillager 3Z
Goliath 3M
Orion MB
Hollander
Along with many others.
Many mechs wise mount their gauss rifles in their arms, but even then for lighter machines when a Gauss is destroyed and the arm is already heavily damaged there's a good chance the explosion will gut the side torso as well.
The Gauss Rifle takes up 7 crits. Which means that even a single crit on a full table has a 58% chance of hitting it.
Heavy Gauss are even worse. Something like a Fafnir has a 41% chance (chance of a crit) of losing half the mech on the first side torso internal.
By the fourth internal hit, the odds of the Fafnir having taken at least one critical are 89.5%
Quote:
Ghostrider writes:
So there is less danger of losing your mech with a gauss rifle. then having an full ton of ac ammo.
If you have a Gauss rifle, you have more Battle Value than you would if you had an Autocannon which means you're facing more dangerous opponents which can hit you for more damage.
A gauss rifle is basically 7 ammo bins. A heavy gauss is 11. Even a Light gauss is 5 or 6.
|
ghostrider
05/23/16 11:17 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Realized after I went to bed last night a good ac unit that is comparable to the thunderhawk would be the annihilator. Don't know why I forgot it.
Looking at the damage done was the basis for that. The criticals taken up that could be hit was not accounted for as much. So I do concede it is more likely to be hit then ammo for an ac unit.
|
Cray
05/24/16 05:43 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
Okay opening round of the fight, your Caesar gets hit with enough damage to crit the Gauss rifle, now since the weapon has not fire, does it still blow up and give the damage to the mech? Question being is the weapon charge and ready to fire the round or not?
The default is that Gauss rifles are powered because they're ready for use. There are two conditions where Gauss rifle capacitors are not powered:
1) Per Total Warfare p. 135, after a Gauss rifle has taken a critical hit, it is powered down and will generate no further explosions. (Go figure, the capacitors blew up when they discharged.)
2) You invoke the non-tournament rule in Tactical Operations (p. 102) to power down the Gauss rifle. You declare this in the End Phase of a turn and it takes place then; next turn the weapons' capacitors are unpowered and safe. (Similarly, you can declare you're powering up in the End Phase of another turn.) This rule also mandates marking the Gauss rifle powered down on the 'Mech sheet.
Since option 2 is only triggered at the End Phase of a turn - after damage resolution - in your turn 1 scenario you're stuck with an exploding Gauss rifle. Unless the other players at the board allowed you to enter the field with your Gauss rifle powered down, but that'd mean you couldn't fire it on turn 1.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
05/24/16 08:22 PM
61.40.222.5
|
Okay now say the Gauss jams, and the weapon is declared powered down or is it still charged since it has a jam?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/25/16 05:58 PM
66.74.61.223
|
The same round or the next?
Using the rules, it states the next round the weapon is powered down.
|
Cray
05/26/16 05:52 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
Okay now say the Gauss jams, and the weapon is declared powered down or is it still charged since it has a jam?
The weapon will not be powered down unless it takes a critical hit or you use the Tactical Operations optional power-down rule. Since by itself a jam fits neither of those conditions, the Gauss rifle will not be powered down automatically.
However, a jam is a great time to invoke the Tactical Operations power-down rule. Have the MechWarrior punch the jammed weapon's off button during the End Phase. Otherwise, it's a live, useless bomb.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
06/03/16 08:35 PM
61.40.222.5
|
Weapons feed systems are they belts of the ammo linked together as is done for small arms like machine guns or are they large magazines that had built into the weapon which doesn't seem to be the case at all since an ammo bay or bin can be on the other side of the mech from the launcher or gun. Or is it a conveyor system that moves up as the missiles fire or the autocannon fires?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
06/03/16 10:20 PM
66.74.61.223
|
The fluff and novels suggest cannons use clips, since most of the time they say they can hear the clunk of a new clip loading into the cannon. Take that for what you want.
And I never liked the idea that you can store ammo in a mechs leg, but have the weapon in the opposite sides arm. But that is just me.
As for missiles, the only info that I have seen that deals with the feed is the Wyverns missiles. Supposedly the bin is above the launcher, and they suggest you can hop the mech up and down to unjam the feed. Other then that, nothing much about them.
Though a companion thought to this. If lrms don't arm until they are in the launcher, (minimum range issues), does that mean they should not explode in the bins?
I guess it would be like a sidewinder on a fighter today. If it gets hit before launching, do they explode?
|
Drasnighta
06/04/16 11:07 PM
173.183.129.245
|
The Warhead might not be armed... But they still contain Fuel, which, y'know, is generally explosive.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
|
ghostrider
06/23/16 11:37 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Another off the wall thought about weapons.
The idea that a laser can not remain focused on a unit long enough to do damage past certain ranges, lead to ask if you use a c3 system, why could this continue to be true?
I am unaware if the c3 system has a range, and understand object would stop this, but in an open field or even in space, you should be able to gain enough information from the system to damage something further out.
That is not saying you could burn a ship in orbit around earth from the jump points, but you should be able to target something from the moon to lagrange 1 or 2. Jump stations would be even more vulnerable, as they don't move.
|
happyguy49
07/01/16 08:39 AM
98.30.242.159
|
Weapons whose damage varies by range do not get to do short-range damage even if they have C3. They DO get targeting bonuses however. For instance, a c3 networked unit with a Heavy Gauss Rifle firing at an enemy 20 hexes away, with a c3 ally 4 hexes away from the target, would use short-range target numbers, but would only do 10 damage, not 25.
Does that make sense? Same would be true of other weapons that vary damage by range, variable speed pulse lasers come to mind, but that's even more complicated.. as their pulse laser modifiers are also variable by range. In such a case, a Large Variable Speed Pulse Laser unit with c3 firing at an enemy unit 15 hexes away, with a c3 ally 3 hexes away from the target, uses short range modifiers, but only gets a -1 bonus to hit from the laser being a VSP, and can only do 7 damage. (cause its at the laser's long range). Complex, I know :/
|
ghostrider
07/01/16 11:56 AM
66.74.61.223
|
That is an interesting point.
As everything dealing with the c3 suggest the range be set at the closest unit that is still communicating, ie not in ecm.
I was unaware of weapons doing different damage at ranges, except for missiles.
Definitely a change from the older standards of weapons.
Is this stated in the rules for c3 with those weapons?
Or did they leave it vague for people to decide for themselves?
I don't remember seeing it last time I looked up c3 on the wiki, though newer stuff may not be on line due to copyright issues.
And with the addition of extreme ranges for weapons, it suggests they can hit beyond their normal 'max'.
I was thinking of the old weapons like the standard large laser which should have horizon be the limit, though reduced damage would be logical.
|
Akalabeth
07/01/16 10:29 PM
108.180.183.124
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I was unaware of weapons doing different damage at ranges, except for missiles.
Definitely a change from the older standards of weapons.
No? Pretty sure the Heavy Gauss was around before you stopped buying books.
Either way, the Hyper Assault Gauss and Snub Nose PPC are newer weapons that fit the bill.
|
ghostrider
07/02/16 12:16 AM
66.74.61.223
|
I have the tro 3067. No rules for it, just the mechs and loadouts of them. Was more interested in the warships of the fedcom civil war then anything else at the time. I know the Fafnir has a pair of them, but not what it does.
They aslo have the rac systems, but no information on how they work.
It is interesting they are finally getting away from the idea a weapon does x damage over the entire range it fires at. For ballistic weapons, that didn't seem right. Granted the short ranges they fired at made even less sense, but oh well.
The idea of a large laser not doing damage beyond 15 hexes didn't make sense, as it did not just drop off the face of the battle field. I can understand the length of focus issues to deal the damage, but a c3 should be able to correct that to a point. This is why I asked about it. Any of the lasers should have more range with a c3 helping to focus the beam on target better.
Sorry. Misspoke on the ballistic weapons. Kinetic ballistic weapons should lose power over distance. Explosive tipped would not.
Edited by ghostrider (07/02/16 12:29 AM)
|
Cray
07/02/16 10:03 AM
67.8.237.126
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I have the tro 3067. No rules for it, just the mechs and loadouts of them. Was more interested in the warships of the fedcom civil war then anything else at the time. I know the Fafnir has a pair of them, but not what it does.
They aslo have the rac systems, but no information on how they work.
RACs were published in the House Davion Handbook and HGRs in the House Steiner Handbook. Both predate TR:3067 and were in the last version of BattleTech Master Rules. That makes them almost 20 years old.
Weapons with variable damage by range are rare. HGRs have it, which annoyed the crap out of me because it was illogical over normal BT ranges or in aerospace combat. (Improved HGRs do not, but they're bigger, bulkier, and have a lower peak damage, 22 vs 25 points.) Snub Nosed PPCs also have damage drop with range. I'm drawing a blank on others, but I might be forgetting one or two.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
07/02/16 12:33 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Are those house books the originals or revised/newer releases? I don't remember seeing racs in either one.
House Steiner #1621 printed 1987
House Davion #1623 printed 1988
If I remember right, there is no reference to gauss weapons at all in the Stiener one, much less the heavy version.
I can agree weapons in space, not going thru atmosphere, should not lose velocity. But this also sets up the ability to target stationary units from further out. Even things like satilites in orbit with known orbits can be targeted.
And unless the slug is like a brick, it should not lose that much power in the short ranges the game deals with in atmospheres.
I would think the plasma cannon should drop with range, as the cooling of the materials would account for that, especially in space, as it is not supposed to have a great muzzle velocity. Which bring to question the 18 range on it.
And before the argument of this starts, the kinetic force of the material is what I am basing the velocity on.
Even though this does not answer the c3 question, it is interesting to deal with this information.
|
Karagin
07/02/16 08:54 PM
61.40.222.5
|
So even with the game growing we still can not seem to advance the tech base enough to fix issues with in the game universe.
Missile Bays...are the missiles on a conveyor belt or linked like the AC ammo? Or are they in some kind of carousel type thing set up the cycles loads to the launcher?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
07/02/16 08:56 PM
61.40.222.5
|
Also why doesn't the PPC when it hit the target cause electronics to be messed up since the PPC is written about as being a charged collection of particles that are shot out...so would it not be similar to the idea of an Ion Cannon?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
07/02/16 09:11 PM
66.74.61.223
|
The novels have suggested the ppc sending a charge across the unit, as well as suggesting the electronics have shunts to avoid the charge for damaging them, but with the description of alot of mechs being in sad shape, that those very issues should be real.
Yet I have not seen anything in the rule books to cover this. As with the computer games, some of them scrambled the screen a little to simulate this.
But if the unit is properly grounded from the ppc, why would things like the tsemp work? Or the emp mines?
The ion cannon may well be a good idea for a new weapon.
As is using new munitions for ammo weapons that do the same thing. Use an emp charge on the unit they hit.
The only look I have seen on the missile loader was the madcat. It looks like it is similar to a gun clip that pushes the rounds to the proper position then loads it, but that is more implied then factual.
As for the fluff for the wyvern, it suggests the missiles feed from above the launcher, but suggesting if it jams, you hop up and down to get the missiles to load.
So like the way the ac loads it's ammo, it seems dependent on the launcher itself.
But that does lead me to ask if the er lasers are just added focusing lenses, or a whole new design.
If just focusing lenses, they should be able to refit normal lasers with the equipment.
Yes they build up more heat. But is that like a ppc capacitor issue, or the entire unit is changed?
Side question as well. When the developers came out with the ppc capacitor, did they stop anywhere to have the ppc explode? I have not seen anywhere, that they suggest the ppc itself is upgraded to handle the extra charge.
|
Akalabeth
07/03/16 05:11 AM
108.180.183.124
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Are those house books the originals or revised/newer releases? I don't remember seeing racs in either one.
House Steiner #1621 printed 1987
House Davion #1623 printed 1988
Cray has his nomenclature wrong.
He means the Field Manuals.
Field Manual Federated Suns
Field Manual Lyran Alliance
Printed in 2000
Just FYI, each house has now at least three books.
There are the House Books from the 80s. House Liao
The Field Manuals from late 90s early 2000s
And now the Handbooks from the last few years. ie Handbook House Kurita
|
ghostrider
07/03/16 09:50 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Never got any of them. Fist finding them was an issue. Second was not looking in them. I was under the assumption they were just additional information, not a redo of history for them.
With the 20 year update disappointment, I avoided alot of those at that time.
I understand changing them as new things came up, like the whole star league weapons and warships. They were very important to the history, but like most times, money income could not exceed money outgoing. And by the time I got something to spend on them, I couldn't find them.
|
Akalabeth
07/03/16 09:29 PM
108.180.183.124
|
As Cray also said, those weapons are in Battletech Master Rules.
Weapons like Heavy Lasers, ATMs, Light Gauss, etcetera.
|