|
painedforever posted:Should I keep my firing orders as contingencies, or just make them definite? Because I do want to shoot at the Ironholds, and at that Lobo, but I'm not sure if they'll still be in range or LoS when they Ace. If you're holding position, you should absolutely have LOS on the Lobo. I say hammer him, especially because he's got ER ammo for those two ATM-6s, which handily outrange anything we have on the field.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
I will likely be firing literally everything at the Ironholds just to try to finish them off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
painedforever posted:Should I keep my firing orders as contingencies, or just make them definite? Because I do want to shoot at the Ironholds, and at that Lobo, but I'm not sure if they'll still be in range or LoS when they Ace. It never hurts to put in firing contingencies, just prioritize them. Here's an example prioritized order with numbers I pulled from my rear end, adapt as needed: A) shoot all weapons at the Lobo, that have at least 10 or better to-hit. Fire energy weapons at the Lobo that have a 12 or better to hit. B) Any weapons I didn't shoot at the Lobo, fire at the Ironholds if I they have a 12 or better to hit. This order would be prioritizing the Lobo, preserving ammo vs. the Lobo (I haven't looked up your loadout, so this might not matter), and shooting at the Ironholds if the Lobo is either too hard to hit, or impossible to hit due to intervening terrain or being a 13+ to hit, and don't bother conserving ammo vs. the ironholds. It's simply laid out, and all of the possibilities are covered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
The two best things to remember about contingency orders are to keep them simple and remember that the first contingency which matches the criteria happens and the rest don't - even if they also "could" occur. That's how PTN has done them in the past, anyway. and if you write them out as a javascript if/else statement post your code so I can critique it. two bonus points to whoever uses switch correctly.  (do not do this.) e: okay bort you can do it, but only you Psion fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Psion posted:and if you write them out as a javascript if/else statement post your code so I can critique it. two bonus points to whoever uses switch correctly. I'm trying to teach myself Javascript so I may give this a go! Psion posted:(do not do this.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Psion posted:The two best things to remember about contingency orders are to keep them simple and remember that the first case which matches happens and the rest don't. That's how PTN has done them in the past, anyway. Yeah, as a goober who tried getting a little too modular, keep it simple. Hell, if you're really concerned about making sure you get shots on specific dudes, it might help to include an explanation of what you intend in the orders so there's less confusion. Also, I don't THINK that PTN allows the "If target number is X, fire guns" conditional. I know I did once just because I didn't know the rules for indirect fire, but no one spotted so the point was moot
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
but really, switch statements are weird. I think I've used them exactly twice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:Yeah, as a goober who tried getting a little too modular, keep it simple. Hell, if you're really concerned about making sure you get shots on specific dudes, it might help to include an explanation of what you intend in the orders so there's less confusion. Also, I don't THINK that PTN allows the "If target number is X, fire guns" conditional. I know I did once just because I didn't know the rules for indirect fire, but no one spotted so the point was moot "If target is X or better" is an essential part of ammunition and heat management in Battletech, so I'm pretty sure they're allowed. What is not allowed is saying "shoot at whichever enemy is offering the lowest to-hit numbers," because that involves the referee doing too much of your work for you. And yeah there's nothing at all wrong with explaining your intent before or after your formal contingency orders. Per the above example, your preamble could be "I want to shoot the Lobo if I can do so, although I'm gonna preserve ammo on the difficult shots. But if it's too difficult or an impossible shot, then I'm gonna fall back on shooting the Ironholds. Here's my orders..."
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:A) shoot all weapons at the Lobo, that have at least 10 or better to-hit. Fire energy weapons at the Lobo that have a 12 or better to hit. This isn't a contingency I'll allow. Pick a weapon. Pick a target for that weapon. Once the target's chosen you can choose to not fire that weapon but you can't choose to fire that weapon at a different target instead unless the original target was destroyed before your turn to fire came up. mercenarynuker posted:I don't THINK that PTN allows the "If target number is X, fire guns" conditional. I know I did once just because I didn't know the rules for indirect fire, but no one spotted so the point was moot I do, actually. If ToHit > X don't fire is a contingency I'll accept. It's essentially the Mechwarrior lining up a shot and deciding they don't have a clear line to fire. PoptartsNinja fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jan 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:This isn't a contingency I'll allow. Ah I see, so the issue is that the first part potentially has weapons tasked that don't fire due to the to-hit being too high, which could then be tasked to the second target. It'd be allowed if it was simpler like this, right? A) shoot all weapons at the Lobo, if it's hittable B) Otherwise, fire at the Ironholds
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Hmmm, the enemy is bunching up. That's pretty bad, given the huge weight advantage they have.
RA Rx fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jan 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Ah I see, so the issue is that the first part potentially has weapons tasked that don't fire due to the to-hit being too high, which could then be tasked to the second target. I'd allow that because it's all or nothing. I'd also allow: Fire weapons A, B and C at the Lobo if the ToHit is X or better Fire weapons Y and Z at the Ironhold if the ToHit is X or better I can't allow the order you first presented for a few reasons 1) It's a pain in the rear end 2) It's more likely to cause a gently caress-up that will result in me invalidating the entire turn (see 1) 3) It's closer to RAW (declare all targets before shooting, then resolve shooting AKA the part of the rules most likely to be house-ruled and something not even MegaMEK bothers with). 4) I determine the primary target the same way MegaMEK does: whatever you shoot your biggest gun at is the primary. If you fire two identically-sized guns at two targets the one in the best range bracket is the primary, and if they're in the same range bracket the one you named first is primary. So if the orders were to "shoot the AC/20 and ER Large Laser at Baddie1 unless the ToHit is 10 or higher, if it is shoot them at Baddie2 instead unless the ToHit is 12 or higher" you're creating a situation where we could see: AC/20 vs Baddie1 (12 ToHit) ER Large Laser vs Baddie1 (10 ToHit) AC/20 redirects to Baddie2 (11 ToHit) ER Large Laser is now (11 ToHit) with Baddie1 since it's now the secondary target, so I've just wasted my time working out ToHits for a target that's no longer being threatened in any way even though the player probably intended for it to be the primary target and would achieve the same effect without irritating me by just sending Leperflesh posted:A) shoot all weapons at the Lobo, if it's hittable I admit I'm a bit weird and picky after doing this for seven years, but I know what's most likely to lead to me loving up and misreading an order and this is one of the big ones. Pretty much everything that's caused a turn do-over is on my "nope" list.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
PTN do you accept the younger sibling contingency rule? 1) Fire all my weapons at the guy 2) If they miss i didn't mean to fire them and so they don't count e: 3) come oooonnnnnn It was an accident! i didn't mean to do it and that should be obvious. you're so mean!!! Octatonic fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jan 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:I admit I'm a bit weird and picky after doing this for seven years, but I know what's most likely to lead to me loving up and misreading an order and this is one of the big ones. Pretty much everything that's caused a turn do-over is on my "nope" list. Well I mean, life would be so much simpler for you if you just never gave your side ACE units, so... but I do see what you're saying, and it makes some kind of sense. It's just very difficult for the players to anticipate the possibilities of your ACE units and then write orders that fights them effectively without wasting a lot of turns firing at too-high to-hits, or at unhittable enemies, or just never shooting despite an enemy in plain view. Which happens constantly anyway, I've yet to see a scenario you run with ACE units where none of the players do this at least a few times. So, it's kind of a compromise. The more guidance and examples you give to the players for how to write good vs. bad contingency orders, the happier you and they will be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
For ACE units, you should also be able to put in a range contingency. For example: If Ironholds are within 4 hexes fire everything at them. Otherwise fire all plasma rifles at woods hex 1420. Ardlen fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jan 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Well I mean, life would be so much simpler for you if you just never gave your side ACE units, so... It would be, which is why I don't use Aces very often, but elementals (and anti-'Mech infantry) are completely neutered without it unless I make them hidden. So the option is hidden one-trick ponies or extremely dangerous units you don't want to get close to that are nonetheless fairly slow and fragile and usually vulnerable to having their best cover set on fire. The long and short of it is: if you're firing at two valid targets then I need to know what weapons you're firing at each. ACEs that break Line of Sight aren't valid targets anymore  This is a valid order: Fire weapons A, B, and C at the Lobo Fire weapons Y and Z at the Ironholds. If Line of Sight does not exist, fire weapons Y and Z at the Lobo instead. The important thing is what weapons are doing what (I'm not going to guess), which minimizes the number of ToHit checks I have to do (because they're time consuming). The implied acceptance by the player that, if all goes as intended, they're going to be eating the multiple-targets penalty also helps. I know it seems like semantics but it's the same reason I won't accept "if [target] dies mid-way through my shooting phase shoot all weapons at [other target]." If you're going to send orders, you need to be committed to them even if they don't pan out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:Hmmm, the enemy is bunching up. That's pretty bad, given the huge weight advantage they have. Yes, this is why I am advocating we push really hard on those woods, and why I prefer 1422 myself. Any chance I can convince the Rampage to push up hard? Getting 100 tons of blue-shielded assault into a good firing position in the woods in the next two turns would be really positive. The Ironholds are there to delay us from taking really favourable terrain and if they slow us down they’ll have done their job. Note there is no woods cover past the breach, so having woods to stand in - heavy woods no less - is super good for our massive slow heavies like the Black Watch. We also want that Fire Moth and the Snow Fox dead rather than loving around in our back lines, but they’ve veered off for now and will be easier targets closer on a subsequent turn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
LeschNyhan posted:We also want that Fire Moth and the Snow Fox dead rather than loving around in our back lines, but they’ve veered off for now and will be easier targets closer on a subsequent turn. The Fire Moth more than the Snow Fox. The latter is undergunned to a laughable degree. Single heatsinks on a clan mech lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
dis astranagant posted:The Fire Moth more than the Snow Fox. The latter is undergunned to a laughable degree. Single heatsinks on a clan mech lol. Yeah, you're right about that. In other words: it's a distraction and can be ignored this turn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:It would be, which is why I don't use Aces very often, but elementals (and anti-'Mech infantry) are completely neutered without it unless I make them hidden. So the option is hidden one-trick ponies or extremely dangerous units you don't want to get close to that are nonetheless fairly slow and fragile and usually vulnerable to having their best cover set on fire. What about "Fire Weapon A, B, and C at Target 1. If no LoS to Target one, fire A,B, and C at Target 2. If no LoS to Target 2, hold fire." ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Good Christ. Ask a dumb question...PoptartsNinja posted:This is a valid order: This is... pretty awesome, thanks PTN. Y'know, because I re-read the rules, and I thought that I could only attack a single target per round. This is pretty close to what I was thinking about sending. No math statements, just a conditional on LoS. And then I was like, "Hey, can I attack multiple targets in the same round?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Just make sure you understand you take a +1 penalty to hit your secondary target(s).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:What about "Fire Weapon A, B, and C at Target 1. If no LoS to Target one, fire A,B, and C at Target 2. If no LoS to Target 2, hold fire." ? That's still all or nothing, so it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
I'm going to move the Gurkha up to the lower edge of the west rise and square up for my first attack run. Looks like their first mech should be coming through the breach next turn. Gonna move my Nyx to 0620 and light the Ironhold up with my Ax rounds. Between the woods and the smoke I should be safe from LoS against the mechs hanging back but there's no intervening woods or smoke on the Ironhold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
I'm basically moving along the same path as Defiance, I think. Going to shoot at the Snow Fox if I have LoS. If I don't, then hopefully I can hit stationary elementals or or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
Hey - Defiance and Paragon, with the Inferno Nyxes. It occurred to me that PTN could retreat the Ironholds back into the smoke at 1219, 1319, or 1418, which could cut LoS to our plasma rifles. I don't know if his clanners would do that, but it's worth considering setting those on fire as well to keep them shootable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
I am walking up to 0823 and firing everything at the Ironholds. I did napkin math again I would be able to maybe hit the Lobo at 11s so instead I am firing everything at the nearby Ironholds with the IF they are in LoS contingency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
LeschNyhan posted:Hey - Defiance and Paragon, with the Inferno Nyxes. I don't know if we would get any easier time of LoS unless I'm missing something about LoS. Adding the extra smoke hex would block out our shots for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
Smoke doesn't stack with itself unless the fire's big enough to make heavy smoke, but smoke and trees do stack. So a smoky light woods hex is essentially a heavy woods hex in terms of visibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
Defiance Industries posted:I don't know if we would get any easier time of LoS unless I'm missing something about LoS. Adding the extra smoke hex would block out our shots for sure. My concern was that because they're Aces the Ironholds could pull further back into the woods, with jump far enough to block LoS in the smoky woods at the back. Then we'd really have to get close to dislodge them. Thanks, Muenster - I'm hoping between us and any other support we get they're toast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
If they want to retreat they can't shoot you all either at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 11:28
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:Smoke doesn't stack with itself unless the fire's big enough to make heavy smoke, but smoke and trees do stack. So a smoky light woods hex is essentially a heavy woods hex in terms of visibility. Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 11:58
|
|
|
There's a clever shot that I really wanted to see the Coyote rewarded for attempting, but Line of Sight is blocked by one of the less-obvious height 2 hills. Boo. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Yeah I wasn't sure if one blocked LoS or not. Oh well. Won't be surprised if I end up holding fire for lack of 1 MP
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Well, this turn will make the Coyotes' general milling about make a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:Well, this turn will make the Coyotes' general milling about make a lot more sense.   I hope my BAP/ECM in a central location is helping! AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Aeaea 4 “Did we confuse them?” That had been Lt. Faustina. Serena had only met the woman briefly—the Wolverine Mechwarriors were often secretive, and Marduk had kept her well clear of them on the week-long trip to and from the jump point. It was unfortunate, she realized in retrospect, she could rattle off Faustina’s serial number—SN998462-W—but didn’t know the woman’s face. The Wolverines didn’t much care for the Republic’s combat coordinators. They prided themselves on independence and good judgement, so a biological Command & Control director like Serena was nearly anathema to them. It wasn’t her place to change their minds. The injector implant in the back of her neck carefully monitored her brain’s chemistry, releasing trace stimulants and suppressants to keep her mind operating for days if need-be while dulling her emotions. Fear she still felt, distantly. The Republic considered fear one of the healthy emotions, but the suppressants would never let it build to full-blown terror. Other emotions were harder to name, they were a mix of eddies that still suggested courses of action but couldn’t overpower her conscious, rational mind. “The Clan force is taking up a raiding stance, they will attempt harass us and take our measure. Clan Assault BattleArmor will likely reappear in ten seconds,” she could still hear traces of emotion in her voice. To anyone without the coordinator implant she knew the subtlety would be completely lost. She didn’t have a good mental picture of the battlefield yet—and she didn’t fully understand the Clan psyche—but the only reason they would delay is if they were preparing to evacuate or, “Expect a full frontal assault to be launched in twenty to thirty seconds.”    Movement Phase Dragoon II (Player) - Unable to enter hex 0823: ally blocking site! Movement ends in hex 0724! Wolverine II (Player) - Unable to enter hex 1421: insufficient MP (needs 9, has 8)! Movement ends in hex 1422! Gurkha #2 (Player) - Unable to enter hex 0620: ally blocking site! Movement ends in hex 0521! Shooting Phase Dragoon II (Player) - No Line of Sight to primary target! - Gains 1 heat, sinks 36! Wolverine II (Player) - No Line of Sight to primary target! - Gains 2 heat, sinks 24! Coyote (Player) - No Line of Sight to primary target: blocked by elevation 2 hill in hex 1015! - No Line of Sight to secondary target! - No Line of Sight to tertiary target! - Gains 2 heat, sinks 20! Black Watch (Player) - Fires LRM-20 w/Artemis IV at Lobo (3 base + 4 range + 3 movement + 3 enemy movement = 13): automatic miss! - Fires LRM-20 w/Artemis IV at Lobo (3 base + 4 range + 3 movement + 3 enemy movement = 13): automatic miss! - Gains 15 heat, sinks 22! Rampage II (Player) - Fires Gauss Rifle at Lobo (3 base + 2 range + 0 movement + 3 enemy movement = 8): rolled 6, miss! - Fires Gauss Rifle at Lobo (3 base + 2 range + 0 movement + 3 enemy movement = 8): rolled 8, hit Left Arm (0/12 armor, 3/6 structure remaining)! Crit! - Fires Large R-e Laser at Lobo (3 base + 4 range + 0 movement + 3 enemy movement = 10): rolled 7, miss! - Gains 2 heat, sinks 22! Gurkha #1 (Player) - Torso-twists to threaten hex 0316! - Fires Snub-nose PPC at Ironhold (3 base + 2 range + 2 movement + 1 enemy movement + 1 small targets + 3 smoke = 12): rolled 4, miss! - Gains 12 heat, sinks 20! Nyx #1 (Player) - No Line of Sight to primary target! - Gains 2 heat, sinks 20! Gurkha #2 (Player) - No Line of Sight to primary target! - No Line of Sight to secondary target! - Gains 2 heat, sinks 20! Nyx #2 (Player) - No Line of Sight to primary target! - Gains 2 heat, sinks 20! Ironhold (Ace) - Holds fire! Lobo - Fires ER Large Laser at Rampage II (3 base + 2 range + 2 movement + 0 enemy movement + 1 partial cover = 8): rolled 12, hit Left Leg (damage blocked by terrain)! - Fires ATM-6 (ER) at Rampage II (3 base + 2 range + 2 movement + 0 enemy movement + 1 partial cover = 8): rolled 4, miss! - Fires ATM-6 (ER) at Rampage II (3 base + 2 range + 2 movement + 0 enemy movement + 1 partial cover = 8): rolled 5, miss! Kit Fox - Fires Gauss Rifle at Dragoon II (3 base + 4 range + 2 movement + 0 enemy movement + 1 partial cover = 10): rolled 5, miss! Snow Fox - Fires ER Medium Laser at Nyx #1 (3 base + 4 range + 2 movement + 0 enemy movement + 2 heavy woods = 11): rolled 4, miss! End Phase: Lobo - Critical chance in Left Arm: rolled 7, no critical hits sustained!   Map Link Player Status:   Opposing Force Status:    Special Rules  – Aces Some enemy ‘Mech units may become aces if certain conditions are met – BattleArmor Aces All battle armor units are acesPrimary Objectives - Destroy Enemy BattleMechs (0/10) Secondary Objectives - Destroy Enemy BattleArmor (0/5) Orders Due: Midnight Saturday! PoptartsNinja fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
If I jump, I think I can reach 1026, which gives me a clean shot on the lobo, but at this point I'm unsure if I will be able to hit, based on last turn. Should I move and hold fire, hold position and hold fire, or is there another target I should try to engage?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Shouldn't there be a lobo crit? Edit \/\/\/\/ All good! Mezzanon fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Copy/Paste 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 20:31
|
|