While our Mech Overviews default to looking at a game played with floating through-armor criticals, not everyone plays this way. This week Valk is looking at reasons to play with the standard rule – a through-armor crit hits the center torso, right torso, or left torso purely depending on the arc it’s being shot from. Next week we’ll take a look at why you might want to play with floating TACs.
With the rules dustup caused by Catalyst’s playtesting in preparation for a new BattleTech core rulebook, one optional rule has become an elephant in the room: the floating through-armor critical (TAC). Under standard rules, hits with a location of “2” always hit a ‘Mech’s torso from the direction it was fired upon, and can cause a critical hit even if armor remains in that location. When using the “Floating Criticals” optional rule, this hit location is then re-rolled, allowing that potential critical hit to affect any part of the ‘Mech. This optional rule is so ubiquitous in its usage that many new players simply assume that it’s the standard, and not the other way around.
I was one such player when I first learned to play BattleTech proper. I didn’t have a reason to prefer floating criticals; I just knew that it was “how most people played.” For a while, all was well. Games progressed fine, and none of the players I was teaching alongside myself had any complaints either. However, during one open campaign game, we were joined by an older player with more years of tabletop BattleTech experience than I have on this earth. The first thing he asked upon seeing the player packet was “why are we using floating crits?” My response was “well, why not?”
The practical demonstration he gave has irreversibly changed my views on this optional rule. While BattleTech is fine with floating crits, I’m now thoroughly convinced that it’s better without them. To understand why, I need to give a history lesson.
A Short History of Floating Crits
(Disclaimer: the developmental history of this specific rule is something I had to learn from players who were actually there at the time, as I was too busy being a Kindergartener to get super into early editions of BattleTech. Subsequently, if I am wrong about how the meta was shifting in 1996 or whatever, it is a limitation of relying almost entirely on oral history to learn the state of the game from 30 years ago rather than any intent to misinform.)
As with many things in BattleTech, floating crits and their introduction hinge on the Clan Invasion. Back in the day, games were often balanced by tonnage, as a points-based force building system was not firmly established until 1994’s BattleTech Tactical Handbook, where it was introduced as the Combat Value system (an even earlier system, the Combat Efficiency Factor, was introduced in 1988 via BattleTechnology Magazine, but was not as widely used). Tonnage-based balance was anything but, placing ‘Mechs like the Charger and Awesome on “equal” footing.
This balance was further disrupted by the arrival of the Clans (for obvious reasons). FASA’s attempts to balance out Clan and Inner Sphere machines on opposing sides resulted in most games between the two seeing the Clan player at a numerical disadvantage. Due to the way that rules are written, this means that Clan players are often receiving a larger quantity of weapons fire than they send back. While these shots would rarely be a point-for-point match for Clan firepower, every individual hit would pose a new opportunity for a through-armor critical, which, under standard rules, always hits the torso.
This quantity versus quality competition meant that Clan players could reasonably expect for some of their elite OmniMechs to be crippled from lucky hits that would destroy an engine or gyro slot, whittling away at their already-punishing numerical disadvantage. The Floating Criticals optional rule emerged from this outcome, making through-armor criticals less likely to cripple or destroy a ‘Mech from a single hit.
Why Not Floating Crits?
The problem is that doing so effectively puts the shoe on the other foot. By allowing through-armor critical hits to hit any part of a ‘Mech, players were now further incentivized to minimize the amount of explosive components that could still cripple or destroy a ‘Mech if hit via TAC. With Clan energy weapons being dramatically superior to their Inner Sphere counterparts and Clan-spec double heat sinks only taking up two crit slots instead of three, Clan energy boats, especially those with copious amounts of heatsinks such as the Stormcrow and Warhawk, benefitted immensely.
On the Inner Sphere side, the one weapon that could provide an answer to the potent and ubiquitous Clan ER PPC, the Gauss rifle, was suddenly a massive liability. Not only did it weigh more than a Clan ER PPC with enough double heat sinks to make it heat neutral (16 tons plus ammo versus 6 tons plus 8 tons of heat sinks), the weapon itself was now 7 critical slots of explodium liable to be hit through armor no matter where you put it. While not necessarily lethal depending on placement, a Gauss rifle explosion often renders an IS ‘Mech crippled and down a significant amount of firepower, in addition to inflicting pilot wounds that can then stack up very quickly. Gauss-dependent machines quickly become walking coffins due to the inherent bell curve pattern of hit distribution and the location of their primary armaments making pilot hits extremely likely. ‘Mechs massing 95 tons and less with torso-mounted Gauss rifles and XL engines also see their survivability drop off dramatically, with examples such as the Banshee -5S having a 50% chance of instant death to a single confirmed through-armor crit that happens to float to the left torso.
It’s fair to argue that instant death is not a new possibility in BattleTech. Clan ER PPCs and Gauss rifles ensure a kill on most ‘Mechs with a head hit, and ammunition explosions were lethal more often than not in the pre-CASE era (and in many cases, still are). Floating crits increase the probability of instant death occurring more than anything else, taking the longstanding bias against ‘Mechs with CT ammo bins and making it apply against most ‘Mechs carrying a Gauss rifle and an XL engine. In a community where floating crits are always in effect, the “meta” shifts even harder towards “energy boat zombies” like the Awesome, Black Knight, and Supernova, with ferro-lamellor-clad designs made even more valuable than they already are. Why take a ‘Mech like the Thunder Hawk when there’s a roughly 41% chance that any floating crit will land on a location that’s bristling with explosive Gauss rifle components? Why experiment with designs meant to utilize rotary autocannons like the Rifleman -8D, or optimized for precision ammo by stacking 4+ tons of ammunition in individual locations, such as the Victor -9Ka?
Analysis
I’m no stranger to using optional rules, but most of those that I do use in my regular games are what I would define as “utility rules,” such as Careful Stand, Backward Elevation Changes, and One-Armed Prone Firing. Others, such as Simplified Buildings, help players better parse their tactical options without referring to a rulebook. Floating crits are very different – their effect is felt before the game even begins, creating pressures on force building decisions in a way that nearly no other optional rule does. Under standard rules, that influence is dramatically lessened. Here, only ‘Mechs carrying CT ammo are affected, even if the side hit tables changing the TAC location to the corresponding side provides some tactical incentive for careful positioning against ‘Mechs with side torso ammo stores.
Personally, I don’t feel nearly as offended by CT ammo as most of my peers do, as there’s almost always 10 other slots that can be hit in its stead whenever something does punch through. A gyro or engine hit at the beginning of the game is still bad, but it can be survivable. It is not uncommon for me to leave intact ‘Mechs prone with a TAC’d gyro for an entire game, as they can still prop themselves up and shoot weapons until put down for good. I’d much rather have that than lose a ‘Mech entirely because a crit floated out into my Awesome -9M’s left leg and gave him a bad case of Exploding Knees.
This may all change in the future with the release of the new core rulebook. Proposed changes to autocannon durability, ammunition explosion damage when contained by CASE/CASE II, and component explosion damage calculation may all work together to mitigate the negative effects of playing with floating crits. On the other hand, there are pre-existing mitigating technologies designed around softening the blow of a CT TAC, such as the compact engine, heavy-duty gyro, and armored components (case in point: the Götterdämmerung GTD-20C, in all of its infuriatingly hard to kill glory). The existence of these components make far less sense in a world where there’s only a 19.5% chance of a TAC actually floating to and hitting the CT.
I am willing to change my mind if presented with a compelling argument and supporting evidence, but my initial read (and those of other standard TAC advocates) is that the proposed rules changes will have an uneven effect across eras and tech levels, and are unlikely to sway my opinion much. In the meantime, give me torso TACs or give me death. My ‘Mechs will probably get both either way, but at least I’ll go down on a more level playing field.
Have any questions or feedback? Drop us a note in the comments below or email us at contact@goonhammer.com. Want articles like this linked in your inbox every Monday morning? Sign up for our newsletter. And don’t forget that you can support us on Patreon for backer rewards like early video content, Administratum access, an ad-free experience on our website and more.
