Mobile Frame Hangar

by **Ramcat** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:09 pm

randolph wrote:Ok, so I'm measuring from the tip of the attacker's weapon to any part of target's head, with a fallback to tip of the attacker's melee weapon to any part of the target frame if the frame is especially husky?

Not "from the tip of the attacker's weapon", as I understand it, from the attackers head to the defenders head.

by **randolph** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:44 pm

Ramcat wrote:Not "from the tip of the attacker's weapon", as I understand it, from the attackers head to the defenders head.

I think that would contradict:

Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:When it comes down to it, I measure from a frame's head. That's the only degree of precision that really matters. If someone designed a frame so big that a range of 1 from their head is still inside their body so you can't get that close, then a) they're breaking with your setting parameters and probably should have made a smaller model and b) it sounds to me like you can attack them if a frame is touching the giant target at all, which means big frames are extra vulnerable. So don't do that.

Frame A is attacking frame B in HtH range. The attack range is measured in your interpretation as:
Range = RadiusA + RadiusB

Based on Joshua's quote, the setting parameter is violated in the example because "a range of 1 [unit] from their head is still inside their body" - in other words, RadiusA should not be >1, with the implication that some radius of <1 unit is acceptable, such as Radius = 0.75 units.

Range = 0.75 + 0.75 = 1.50, outside of HtH range even if they're touching.

Now, granted, I'm basing this off of an implication by omission, but the alternative, that the acceptable radius of your frame is less than or equal to 0.5 units, seems less likely than "measure from the weapon."

Care to shed some light, Devs?

by **Joshua A.C. Newman** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:48 pm

Yeah, if you make a frame so big you can't get it into HtH range, well, that was dumb of you.

by **randolph** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:25 am

What I mean is, am I measuring from weapon to head, or head to head?

by **lumpley** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:17 am

For hand to hand, measure the physical space between the frames, at their closest. If it's 1 ruler unit or less, it's hand to hand range. If it's more, it's direct fire range.

This business of building a frame whose radius is so big that it can't get into hand to hand range is I dunno what. Some kind of imaginary thing.

I think that J maybe told a congoer "measure from head to head" one time, and liked it so well that he decided retroactively that it must be the rule. But no.

-Vincent

by **Joshua A.C. Newman** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:45 pm

Yeah, it's not the rule. It's just the easiest thing to do.

by **kc2dpt** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:47 pm

Can each frame in a company carry 3 SSRs? Or is it 3 for the whole company?

How do SSRs affect calculating the starting initiative? Extra system or not at all or something else?

If SSRs don't count for initiative, then why wouldn't you always load every frame with them?

Thanks.

by **Dukayn** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:10 pm

3 for the company, and they don't count as systems.

by **timonkey** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:34 pm

lumpley wrote:For hand to hand, measure the physical space between the frames, at their closest. If it's 1 ruler unit or less, it's hand to hand range. If it's more, it's direct fire range.

Is this how you measure other ranges too, or just hand to hand attacks?

by **Joshua A.C. Newman** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:28 pm

It's fine for all ranges.

by **Ced23Ric** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:32 pm

Other ranges, too. There is no "OMG YOU ARE 0.0001 inches in range!", the intention is to simply be cordial about it. There are no ruling lines on the ground, and no bases to measure from. A bit of sportsmanship is expected. As a rule-of-thumb, what both can agree on goes, and in unclear situations, you can decide for either "always in favor of the attacker" or "always in favor of the defender" if the first apprroach doesn't work.

by **timonkey** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:12 pm

I just feel weird, because some frames have weird shapes and if you measure the physical distance between frames then how a frame is rotated can matter. Have you had any problems with that?

by **lumpley** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:09 pm

No, no problems.

It's super easy if you build a ruler. If the ruler can't touch both frames, it's artillery range. If it can touch both frames, it's direct fire range.

Here are the rules about whose favor you should decide in:
- Defense: if it's a close call, then yes, the defender is in cover.
- Movement: if it's a close call, then yes, the frame can move there.
- Attacking & spotting: if it's a close call, then yes, the target is within range.

So if it's a close call - if rotating the frame would matter, for instance - the rule says that of the two possible ranges, go with the one the attacker prefers.

-Vincent

by **timonkey** » Tue May 01, 2012 1:09 am

lumpley wrote:It's super easy if you build a ruler. If the ruler can't touch both frames, it's artillery range. If it can touch both frames, it's direct fire range.

Wow, that's the best range rule ever.

by **Axhead** » Tue May 01, 2012 2:41 pm

Everyone is always willing to win big. I think so long as you are willing to loose big, you should have few problems with rule interpretations.

by **dedominick** » Thu May 03, 2012 12:42 am

lumpley wrote:Hey, if anybody wants my help speccing a frame, drop a link, picture, or description of it here and I'll be happy to say what I think.

-Vincent

I would appreciate your thoughts on these builds, Thanks much. It has been an obsessive blast building them.

The back of the "conscript" based guy (was going for some jets and potentially armor represented.

by **Dukayn** » Thu May 03, 2012 3:55 am

Those are nice, however they should really be in the Frame Designs forum

by **randolph** » Thu May 03, 2012 4:08 am

He was responding to/taking up Vincent's offer to stat out a frame from a link, picture, or description.

by **Dukayn** » Thu May 03, 2012 4:35 am

Ah, yes I see that now. I missed V's post about it, and didn't see the quote.

My bad :oops:

by **lumpley** » Thu May 03, 2012 8:34 am

Dedominick, excellent! Let's start with this one:

So clearly it's got guns on its arms. Do you figure they're both direct fire range weapons, or is one direct fire and one artillery range? That's up to you.

One important thing about the systems on a mobile frame is that when the frame takes damage, you have to bust the systems off of it to show their destruction. On this frame, what else could you remove? It looks like you could easily remove (a) the fender plates on the fronts of the legs, (b) the orange wings with the little orange lights on top, and (c) the orange frontpiece with the windshield. Anything else?

If I were fielding this frame, I'd say that (a) and (b) together constitute an armor system, and that the windshield on (c) isn't a cockpit, it's a sensor system in a transparent housing. All told:
d6W