Hey friends, Tyler O'Dell told me that he couldn't get registered with HeavyMetal Forums after Rick Raisley disabled registration, and so Tyler, a customer of Rick Raisley (just ask Rick Raisley), asked me to post his currently unofficial improvements of Glancing Blows and Direct Blows rules:
Now, a rule for BT, that I've thought of, is that for Direct Blows rule is for using the Margin of Success as either a + or - number but number wise no greater than that number (but may be smaller) to be added to any Hit Location Table (yeah, that could perhaps be unbalancing, but it's without a doubt more balanced than increasing damage from a Direct Blow because BVwise those increased damages from Direct Blows don't provide accurate firepower damages nor do they provide fair game balance), and Glancing Blow could be when Margin of Failure is 1 less than the minimum to-hit number to be rolled to score a hit.
For example: let's say the to-hit number (after applying all applicable modifiers) is 7. If I roll 2D6 and the number rolled is a 6, then I did a Glancing Blow hit to that target; but if I rolled a 10, then I have a +3 modifier that I can apply as a modifier to Hit Location Table of target, and so if that target is a 'Mech and I roll an 11 on its Hit Location Table, then I can apply that +3 modifier as a -3, -2, -1 +0, or +1 or +2 or +3 modifier to that 11 number resulting on Hit Location Table as +8, +7, +6, +0, or +12, or +13, or +14.
If desired, we can apply the Margin of Success of Hit Location Table as a positive number (even if it became negative number after added on to Hit Location Table) to Determining Critical Hits Table, so using previous example the +13 - 12 becomes +1 added to Determining Critical Hits Table roll, or for example the the +14 - 12 becomes +2 modifier added to Determining Critical Hits Table roll; if I rolled a 2 on Hit Location Table, then adding the +3 modifier as a negative number could be +1 on Determining Critical Hits Table because 2 + negative 3 equals -1 transformed to become +1 modifier on Determining Critcal Hits Table.
And if further desired, we can apply the Margin of Success of a roll of Determining Critical Hits Table to Critical Slots rolls/Item Slots rolls, so if I rolled a 13 on Determining Critical Hits Table roll (a Margin of Success of 1), then I can adjust Critical Slots/Item Slots roll by +1 or by -1.
What do you each think about such rules?
I think Tyler has a good rule regarding current official Glancing Blows because it seems very silly to declare in Level 1 basic BT games and Level 2 TW BT games that full damage is caused when an attack's hit is rolled at at least the final to-hit number (minimum roll to inflict full damage in those games), and when rolling open ended results of 2D6 rolls of 12 when playing Level 3 xor 4 AToW games of BT (I think AToW BT games are Level 4 but I'm not sure) that those AToW to-hit rolls of 12 do full or increased damage, while a hit is a glancing blow when using current TO rules for glancing blows when declaring that a glancing blow is the final to-hit number roll (minimum roll to make a glancing blow) when making an attack using current TO rules for glancing blows of Level 3 TO BT games.
Tyler is correct that the currently official TO Direct Blows rules make some weapons more powerful than others without regard to BV, and that's very unbalancing given that some weapons' MoSes of theoretical Direct Blows hits can theoretically do way more damage without getting said weapons BVs increased as compared to other weapons that inflict hits; or in laybeings' terms, the currently official TO Direct Blows rules for increased damage are disproportional BVwise.