AS First Impressions. Good idea, poooor execution.

[Berzerker]

So we got our first day of AS in yesterday. Have to say, we liked the rules and the pace of play. The ability to field large forces and get through them in a couple of hours was great.
The first match was 450PV, so it was 10 on 10 Clan. Went for 3-4 hours, had a few trips to the rule book and internet for rules clarification and such.
Second two games we ran 320 PV games, went for 45-60 mins each. IS V Clan, IS won the first game, Clan won the second.
Love the speed. Excellent balance when using the values currently on the MUL. There really need to be a HUGE arrow to the MUL in the core AS book, in the building a force section.
We did play on Hexes as we did not have enough terrain handy.

We found that we missed the flavor of the variants, and found the lack of aggregation on weapon load-outs to be a bit bland. The snipers do not feel sniper-y.
We overall found the lack of TC representation to be weak. Yes we know it is figured into the damage, but the point of the TC, the core mechanic of it is to trade raw damage for the ability to land a hit.

We hated the actual rule book. Catalyst completely dropped the ball on the execution of the rule book (First Printing). W/O the 28 pages of errata or experience with classic BT, there are some crucial bits that are poorly presented or flat out missing. I would go as far as to say that catalyst should offer to replace the first printing with the second as a discount or ideally for free.
On that note, two versions and 28 pages of errata for a 176 page book. That is unacceptable given the girth of some of the "errata"[madflame].

[nckestrel]

What crucial bits are missing or poorly presented?

[Berzerker]

To hit calculation wording is poor.
TMM calculation is very poorly worded.
Heat (End Phase) could use some editing an clean up.
AMS Affects (EG: How it affects the base damage value and the missile special effect value)
The BF intelligence section is a mess. Both the 1st print and in the errata. This really needs some serious work as it feels complicated for the sake of complication.
3 sections for special abilities? This needs to be one section. I get advance and standard, but when one needs to reference a special ability, it sucks to have to look in 3 sections. (standard, advanced, and munitions).
C3 point value adjustment needs to be with the C3 write up on page 49-50, or be referenced in the C3 section.
Missing typeface though-out the book.

There where some more points of aggravation that we ran across, but I can't think of them off hand.

I do software/tech manual/game-theory QA professionally, so anymore is going to cost you as I do not work for free.

[Deathrider6]

. I would go as far as to say that catalyst should offer to replace the first printing with the second as a discount or ideally for free.

  If you bought the PDF you get the updates/corrections for free if I recall correctly.

  I have noticed a loss of distinctiveness between variants  myself but for an abstraction I am okay with that. If I want the detail of standard battletech I will play standard. At least for me Alpha strike allows me to fight a large battle to a resolution in a few hours once play begins. I can teach a new player AS and get them going fairly quickly as well.

   I am glad that your group enjoys playing and 28 pages of errata seems like a lot but at least catalyst is willing to make it available promptly and without cost. Free is good. It might be a bit annoying to deal with but free and prompt errata has it's own value.

Just my .02 C-bills

[Mattlov]

While you don't get the detail of the individual units, I find one of AS biggest perks is the ability to use units that are pretty terrible in BT and they are functional and useful in AS. 

I mean, I almost never use an Initiate even in WoB games.  But in AS the standard Initiate is a BEAST.  Same goes with many Assassins, and other under performing 'Mechs.  They get a breath of new life for AS that I enjoy.

[DarkSpade]

While you don't get the detail of the individual units, I find one of AS biggest perks is the ability to use units that are pretty terrible in BT and they are functional and useful in AS. 

I mean, I almost never use an Initiate even in WoB games.  But in AS the standard Initiate is a BEAST.  Same goes with many Assassins, and other under performing 'Mechs.  They get a breath of new life for AS that I enjoy.

I've noticed Alpha strike units tend to better match a unit's performance in fiction better than CBT units do.

[Fear Factory]

I've noticed Alpha strike units tend to better match a unit's performance in fiction better than CBT units do.

While you don't get the detail of the individual units, I find one of AS biggest perks is the ability to use units that are pretty terrible in BT and they are functional and useful in AS. 

I mean, I almost never use an Initiate even in WoB games.  But in AS the standard Initiate is a BEAST.  Same goes with many Assassins, and other under performing 'Mechs.  They get a breath of new life for AS that I enjoy.

That's how I feel as well.  It's nice to be able to use basically everything available and not end up totally disappointed.  Even while using variable damage.

[Sereglach]

I've noticed Alpha strike units tend to better match a unit's performance in fiction better than CBT units do.

That's how I feel as well.  It's nice to be able to use basically everything available and not end up totally disappointed.  Even while using variable damage.

Agreed on both accounts.  Even though I field Mercenaries, and almost all of my units have custom cards, I would have no problems shifting to standard variants for my units.  I even have those variants picked out if I were to play Alpha Strike at a "stock mechs only" table.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the OP, the fact that the errata is free and you don't need to purchase a "supplemental pamphlet", "corrections document", or some other form of errata product is a huge boon for those of us with the print book.  Some companies will just release a new print of a book with major rules changes and say "Go buy it" . . . look at D&D 3.5, as an example.  For Alpha Strike, all the rules adjustments and refinements included in the companion can be downloaded as part of the master errata document for no charge.  Also, PDF owners can download a free updated version of the book, when available . . . they just don't get the luxury of a nice hardback book they can hold in their hands and easily have at a table (although tablets and e-readers somewhat resolve that . . . there is this thing known as battery life, and it can be a big limiter).

Personally, I think Alpha Strike is far more enjoyable and fluff-friendly than Classic Battletech.  You can actually field the huge battles talked about in lore, units perform mostly how expected (can't stop a set of boxcars from incidentally obliterating your scout in the first round . . . sometimes the RNG is cruel), and the expected levels of balance seem far more . . . well . . .  balanced.

[nckestrel]

If you are playing Basic rules, there is no need to look at anything other than the Basic rules section.
If you are playing Standard rules, there is no need to look at anything other than the Standard rules section.
There is no special ability in the Basic rules that doesn't have an entry in the Standard rules section. 

Now, if you are playing with Advanced rules, those are separate.  I was willing to duplicate the entire Basic rules in the standard rules so that people playing the standard rules (the assumed "default") wouldn't have to flip back to the basic rules.  I was not willing to duplicate the entire standard rules in the advanced rules section. 

As for the old Battlefield Intelligence section, I agree wholeheartedly.  I didn't even mean for it to be included in the Alpha Strike rulebook originally, there was some confusion over what I meant by I don't think this section should go in the book.  I believe it got interpreted as the subject matter, rather than the lack of...readability?  But I think (though obviously biased) that the new Battlefield Intelligence rules (specifically Initative bonuses) are much clearer, so if anybody is confused by them I'd learn to here what you think.  Perhaps we can at least do an example or other explanation to help players, if not another errata needed.

A lot of errata?  Well, some is due to mistakes on my part.  I do admit I messed up some parts.  I sincerely apologize.  And do what I can to correct them.  And some are listening to player feedback on changes they want made to the game.  That I'm proud of.  Even when it overrules what I think its best :).

[Kit deSummersville]

Due to your complaint, we'll be halving nckestrel's salary for the next six months. We hope this makes up for the confusion.

[trboturtle]

Due to your complaint, we'll be halving nckestrel's salary for the next six months. We hope this makes up for the confusion.

What's half of 0?  ???

Craig

[Berzerker]

I do like how the abstraction fixes a lot of the "bad" units. We did find that our rock stars tended to be mediums and assaults. The shadow cat and preta I fielded took down double thier respective point values almost unsupported. I also found the shadowhawk iic4 to be a beast and the wraith, was unimpressive. The Highlander IIc is still an underrated brute.

As stated above I do love the speed and scale-ability, something that was sorely needed. Aside from rule hunting I found it extremely enjoyable.

Free errata is great, but I am hyper sensitive to oversights and alpha strike did have a very alpha feel too it. Definitely needed a bigger, longer play test, but to my point about the presentation, the book reads like it was written for very experienced BT players, specifically those that run the QS rules a lot and does not lend it self well to casual BT or first time BT/QS players. There are a lot of sections that are assuming a high level of familiarity with QS and BF rules.

I will probably end up ordering the second printing when I get the companion.
I do think catalyst needs to give AS a serious editorial review and get some serious support behind it as far as cheaper minis(most guys I play with are typical poor gamers) and AS unit card packs(I like what I see coming out of gencon).

We are talking about doing a long running campaign once we get our collective understanding of the rules leveled up.

[Neko_Bijin]

So... you couldn't have hated it all that much if you're back for more, right? 

[Papabees]

I think he is saying he liked the game but was disappointed in the execution of the rulebook and a few of the rules. That's fair. One thing I do miss is a pulse ability and various ranges. Even if there was a range for IS tech and a range for Clan tech that would give us some granularity back. I realize what the developers were after though.

[Berzerker]

So... you couldn't have hated it all that much if you're back for more, right?

Never said I didn't like the game it's self. Was less than impressed with the execution of the book, especially contrasted against how well TW, TacOps, and StratOps where put together.

[Kit deSummersville]

A different take on the errata.

[nckestrel]

I posted a page and a half version of the errata in the thread Kit linked.  IE. Didn't list every place a change occurred, just that it occurred.  Didn't repeat what was now in the ASC (just listed which rules have been incorporated from the ASC).  If you just want a quick reference for what changed.