Battlefield Support: Assets

[CarcosanDawn]

I do agree with Xotl here. I think attributing intent (beyond the obvious, i.e. a faster, less-rules-intensive way to play vehicles and infantry in a somewhat balanced way) is probably a mistake. I don't think anyone was being "targeted". I don't feel punished or crippled. But I do feel a bit weirded out, and I do think rules can have effects beyond their intent. This set is going to make every game a negotiation if one wants to use non-'Mech assets that are also not Assets (ha, capitalization games).

That said, I've been thinking about what Charistoph said about them being essentially a "monster manual" for a GM to pick from for simple, easy swarms that aren't a "noob trap" the way TW swarms can be. I think I have a lot less heartburn with this, an allowed my assumption of "every game is a PVP game" to color my assumptions. As a "PVE" tool for a GM playing the "E" (to continue to parrot video game terminology) I absolutely see the strong merit of this rule set - and in that context, the NPCs feeling like NPCs is fine. I just hope they come out with 'Mech BSA cards sometime soon, because sometimes a GM might want the "light scout lance" or whatever to be NPCs too - though I've never been a GM before and may be speaking out of turn.

I view Battletech: Aces in a similar light - I play the Elder Scrolls tabletop game also, and 3rd party "Adversaries" (run by a tabletop "AI system") are a common sight that spruce up the games and allow for inventive scenarios. I think I will be using Aces the same way in my PVP games... but they might actually be kinda "'Mech BSA-lite" in a sense, I'm not sure. I haven't watched any of the livestream yet (I confess) - just read blog posts about it.

[Charistoph]

But I do feel a bit weirded out...

Anything new can have that affect, especially if one's expectations are other than what it actually is.

This set is going to make every game a negotiation if one wants to use non-'Mech assets that are also not Assets (ha, capitalization games).

You say that as if that doesn't happen already.  Between Eras, Tech Levels, and a considerable plethora of optional/advanced rules in place, each game can be a considerable amount of negotiation long before BSP is introduced. 

And remember, BSP doesn't necessarily mean CVs, but can also include Minefields, Artillery and Air Strikes.

[Cannonshop]

Plain and simple, nothing you're saying here is accurate.

The system was created because a rulebook was being made and it was felt that it could use something like this.  That's it.

It was not invented by someone who somehow forced it into print for their own glory, it was not intended "just to cripple a specific sort of player", and it was certainly never intended to be "punishment".

If you don't like the system, fine, but there's no need to craft such wild theories to back up what amounts to a gut reaction against a ruleset.

I've seen too many games over the years where people latch on to things just like this to try and 'win the match before it starts'.

This was especially true with the experience with Force Size Multiplier attached to BV2, and one of the main reasons back in "the old days" I had to ban the optional (Mechforce publications, Maxtech, Tac handbook, etc. etc.) books from the table just so we'd be able to play at all, instead of debating forces and optional rules, or having to have everyone re-do their force lists at the venue because of FSM.

This may have coloured my reactions somewhat.

In this case, I see a situation where someone like CarcosanDawn, stepping into a venue his buds told him about and laying out his usual force, and being told "NAW brah, those have to be Assets!!"  Whereupon, if he's not carrying enough 'mechs with him, they'll initiative-scum him to death because his entire force has to move first except 'the hero unit',  meaning he (or our imaginary example player, sorry CarcosanDawn, I just borrowed you as an example, please don't be offended) is always on the short of the initiative stick, being outnumbered with the bulk of his units forced to move before everything else.  It's one thing, if you're doing that on purpose (I do it on purpose, because I play head-games on the table with strangers, because I'm that much of an ******)  It's another thing entirely when it's being done to you by the rules at the venue.

Because you know damned well that's going to happen, it already happens with other options, and has been a standard problem in the community since the community's existed and there were official licensed products with optional rules in them.

[Charistoph]

In this case, I see a situation where someone like CarcosanDawn, stepping into a venue his buds told him about and laying out his usual force, and being told "NAW brah, those have to be Assets!!" 

What a great way to learn not to play with a group.  It would be like showing up with a list prepared, and then told that we only play tournament games here with a different format.

And yes, I knew a group that did that for a certain game.  I don't see them posting any of their game information, and the store didn't have it on their weekly meetings.

[Cannonshop]

What a great way to learn not to play with a group.  It would be like showing up with a list prepared, and then told that we only play tournament games here with a different format.

And yes, I knew a group that did that for a certain game.  I don't see them posting any of their game information, and the store didn't have it on their weekly meetings.

Thing is, Charistoph, MOST of us who've kicked around the community long enough, have run into a group, venue, store group, etc. like that, and for someone who's relatively new, it's not a good scene, it is, however, a scene you run into more often than is probably healthy because we battletechers are a bunch of raging analyticals-I've been told most of us come off as slightly less rules-lawyerly than some of the nastier subgroups in 40K...but only slightly.

When I was handling a mixed campaign that had 20 or so players off-and-on, I had to break it down to the core book (at that time, BMR(R)) because the moment I let the door open for optional rules, someone would push-and push hard-for 'options' that gave them an advantage over people who ONLY had the core book.

Because I had those players to deal with, knew who they were.  they absolutely would take optional rules that screw over other players in a heartbeat, and not feel bad about it (they reserved the bad feelings for me, which I was fine with even then.  I wanted the matches and campaigns to be FAIR to the guys who didn't have mommy's credit card or a job at Microsoft.)

so as I said, it colored my perceptions, because the first thing I had to ask when someone wanted to bring in a published option, was 'Does everyone understand this, and do they have sources they can prepare from?' followed by 'is this going to be fair to the new guys who had to get their stuff from Half-price Books?')

I see the BSP assets as something that will get latched on as 'easy' for guys who, frankly, don't like the standard rules for vees because of their own prejudices, or who see an easy win if they can show up with an all 'mech force while other players are sideswiped trying something a little different.

I also see it being abused the same way FSM was-to prevent actual play because you spend the whole night (or most of it) arguing about which set of rules takes precedent.

because?

I've been in the room when those things have gone on, there's a psychology and a mentality to it, and it's dirt common in our community and has been since FASA was a going concern.

[Charistoph]

Thing is, Charistoph, MOST of us who've kicked around the community long enough, have run into a group, venue, store group, etc. like that, and for someone who's relatively new, it's not a good scene, it is, however, a scene you run into more often than is probably healthy because we battletechers are a bunch of raging analyticals-I've been told most of us come off as slightly less rules-lawyerly than some of the nastier subgroups in 40K...but only slightly.

You should have seen the Warmachine crowd.  They were even worse.  Of course, the rules in Warmachine were less open to interpretation than 40K rules were...

When I was handling a mixed campaign that had 20 or so players off-and-on, I had to break it down to the core book (at that time, BMR(R)) because the moment I let the door open for optional rules, someone would push-and push hard-for 'options' that gave them an advantage over people who ONLY had the core book.

Fortunately, my local group (though this hardly applies to the entire area, even with as good a Demo Agent as we have had) is usually pretty good about letting people actually see the rules in the book before going off with them.

Still, as I said, this type of behavior just encourages people to NOT play.

I see the BSP assets as something that will get latched on as 'easy' for guys who, frankly, don't like the standard rules for vees because of their own prejudices, or who see an easy win if they can show up with an all 'mech force while other players are sideswiped trying something a little different.

I also see it being abused the same way FSM was-to prevent actual play because you spend the whole night (or most of it) arguing about which set of rules takes precedent.

because?

I've been in the room when those things have gone on, there's a psychology and a mentality to it, and it's dirt common in our community and has been since FASA was a going concern.

It's part of the wargaming community in general, not just the Battletech community.  The trick is to not let those people control your fun.  It can be hard at times, especially for newer players, but better to work it out if one can.

On the other hand expecting every community to react to new concepts as if they are the most toxic people on the planet will basically destroy the community faster then the toxic people actually can or will, as it will just simply stagnate.  You'll be helping these people do the very thing they are trying to do.

[Cannonshop]

You should have seen the Warmachine crowd.  They were even worse.  Of course, the rules in Warmachine were less open to interpretation than 40K rules were...

Fortunately, my local group (though this hardly applies to the entire area, even with as good a Demo Agent as we have had) is usually pretty good about letting people actually see the rules in the book before going off with them.

Still, as I said, this type of behavior just encourages people to NOT play.

It's part of the wargaming community in general, not just the Battletech community.  The trick is to not let those people control your fun.  It can be hard at times, especially for newer players, but better to work it out if one can.

On the other hand expecting every community to react to new concepts as if they are the most toxic people on the planet will basically destroy the community faster then the toxic people actually can or will, as it will just simply stagnate.  You'll be helping these people do the very thing they are trying to do.

Well, I've said what I think about it, but if it comes to a point of "we'd like to try this..."? or "This is what we intend to do", or "This is what's in the scenario book" I'm not going to oppose using it, or walk away because it's there, no matter WHAT I think of it on a personal level.

But then, I'm a fossil of an earlier time.  I didn't really care for the changes to Vehicles beyond a few minor ones-like making Assault tanks something other than a compleat waste of space.

The issue I mainly have, is that it feels grafted on and that's probably not going to go away...but it doesn't mean I'm going to oppose someone using it, even at my table...not until I see them abusing it, anyway.

I think that's something we all (including me) need to keep in mind-opinions are like...well, you know, everyone has one, it usually stinks, and is often filled with waste products.

including my own.

[CarcosanDawn]

In fairness, the tools are available to discuss things with players in advance far more than now. And Charistoph is right again - there is already a lot of pre-negotiation just for BT in general.

It happens to me already at times; it can be very murky what rules some people are okay with. But fortunately I have never met anyone who has been an ass about it.

Just one more rock to navigate in the Battletech Straits baha

[Charistoph]

I live on one side of a rather large metropolis, and there are quite a few groups across it.  Enough that we have now have 3 Demo Agents, and potential room for a 4th.  Each group has their own approach.  There are enough that a person can be playing a scenario for 5 of the 7 days of the week.

For my side of the metro, we have a couple of people people who organize the weekly scenario, set the Era and Tech Level, and have set the basic parameters for what Advanced Rules we use (Floating Crit, Enhanced Flamer, Evasive Movement, etc).  I'm even running a campaign as part one of the options.

Another posts a Google Sheet to organize meet-ups.  Some of us have grumbled at this because it is a new store with mostly new players in it.

Another has a set BV value based on force organization, then they just announce what the Era is going to be.

Another sets the Era and BV value, but leaves it to the individual players to determine what Advanced Rules they want to play.

There are a couple other groups, but they are so far away

All of this is set up on the stores' individual Discord servers.

Of course, this is a bit different from when I was collecting 40K or Warmachine crowds where I rarely got a game because of the "tournament-only crowd" and I rarely had enough to play with.

[butchbird]

Okay, so i'm  a quite a bit woozy and did my best to read through all this, but here's my take from what Iv gathered since october.

BSA is a godsend. Now, as far as conventional forces are concerned, I'm "most damaging option wins" kind of guy. If I could help it, if I played with experienced BT payers, kind of players whom could lead the game instyrad of me having to do it, then heck, I'd go with TW or BMR rules.

But I don't. My guys and gals are newbs. Heck, next game, the gal's kid'll be there to slow up the game. For us casual gamers, BSA rules are a GODsend.

Now I get how its waters down the whole thing.

Now I get how the whole "cold roll" thing, quite notably the TMM is a horrible, horrible thing, considering how CBT manages to put an equation on everything.

I get how people feel like the BSA feel like its checkers grafted on chess, how its AS grafted on CBT.

But by gawds, let me tell you, for us casual player types, its a godend.

You might say "but hey, BMR/TW doesn't add all that much"' Oh yeah? Ever played with a group composed of nembws who never touched a blackeforsacken wargame in their lives?

Now lets be honest...don't we want this thing to grow? BSA conventionals gives us that iopportunity. Here ypu go you blissfully ignorant unwashed masses: combined arms whithiout further ado. Learn the 'mechs and thats it. 'Vees go boom with a good dice roll. And that's good enough for us casual gamers.

Would I like to uise BMR rules for conventinals? Darn right! Would I like to use TW ruls for conventionals? most definitely! Would I like to use a bastardized system that makes everything go "POP!"? 'Twould be a dream come true. But that's just not how it goes for us csual players.

And BT, Wheyher CBT or AS NEEDS us casual players to grow. Heck, that's the major strentgth of the whole Battletech shenbagn: we can get casual players in whooll' inevitably get steady players in. Major boon dude.

Now I'll admit I ain't used BSA infantry yet,m readinf 'bout it feels  a bit lacklustre, but lket me tell you....'fas as vees are concernreed? MAJOR boon. MAJOR BOON. Yeah,  sure, feels grafted on, but heck, no skid rules, no complicated crit table, no inferno rules that make for an odd meta foir newbs...yeah, perfect combined arms for newb.

THATS'S where it shines. THAT's where it belongns. THIS IS WHAT WE CASIUAL GAMERE S NEEDED.

Does it work well combined with other rules? Manticore A as TW and Manticore B with BSA? THe heck do I care? Shove 'em all into BSA and trust in your dices. My newbs love it. There you have it.

Scenarios? Campaingns? Yeah, sure, I can see the problem.

But pick-up games? A GodSend. I'm telling you,  A Godsend. Praised be blake for this new set of streamlined rules. Sure, feels tacked one, it's all cold rolls, but god darn it, makes combined arms accessible for us little folks.

[Cannonshop]

Okay, so i'm  a quite a bit woozy and did my best to read through all this, but here's my take from what Iv gathered since october.

BSA is a godsend. Now, as far as conventional forces are concerned, I'm "most damaging option wins" kind of guy. If I could help it, if I played with experienced BT payers, kind of players whom could lead the game instyrad of me having to do it, then heck, I'd go with TW or BMR rules.

But I don't. My guys and gals are newbs. Heck, next game, the gal's kid'll be there to slow up the game. For us casual gamers, BSA rules are a GODsend.

Now I get how its waters down the whole thing.

Now I get how the whole "cold roll" thing, quite notably the TMM is a horrible, horrible thing, considering how CBT manages to put an equation on everything.

I get how people feel like the BSA feel like its checkers grafted on chess, how its AS grafted on CBT.

But by gawds, let me tell you, for us casual player types, its a godend.

You might say "but hey, BMR/TW doesn't add all that much"' Oh yeah? Ever played with a group composed of nembws who never touched a blackeforsacken wargame in their lives?

Now lets be honest...don't we want this thing to grow? BSA conventionals gives us that iopportunity. Here ypu go you blissfully ignorant unwashed masses: combined arms whithiout further ado. Learn the 'mechs and thats it. 'Vees go boom with a good dice roll. And that's good enough for us casual gamers.

Would I like to uise BMR rules for conventinals? Darn right! Would I like to use TW ruls for conventionals? most definitely! Would I like to use a bastardized system that makes everything go "POP!"? 'Twould be a dream come true. But that's just not how it goes for us csual players.

And BT, Wheyher CBT or AS NEEDS us casual players to grow. Heck, that's the major strentgth of the whole Battletech shenbagn: we can get casual players in whooll' inevitably get steady players in. Major boon dude.

Now I'll admit I ain't used BSA infantry yet,m readinf 'bout it feels  a bit lacklustre, but lket me tell you....'fas as vees are concernreed? MAJOR boon. MAJOR BOON. Yeah,  sure, feels grafted on, but heck, no skid rules, no complicated crit table, no inferno rules that make for an odd meta foir newbs...yeah, perfect combined arms for newb.

THATS'S where it shines. THAT's where it belongns. THIS IS WHAT WE CASIUAL GAMERE S NEEDED.

Does it work well combined with other rules? Manticore A as TW and Manticore B with BSA? THe heck do I care? Shove 'em all into BSA and trust in your dices. My newbs love it. There you have it.

Scenarios? Campaingns? Yeah, sure, I can see the problem.

But pick-up games? A GodSend. I'm telling you,  A Godsend. Praised be blake for this new set of streamlined rules. Sure, feels tacked one, it's all cold rolls, but god darn it, makes combined arms accessible for us little folks.

I see where you're coming from here, but hey, why stop there? Put it on 'mechs too.

There, now you have ONE set of rules, a hell of a lot less tables and rolling, and even deadlier.

[DaevaHuG0]

I'll admit I have been toying with tge idea of stating up some mechs as BSA. Light mechs would be a lot easier to run, especially for something like a dasher or piranha. Less time of people trying to squeeze out the maximum TMM from something that will be erased in a turn or two.

[Cannonshop]

I'll admit I have been toying with tge idea of stating up some mechs as BSA. Light mechs would be a lot easier to run, especially for something like a dasher or piranha. Less time of people trying to squeeze out the maximum TMM from something that will be erased in a turn or two.

Why stop there?  After the Clan invasion period, Mediums are kind of a joke, really-very vulnerable, not that much quicker, filling the same roles lights did. So why stop with Lights?

and then, you can see, can't you, that Heavies just don't compare with Assaults anymore, and hey, there's Superheavy Assaults now!

d'ye get the idea? Anything at the 'bottom' of the stats race can have the same logical conclusion that says "it's too low value, just BSP it so we can focus on the units that really matter!"

and it would be right, because the mark of 'status', the whole reason 'mechs didn't get it when everything else did, is that they're the units 'that really matter'.

Here's why you don't want to do it with Lights: if your Lights are forced to move first (BSP, remember), they're going to be outright useless and die even faster for no gain-because they'll always be outmaneuvered by units that can win initiative on a dice roll, instead of being obligated to move before every other unit.

There's only a couple of tactical paradigms where that's not a basic, fundamental problem;  Assault Vehicles in TW play, or Assault 'mechs-because they have the ability to charmin-absorb lots and lots of fire and don't have the ability to move enough for it to be tactical-they work best, when moved on a preset course, at walking speed.

Everything that ISN'T a slow assault tank or 'mech, (well, or foot infantry) needs to be able to move and reposition too often to be much use, and Initiative actually MATTERS for your light stuff, if you actually want to be able to use it for more than 'first target to die in the firing phase".

I've talked on these boards before about using vees in the offense role-you have to actually be able to move them reasonably well, and formation with heavier ones is actually important enough to put some effort into it...but that doesn't matter with BSP, because you ALWAYS lose initiative with BSP units.

ALWAYS.

That means you can't take advantage of mistakes with them, and it means moving them first stops being a choice, it's now a requirement, they don't get to flank, they're locked in Cruise, and where 'being parked' is a valuable role for the Assault vees, now., it's a non-issue.

[CarcosanDawn]

I don't agree that it makes the game easier - and I play with a bunch of casual players.

Resolving vehicle crits is simpler than resolving 'Mech Crits, because it's identical for every vehicle and the roll to see "if" you Crit already determines what Crit you get.

Infernos aren't complicated at all - roll once on that Crit chart, with a -2, instead of adding heat to a unit that doesn't track it.

The hit location is the same as a 'Mech: roll on a chart based on the direction of attack...

Many fewer PSRs with many fewer modifiers to them to track. Reduced physical attacks to a ram only. No need to track heat. When a vehicle can skid, so can a 'Mech.

I mean really. A game with all TW vehicles is a simpler game with fewer rolls than a game with all TW Mechs.


If someone can understand how to play 'Mechs, they can understand how to play vees.

'Mechs as BSP with TW vees is a simpler game than vees as BSP with TW Mechs! Bahaha.

[Cannonshop]

I don't agree that it makes the game easier - and I play with a bunch of casual players.

Resolving vehicle crits is simpler than resolving 'Mech Crits, because it's identical for every vehicle and the roll to see "if" you Crit already determines what Crit you get.

Infernos aren't complicated at all - roll once on that Crit chart, with a -2, instead of adding heat to a unit that doesn't track it.

The hit location is the same as a 'Mech: roll on a chart based on the direction of attack...

Many fewer PSRs with many fewer modifiers to them to track. Reduced physical attacks to a ram only. No need to track heat. When a vehicle can skid, so can a 'Mech.

I mean really. A game with all TW vehicles is a simpler game with fewer rolls than a game with all TW Mechs.


If someone can understand how to play 'Mechs, they can understand how to play vees.

'Mechs as BSP with TW vees is a simpler game than vees as BSP with TW Mechs! Bahaha.

I think we're all talking past each other at this point, CarcasonDawn.  The problem is really and truly a matter of gameplay preferences and perspectives.

Those aren't going to resolve in a Forum discussion, because anyone invested enough to post on a forum discussion is probably invested enough in their perspective that nothing is going to so much as spark a question in their mind.

I base this on prior forum discussions.  When the TacOps artillery revamp was brought out, a lot of people lined up to defend the scatter rules-even after (was it Giovanniblasini?) someone sat down and demonstrated how the open-ended-scatter could literally send a shell 'round the world, or how often people pointed out that the scatter rules in that iteration made Artillery more hazardous to the side that uses it than the side it's being used on.

We also saw this with FSM.  "What's FSM?" you probably aren't asking, but it was crowbarred into BV2's initial printing, and it was derived from one of those 'suggestions' from the old days.  Basically, it changed the math to try to 'fix' something  called "Initiative Sinking"-by punishing the living shit out of anyone starting with more units than the other guy.  FSM makes hero events like Przno River (Aidan Pryde's last stand) inevitable, rather than heroic.  Think a rule that codifies conservation of ninjutsu.

LOTS of people, including devs and authors, lined up to defend it.  Note that it's gone now, but only after some of those staffers showed they had trouble calculating BV due to misunderstanding the order of operations.

Point being, reasonable criticism was thrown out without examination because some people want it that way, or because they invested lots of blood sweat time and tears into building it, did the best they could, but us unwashed out in the fandom don't appreciate the hard work or good intentions.

Randall Bills, when he was Line Developer, said, "If it works for your table do it".

The corrolary being of course that if it doesn't work for your table, don't do it.

Nobody is playing Battletech for Money, so we don't HAVE to be as rabid as Sportsball fans get over rules changes in the nonexistent league.

Ergo, I think I'm bowing out on this one, I'm sure everyone is tired of me belaboring the obvious, when it's not going to have any impact whatsoever.

[butchbird]

I don't agree that it makes the game easier - and I play with a bunch of casual players.

*snip*

If someone can understand how to play 'Mechs, they can understand how to play vees.

'Mechs as BSP with TW vees is a simpler game than vees as BSP with TW Mechs! Bahaha.

Well, there's casual "I don't play often but have experience with wargames and know my way around it" and there's casual "I still can't master the GATOR and had never played a wargame before".

Doing a full turn takes us an hour with 240 tons per side (so between 4 and 6 'mechs per team). Sometimes I have to whip out the hour glass if it takes too long to move 1 'mech. Yes, I agree, the 'vee rules ain't all that much more and they ARE simpler then 'mechs. But it's still MORE rules to integrate.

I see where you're coming from here, but hey, why stop there? Put it on 'mechs too.

There, now you have ONE set of rules, a hell of a lot less tables and rolling, and even deadlier.

Why stop there? Because I want to play CBT, with each 'mech having a widely varying "personnality" and each crit chance obsessingly drawing in the attention of the whole table.

I could always play AS, or heck, go for full simplicity and turn to FfoL:BA, but that's not the point. CBT offers something particular and that's what I'm after and of course, whom plays CBT centers his attention on the 'mechs. They have to feel and play like the cream of the crop in terms of land based war machines.

I'd much prefer to use "true" CBT rules for conventionals. I'd go with a mix of BMR and TW (whatever is more lethal) if I could have it my way... But my players ain't there yet and its very likely that we never will get there.

BSA is the biscuit we eat since we can't digest real bread, but I'm sure as heck glad to have something to lick the combined arms gravy with.

[CarcosanDawn]

Is it really "licking the combined arms gravy" though?

BSP are nothing like how those units behave either in universe or in TW ("the game"). At best you're pouring out a glass of water and calling it gravy.

[butchbird]

Is it really "licking the combined arms gravy" though?

BSP are nothing like how those units behave either in universe or in TW ("the game"). At best you're pouring out a glass of water and calling it gravy.

A friend's dad used to make a sauce with leftover tea and boiling it with a few spices and calling it "gravy" (Do note we're french speaking, calling a sauce "gravy" while speaking french doesn't have the same sense as when you're speaking english). Does that count?

But yes, a fair point I can hardly counter. Still, ease of use and takes much less time for inexperienced players to use them for reasons experienced players can have a hard time to grasp. And that is really the thing. I, myself, can't explain it...but that's just how it is. A player that takes forever to move and shoot with TW rules will suddenly play at a regular pace with the BSAs. That's just how it is, and it enables the likes of us to use combined arms (even if they are insanely watered down) and have more units on the table whithout affecting the length of the game.

I easily understand how some people can be offput by the BSA, had I an experienced group i'd never use it...but again, its a cool tool for the likes of us.

[CarcosanDawn]

A friend's dad used to make a sauce with leftover tea and boiling it with a few spices and calling it "gravy" (Do note we're french speaking, calling a sauce "gravy" while speaking french doesn't have the same sense as when you're speaking english). Does that count?

But yes, a fair point I can hardly counter. Still, ease of use and takes much less time for inexperienced players to use them for reasons experienced players can have a hard time to grasp. And that is really the thing. I, myself, can't explain it...but that's just how it is. A player that takes forever to move and shoot with TW rules will suddenly play at a regular pace with the BSAs. That's just how it is, and it enables the likes of us to use combined arms (even if they are insanely watered down) and have more units on the table whithout affecting the length of the game.

I easily understand how some people can be offput by the BSA, had I an experienced group i'd never use it...but again, its a cool tool for the likes of us.

I mean, if you wanted "insanely watered down" combined arms, you would play Alpha Strike. AS has an excellently-designed set of rules with equal abstraction across all "arms", trading away the crunch for speed of play.

Playing TW with BSPs isn't really combined arms; it's 'Mechs only with a dash of paprika. I am not convinced the BSPs represent "combined arms" at all (as far as in-universe performance), anymore than shooting a cardboard target with a rifle is "combat experience".

[Cannonshop]

Well, there's casual "I don't play often but have experience with wargames and know my way around it" and there's casual "I still can't master the GATOR and had never played a wargame before".

Doing a full turn takes us an hour with 240 tons per side (so between 4 and 6 'mechs per team). Sometimes I have to whip out the hour glass if it takes too long to move 1 'mech. Yes, I agree, the 'vee rules ain't all that much more and they ARE simpler then 'mechs. But it's still MORE rules to integrate.

Why stop there? Because I want to play CBT, with each 'mech having a widely varying "personnality" and each crit chance obsessingly drawing in the attention of the whole table.

I could always play AS, or heck, go for full simplicity and turn to FfoL:BA, but that's not the point. CBT offers something particular and that's what I'm after and of course, whom plays CBT centers his attention on the 'mechs. They have to feel and play like the cream of the crop in terms of land based war machines.

I'd much prefer to use "true" CBT rules for conventionals. I'd go with a mix of BMR and TW (whatever is more lethal) if I could have it my way... But my players ain't there yet and its very likely that we never will get there.

BSA is the biscuit we eat since we can't digest real bread, but I'm sure as heck glad to have something to lick the combined arms gravy with.

If you really would prefer to use the Mo'Deadlier rules for vehicles, "But your players aren't up there yet"  I think you're underestimating your players.  I would advocate for using BMR (the ruleset is quite a bit deadlier than Total Warfare, which it would be, since TW is based on codified house rules to make vehicle play more complicated and less deadly)

But...

do you even have access to enough copies of BMR(r)?  Because you'll also be intro'ing them into a world with intentional fires, minefields, and artillery bieng standard instead of expensive options you have to buy a third book to use.

Oh, and Artillery that isn't dropping dinner plate size damage diagrams.  When the bomb rules for Total Warfare were being tested, the only thing we had to compare to, was artillery in BMR(R)-hence why after TacOps came out, you have one ton bombs doing less damage than quarter ton artillery shells.

with the bombs having a smaller footprint.

*(I really thought I was done with this discusson, dammit...)

Here's my take: Your group will never get there if you don't start.

I'd imagine some of their shock when they end up at a table using TW rules, or even BMR(r) and discover that Ultras aren't automatic death on vehicles, or that tanks and VTOLs can flank, and don't die to a lucky medium laser hit easily and randomly.

Or just consider how they're going to react when the vehicles don't all move at once at the start of the turn before anything else.

IOW you're not prepping your group to play with TW or earlier rulesets at all, you're prepping them to play BSP or nothing.  Now I admit, TW is incredibly poorly laid out for beginners-but that's because it went straight from PDF to publisher without anyone bothering to see how it works out in dead-tree form beforehand minus PDF search function.

It's a long known issue, one that earlier handbooks didn't have.

a big part of THAT was sledging in all the stuff from Maxtech, Unbound, etc. etc. to line it up with MWDA's equipment lists and releases-which incorporated all of that stuff without first having to see if it worked, because that game was completely different, but set in the same universe, and WizKids/Topps owned the IP.

which may also explain why artillery got a huge boost in damage in TacOps-to match what was being done in MWDA.

Here's the problem:  I could fight everything from a one on one 'mech duel, to a combined arms battalion scale or even regimental game using BMR(r), and it covered most of everything the players might want to do short of airstrikes in a single book about half as thick as Total Warfare's first printing.

without needing to abstract and hamstring the shit out of anything.  We cuold play BAttletech, with green army men, minimachines cars, and notebook paper as long as someone had a pair of six sided dice and a hex-mat.

In order for that to work, that book had to be extremely well organized. To the point you didn't need to surf six paragraphs scattered across three or four chapters and an appendix.

It even included generation rules for 'mechs and vehicles.  What it didn't have, was wasted space or loads of exceptions, exemptions, or alternate rulesets.

so I would say if you can get the books, and your group "isn't up there yet" you should do so, because they WILL be able to cross-implement 99% of it with Total Warfare, the only changes being the reduced number and length of charts used on conventionals, and the BMR's lack of generation rules for battlearmor or infantry.

Oh, and lack of air support rules.

But the working principles are common enough to be actual preparation for more than a 'mech duel with some random factors.

[Charistoph]

Doing a full turn takes us an hour with 240 tons per side (so between 4 and 6 'mechs per team). Sometimes I have to whip out the hour glass if it takes too long to move 1 'mech. Yes, I agree, the 'vee rules ain't all that much more and they ARE simpler then 'mechs. But it's still MORE rules to integrate.

For new players, sure.  My group that's been playing for almost 4 years now can process up to 8 Turns in 90 Minutes.  What usually slows us down is chit-chat or being put in an agonizing position.  The ones that play in our biweekly campaign are even faster.  We've managed to do a full scenario with 2 Reinforced Lances versus 2 Companies in 5 hours, in a city, with a DFA where a Panther dropped a Charger in to the 2nd floor Basement.

And that's with us running pretty much any ground unit, be they Mech, Combat Vehicle,  Infantry (usually Battle Armor, though), or Protomech (though, that's usually me).

There are techniques for learning how to speed things up, but most of them will come with experience, and you can have some crazy fun games happen when you do.

Speaking of which, I need to plan for a Trap on Jade Falcons for a week from Saturday, and then a scenario for Jade Falcons dropping on the Apollo Militia the following Friday.

[Daryk]

The main thing for speeding turns up is to get everyone to be thinking about their moves while others are moving.  That reduces the hand wringing to just the move immediately prior to the one moving.

[Cannonshop]

The main thing for speeding turns up is to get everyone to be thinking about their moves while others are moving.  That reduces the hand wringing to just the move immediately prior to the one moving.

Some people just ARE indecisive.  There are a couple guys I played with on the regular back between 2003 and 2010, who'd been playing it longer both in chronological time, and frequency, than I had, and one of them could still take an hour to work out exactly where to move his bug 'mech.  We had to institute egg timers to stop him from dithering and force him to make choices.

NOt kidding here.  Egg Timers.  Some people are just naturally indecisive.

[Charistoph]

The main thing for speeding turns up is to get everyone to be thinking about their moves while others are moving.  That reduces the hand wringing to just the move immediately prior to the one moving.

It doesn't help when there aren't any good moves to make, and so it is more about deciding which bad move to make.  And that part is rather uncontrollable.  True, more experience allows a person to see more options in Movement, but there are still times where it is hard to make a decision.  The alternative is to take a 'ride or die'/'Leroy Jenkins'/'No Guts, No Galaxy' approach to one's movement.

What is controllable is being able to process GATOR and Hits on yourself.  Being able to process those things quickly will give you more time to agonize over your movement.  When both of you are in that zone, Turns move VERY quickly.

[butchbird]

I mean, if you wanted "insanely watered down" combined arms, you would play Alpha Strike. AS has an excellently-designed set of rules with equal abstraction across all "arms", trading away the crunch for speed of play.

Playing TW with BSPs isn't really combined arms; it's 'Mechs only with a dash of paprika. I am not convinced the BSPs represent "combined arms" at all (as far as in-universe performance), anymore than shooting a cardboard target with a rifle is "combat experience".

A couple of years back, when I restarted a battletech group, we tried AS and had a big discussion about whether we'd go with that or keep with CBT. CBT won, I got the BMM, things are settled and I'm not going back.

Also, concerning combined arms and BSA, I'd argue that while it is heavily watered down, there's more to it then water and a dash of paprika. What makes 'vees different? The brittleness (whether mostly motive in TW or simply bumped up through crits like BMR), the way the vehicles are built, allowing surprising firepower/mobility/theorethical durability on "lesser" vehicles...and most importantly, at least to me, the terrain restrictions. The BSA keep the terrain restrictions and to me, is somewhat a big deal in defining "combined arms" in the BTU.

If you really would prefer to use the Mo'Deadlier rules for vehicles, "But your players aren't up there yet"  I think you're underestimating your players.  I would advocate for using BMR (the ruleset is quite a bit deadlier than Total Warfare, which it would be, since TW is based on codified house rules to make vehicle play more complicated and less deadly)

But...

do you even have access to enough copies of BMR(r)?  Because you'll also be intro'ing them into a world with intentional fires, minefields, and artillery bieng standard instead of expensive options you have to buy a third book to use.

There's an important factor here: Could they even read it?

If your expecting your players to go beyond the intro rules in AGoAC, they should at the very least have access to the rulebook at home to read and study it. Notwhithstanding if they'd have the time and or motivation to do so, most of my players cannot even read english. Deal breaker right there.

You can try to circumvent lack of experience, but only to a certain degree. Can't rush things, 'specially when you play once every 2 months...so getting back to topic, there's the use of BSA, even if it is heavily watered down combined arms.

[Cannonshop]

A couple of years back, when I restarted a battletech group, we tried AS and had a big discussion about whether we'd go with that or keep with CBT. CBT won, I got the BMM, things are settled and I'm not going back.

Also, concerning combined arms and BSA, I'd argue that while it is heavily watered down, there's more to it then water and a dash of paprika. What makes 'vees different? The brittleness (whether mostly motive in TW or simply bumped up through crits like BMR), the way the vehicles are built, allowing surprising firepower/mobility/theorethical durability on "lesser" vehicles...and most importantly, at least to me, the terrain restrictions. The BSA keep the terrain restrictions and to me, is somewhat a big deal in defining "combined arms" in the BTU.

There's an important factor here: Could they even read it?

If your expecting your players to go beyond the intro rules in AGoAC, they should at the very least have access to the rulebook at home to read and study it. Notwhithstanding if they'd have the time and or motivation to do so, most of my players cannot even read english. Deal breaker right there.

You can try to circumvent lack of experience, but only to a certain degree. Can't rush things, 'specially when you play once every 2 months...so getting back to topic, there's the use of BSA, even if it is heavily watered down combined arms.

It's not "watered down", it's a completely different set of rules.

If your players ARE as unfamiliar as you're suggesting, then the first time they run into a group that isn't using your particular preference here, they're gonna be LOST-like from Initiative Phase to Heat Phase lost.

This isn't training wheels, this is "I hate everything that isn't a battlemech duel" wheels.  From gimping on initiative, to removing movement modes.  It's not designed, in practice to stimulate interest in combined arms play, it's designed to punish anyone who tries it.

That's the functional state of what BSP is, not the stated intent, anymore than FSM was MEANT to cripple games by forcing everyone to recalculate their shit for the next few hours instead of playing, or just hand the win to the guy who maxxed out an assault 'mech and didn't take anything else.

The functional outcome, is to punish players who deviate from the "smaller number of bigger 'mechs" paradigm.

You're not actually doing your players any favors.

[CarcosanDawn]

A couple of years back, when I restarted a battletech group, we tried AS and had a big discussion about whether we'd go with that or keep with CBT. CBT won, I got the BMM, things are settled and I'm not going back.

You don't have to choose - or "go back". You can do both! One for fast and furious combined-arms games, and one for regular CBT traditional 'Mechs only play.

Also, concerning combined arms and BSA, I'd argue that while it is heavily watered down, there's more to it then water and a dash of paprika. What makes 'vees different? The brittleness (whether mostly motive in TW or simply bumped up through crits like BMR), the way the vehicles are built, allowing surprising firepower/mobility/theorethical durability on "lesser" vehicles...and most importantly, at least to me, the terrain restrictions. The BSA keep the terrain restrictions and to me, is somewhat a big deal in defining "combined arms" in the BTU.

Is it really brittleness? Some people stare at the record-sheets wide-eyed when I show up with certain tanks, not really understanding how they can have SO MUCH armor on a location. The biggest difference for me in terms of durability are:
1) Susceptibility to critical hits (impossible with BSP)
2) Susceptibility to motive hits (impossible with BSP)
These vulnerabilities affect anti-tank tactics tremendously - infernos and LBX weapons are really good against TW vehicles, for example (and armor piercing shells from heavy autocannons), while that is not the case against BSP. Any comparison of "brittleness" between BSPs and TW vehicles just won't cut it for me; not that they're way off, it's that they're simply incomparable, like comparing apples to silicon chips.

The way Vehicles are built is indeed interesting, but in the BSP system, it's also the way everything except 'Mechs is built, so ... not really interesting at all, is it? The difference between an infantryman and a tank on a 3050 battlefield is the... destroy check target number? Maybe the mobility?

The terrain restrictions are correct, but if the only impression you want from "combined arms" is "terrain restrictions" then I hold to my original point: that's an extremely watered-down and largely irrelevant difference by comparison. If 'Mechs were BSP, is it really true the only difference is their motive type because they can go in Depth 1 water?

EDIT:
I agree with Cannonshop. When I said it was like getting some water and calling it gravy, I meant that. They're both a fluid and they're both very important, but their functions and compositions are just... different. Incomparable. Like ordering a pizza, receiving an Internal Combustion Engine, and being like "well, they both generate energy so at least I'm giving my players the American pizzeria experience".

[Daryk]

I thought there were French translations of the rules available.  Is it really only German?

[Cannonshop]

There's no sin in just standing up and saying:

"I Like This Better."

the argument comes when you start generating reasons you like it better.  (or dislike it).

But if what you're going off of is just a gut reaction? nothing truly wrong with just announcing "I prefer it this way, not that way".

Being a filthy cynic, I tend to evaluate things based not on what the creator says they intended, but rather, what comes out in the product.

Others, have different ways to interpret the world, and my way may well feel insulting or belittling because I'm not inclined to soften it (much), and do tend to go straight for the throat.

so bear that in mind.

The ends do not justify the means, the means you use, decides what ends you get.

Game rules are a Means.  There's an outcome, it may not be what is intended or intentional.  FSM was intended to make games fairer by compensating for numbers, it ended up being a means to reward solo duellists in improbably pimped out assault 'mechs, and it ended up beigg a good excuse not to play that weekly pickup game because you'd have to rebuild your force on arrival to compensate for what someone else brought with them, or get the experience of taking ultra green in cheap equipment up against a super elite who's at -3 to hit before the dice are even rolled.

With BSP, the functional outcome is that if you brought a mixed level I or II to the table, most of your units automatically lose all initiative-which is not good for anything like tactical play, and leaves you crippled with your few relevant units to the tune of effectively losing every Initiative, even the ones you technically win.

It's a punishment.  That's the outcome I see here.  Take All 'Mechs, or Be Punished.

That's not the author's intent, at least, as it's been said by staffers who've chimed in here, and I believe them.

They didn't MEAN for it to work like that, but that's what they made.

This isn't the first time this sort of thing has been 'normalized'.  When Tac Ops came out, the artillery scatter rules combined with the expanded damage made using Artillery a force divisor for the player using it-that is, it was literally less useful against the enemy, than against yourself.

That wasn't the intention, but that was the impact.

it actually took the team working on Alpha Strike asking on the forums to get a meaningful change done to correct this, because the INTENTION was so noble, that no amount of battering with EFFECT could get it a serious look beyond spelling errors.

Until the development cycle for Alpha Strike made it necessary to make it actually work.  which is why we're using margin of failure with artillery now, instead of open ended 2D6 drifts that can land a shot behind your artillery battery that was sited off the map.

There's an intention: make vehicle damage simpler.  The way it's applied, however, punishes anyone whose preference is toward combined arms, and dissuades new players from trying it out because people don't enjoy bad experiences or automatic losing.

It's contrary to human nature.  the good intent is nice, the outcome? not so much unless you're going for a scripted outcome like Przno River.

[butchbird]

It's not "watered down", it's a completely different set of rules.

If your players ARE as unfamiliar as you're suggesting, then the first time they run into a group that isn't using your particular preference here, they're gonna be LOST-like from Initiative Phase to Heat Phase lost.

This isn't training wheels, this is "I hate everything that isn't a battlemech duel" wheels.  From gimping on initiative, to removing movement modes.  It's not designed, in practice to stimulate interest in combined arms play, it's designed to punish anyone who tries it.

Not watered down, completely different set of rules...well, yes, In a way, but then, what would be the point of a watered down set of rules when there's the old BMR set that can basically funtion as "watered down from TW"? Again, BSA is meant to make it accessible...and it works. Again, I understand experienced players have no use for it, but its great for newbs who want to use more then 'mechs while keeping the 'mechs as "king of the battlefield".

I'd bet you a hundred that my players will never run into another group. So its a non-issue. I'd be highly surprised to learn there's another group of battletech players whithin a 100km radius of my position. Far from impossible, but pretty low odds still. Heck, to give you an idea of how it is 'round my parts, I recently discovered 2 guys about 100km down south were trying to get a FoW group going. WW2 is far more popular then the BTU, 'specially in my parts where no one's heard about it, except from the old mechassault games, and then, they wouldn't make the link. But I digress.

And its true, BSA ain't much in the way of training wheels. Aside from terrain restrictions, they don't prepare you for the real thing. But the BSA rules are "idiot friendly" and that's where we're at at this point.

As for punishment... I suppose that's a fair point if you go around converting BV to BSA points...but we separate. Each team gets a certain tonnage for the 'mechs and I pre-select 2 lances of relatively even-strength BSA 'vees. No punishment, just a chance at using 'vees (in a watered down and/or alternate kind of way) and having more units on the map whithout slowing down the game.

If the authors intent was to make conventionnals accessible to newbs while not slowing down the game, I'd say they did a great job. If the intent is otherwise, I'm not the one to stand the ground for it.

You don't have to choose - or "go back". You can do both! One for fast and furious combined-arms games, and one for regular CBT traditional 'Mechs only play.

Is it really brittleness? Some people stare at the record-sheets wide-eyed when I show up with certain tanks, not really understanding how they can have SO MUCH armor on a location. The biggest difference for me in terms of durability are:
1) Susceptibility to critical hits (impossible with BSP)
2) Susceptibility to motive hits (impossible with BSP)
These vulnerabilities affect anti-tank tactics tremendously - infernos and LBX weapons are really good against TW vehicles, for example (and armor piercing shells from heavy autocannons), while that is not the case against BSP. Any comparison of "brittleness" between BSPs and TW vehicles just won't cut it for me; not that they're way off, it's that they're simply incomparable, like comparing apples to silicon chips.

The way Vehicles are built is indeed interesting, but in the BSP system, it's also the way everything except 'Mechs is built, so ... not really interesting at all, is it? The difference between an infantryman and a tank on a 3050 battlefield is the... destroy check target number? Maybe the mobility?

The terrain restrictions are correct, but if the only impression you want from "combined arms" is "terrain restrictions" then I hold to my original point: that's an extremely watered-down and largely irrelevant difference by comparison. If 'Mechs were BSP, is it really true the only difference is their motive type because they can go in Depth 1 water?

AS AND CBT? Cheez-whizz, I wish. Time, time, time...why did Mad Max off his father? Time of course. Time to plot, time to scheme...a life time is not enough to become lord of the star league. I've got high hopes for ACES, but then that'll be a solo story.

As for the rest...Yes.

Again, yes, it is awfully watered down. I stand my ground that its more like a sauce made by a single father who can't cook for kids whom don't like ketchup rather then pure, cool water, but yes. Again, I'd use TW or BMR rules instead if I could.

Also, good point for a theorethical 'mech BSA...but then that would be a completely different game and AS does a bang up job on that kind of front. Again, BSA is, from what I understand of the intent, merely designed to permit newbs to use their vehicle miniatures whithout having to deal with too much time eating contraptions. Might sound odd, but rolling a LBX-20 for your common newb is a very time consuming experience...few times I had my players play with post-3039 toys, believe me, there was no cluster ammunition involved.

"Roll then daddle around" is great with players whom know what they are doing. Played once with another BT group composed of experienced players and that worked fine. But again, a newb is barely functionnal with the GATOR, don't ask too much or it'll be a grueling experience time wise. Let them walk before they try to run and fail their piloting roll.

I thought there were French translations of the rules available.  Is it really only German?

Last french translation dates back to the 3rd edition. We had citytech, battlespace and battletech 3rd ed. (with platic minis in the box!) nothing since then. I don't mind, I'm not affected, but its a handicap for wine drinking baguette weilders or us pea-soup eaters.