Is it time to consider a reformatting/rewriting of the Core Rulebooks?

[House Davie Merc]

It's been right around 18 years since Total Warfare came out and the whole current
Core Rulebooks series started.
My copies a First Edition and has so much errata that I'd like to just start over with the
newest editions available for each book. Honestly I've been waiting to see if an entirely
new series is on the horizon.
The more I think about it and discuss these books with other players I've discovered
that I'm not alone. Many seem to have various issues with the overall setup and they have
been looking forward to something better.
A lot don't like how some things were forced together in one book while other things  were
separated.
For instance-from recent conversations a huge number of players still play Aerospace as
if it were a separate entity and don't want it as part of the first book past AGOAC.
I can't count the number of new players that have AGOAC that don't want to take that next
step into TW because of what's packed in there.
I would like to see a simpler Core Rulebook system with more bolt on levels to make
it more accessible for new players. I would also like to see related material gathered
in more singular locations instead of as spread out with the potential exception being 
a separate book for optional rules.
We can't all get exactly what we want of course, but is it time for something new?

[Sartris]

they will be re-written, yes. the when and the how are still up in the air but the plan is to not use TW in perpetuity

[ColBosch]

Total Warfare has been the "standard" rulebook for literally half of BattleTech's existence. It is a remarkable work, but it has its flaws and is very much a product of the time when BattleTech was at the nadir of its popularity and public knowledge. I look forward to whatever comes next.

[Sartris]

to put it in perspective

1987-2006 19 years: The BattleMech Manual ('87), BattleTech Compendium ('90), BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare ('94), BattleTech Master Rules ('98), BattleTech Master Rules, Revised ('01)

2006-2024 18 years: Total Warfare

[Pat Payne]

I'm going to take a third option not presented -- my intellect knows that the books need a refresh both visually and to bring the books up to sync with other publications, but I'm the kind of guy whose eye reflexively twitches whenever I hear the word "re-write", just because I think "here we go again, get my asbestos raincoat as the inevitable flame/edition wars happen..."

[General308]

The very fact that Battletech Manual exist and that it is common to reccomend it to a new player because it is easier to read tells you that Total Warfare has long out lived it's prime.   

Also remember the goal of that book was for all the Tournement level rules to be in one book.  That has not been the case in a very very long time now.

[Mostro Joe]

I think they are going to rewrite everything by the next year.

[Sartris]

I think they are going to rewrite everything by the next year.

the level of optimism here is flattering to xotl but probably insane

[ColBosch]

the level of optimism here is flattering to xotl but probably insane

Yeah, t's almost certainly a multi-year project.

[House Davie Merc]

Total Warfare has been the "standard" rulebook for literally half of BattleTech's existence. It is a remarkable work, but it has its flaws and is very much a product of the time when BattleTech was at the nadir of its popularity and public knowledge. I look forward to whatever comes next.

This is pretty close to how I feel about it.
Recently I've been gaming with and helping out some new players.
They want to go on to that next level in Battletech , but TW doesn't seem like
a great fit for them. It's to much at once for them and having to rely on other
books for rules is a huge turn off.
They want basic ground warfare units such as vehicles,infantry, and artillery added in
a more easy to understand way. A few complete standard infantry platoon sheets in the
core book to use infantry now could get rid of the need to go to another book
just to start using infantry.
A basic artillery section would mean not needing yet another book for basic ground warfare.

I'm honestly not sure myself what to include but after trying to help out some new players
it's become REALLY obvious that something new should be considered.

[Col Toda]

All of Areospace and by Extention LAMs need to be completely redone or in the case of LAMs  undone . Areospace support rules and even conventional aircraft play needs to be completely revamped.  As long as Artillary has no chance of shooting down aircraft before a bombing run that destroys a dropship happens the rules are broken. Save for house rules that have Anti Air Arrow IV having a 2 mapboard long range shot to take out an incomming bombing unit and or Artillary  in Flack Mode  one mapboard away before the bombing run the rules are broken.  The best  a grounded dropship can do is mutual assurred destruction on bombing assets.  The only cannon way to prevent a bombing run is fighter cap intercept.  Most other aspects of the ground game is fine as is.

[House Davie Merc]

Most other aspects of the ground game is fine as is.

A huge part of the problem that I'm referring to is not actually the rules themselves.

Much of the problem is how the rules are organized and what books they are in.

Those tournament level ground game rules aren't in one place but spread out
and currently more difficult to locate then they should be.
I'm not going to say the name on this forum , but of the new players that I've met in the last
year at least 8 out of 10 left "that other popular game" and are converts to Battletech.
Having to have multiple books to use what should be basic ground combat is something they came to
Battletech to get AWAY from. Having the rules spread out like they are is an issue.

[dgorsman]

A huge part of the problem that I'm referring to is not actually the rules themselves.

Much of the problem is how the rules are organized and what books they are in.

Those tournament level ground game rules aren't in one place but spread out
and currently more difficult to locate then they should be.
I'm not going to say the name on this forum , but of the new players that I've met in the last
year at least 8 out of 10 left "that other popular game" and are converts to Battletech.
Having to have multiple books to use what should be basic ground combat is something they came to
Battletech to get AWAY from. Having the rules spread out like they are is an issue.

That is, however, what some are suggesting e.g. Mech rules in the core book, infantry and/or vehicles in a supplementary book or books, air/space in yet another.  Fine for those who are only doing Mechs, but not so much for others.  Lets not get into how convoluted that will get when you have infantry trying to disembark from an airborne fixed wing aircraft (or how about airships...) and combat dropping Mechs, or infantry with field guns firing at aircraft.  Or the potential for heading across multiple volumes when you start throwing in TacOps options such as wind/darkness/gravity.  As you can probably guess I prefer to have all core units and associated rules and interactions in a single volume that you can flip back and forth through instead of needing several books laid out.  From a developmental standpoint, having all those points in the same volume reduces potential for editing problems as multiple volumes may be released or updated at different times under different project managers (like those references in TechManual first printing that didn't really lead anywhere).

Some of this needs to come to a point of scrapping of terms like 'tournament level rules' which can lead to confusion as there really isn't a tournament scene or setup.  Which is another discussion, and generally a potent one which doesn't need to be hashed out again here.  And getting a firm distinction between tech and rules level which has this crossover which again can be confusing.  Primitive - Basic - Modern - Experimental for the former (tech) which can change based on equipment and era; Introductory - Standard - Advanced for the latter (rules) which do not change.

[ColBosch]

That is, however, what some are suggesting e.g. Mech rules in the core book, infantry and/or vehicles in a supplementary book or books, air/space in yet another.  Fine for those who are only doing Mechs, but not so much for others.  Lets not get into how convoluted that will get when you have infantry trying to disembark from an airborne fixed wing aircraft (or how about airships...) and combat dropping Mechs, or infantry with field guns firing at aircraft.  Or the potential for heading across multiple volumes when you start throwing in TacOps options such as wind/darkness/gravity.  As you can probably guess I prefer to have all core units and associated rules and interactions in a single volume that you can flip back and forth through instead of needing several books laid out.  From a developmental standpoint, having all those points in the same volume reduces potential for editing problems as multiple volumes may be released or updated at different times under different project managers (like those references in TechManual first printing that didn't really lead anywhere).

Some of this needs to come to a point of scrapping of terms like 'tournament level rules' which can lead to confusion as there really isn't a tournament scene or setup.  Which is another discussion, and generally a potent one which doesn't need to be hashed out again here.  And getting a firm distinction between tech and rules level which has this crossover which again can be confusing.  Primitive - Basic - Modern - Experimental for the former (tech) which can change based on equipment and era; Introductory - Standard - Advanced for the latter (rules) which do not change.

These are all excellent points. I'm still pondering if I'd prefer to see the BMM become the de facto "Total Warfare" with non-'Mech units as an additional volume, or if I'd rather CGL twilights BMM and Total Warfare together in favor of a new one-book solution.

As for the tech levels/rules levels thing, I totally agree. I think "rules level" is a mostly obsolete concept and can be dropped from public view. Instead, tie tech to the Eras in which it appears, like how units are tied to Eras on the Master Unit List. If tournaments are meant to be a thing (and right now they're really not), then any restricted equipment should appear in a separate Tourney rules presentation, preferably something online that can be accessed anywhere and updated as the game evolves. With the advent of Battlefield Support, abandoning the "advanced" moniker makes even more sense. Artillery can now be easily used without having to memorize a bunch of special case rules, and the old rules can moved into the future equivalent of Tactical Operations as optional - not called out as advanced, mind, but simply optional.

[DevianID]

In place of the total warfare + operations books, id like battlemech operations, aerospace operations, Conventional operations, and then strategic operations.
For the current books, I only ever use the humble bundle pdf for total warfare cause i can search it.  Finding anything in the paper copy I have is too hard... Just the weight of all the books to run ilclan units is a non-starter.  I only carry the battlemech manual and clan invasion book (for elementals) for table games

[ColBosch]

In place of the total warfare + operations books, id like battlemech operations, aerospace operations, Conventional operations, and then strategic operations.
For the current books, I only ever use the humble bundle pdf for total warfare cause i can search it.  Finding anything in the paper copy I have is too hard... Just the weight of all the books to run ilclan units is a non-starter.  I only carry the battlemech manual and clan invasion book (for elementals) for table games

Off-topic, but Amazon's 10-inch Fire HD tablet can read PDFs out of the box now (it didn't always) and is very reasonably priced for a simple tablet. Were I still playing regularly, I'd load up all the relevant books right on that so I could more-easily search at the table. If you're not into the Amazon thing, there are good options out there now.

[Mostro Joe]

the level of optimism here is flattering to xotl but probably insane

I meant "start to rewrite" 

I think anyway that if we have yet the Battletech Manual, next year we could see the manual for the new Aerotech or perhaps the manual for the vehicles.
Later this year we should see the Mech Commander book for campaigns.

[RifleMech]

A huge part of the problem that I'm referring to is not actually the rules themselves.

Much of the problem is how the rules are organized and what books they are in.

Those tournament level ground game rules aren't in one place but spread out
and currently more difficult to locate then they should be.
I'm not going to say the name on this forum , but of the new players that I've met in the last
year at least 8 out of 10 left "that other popular game" and are converts to Battletech.
Having to have multiple books to use what should be basic ground combat is something they came to
Battletech to get AWAY from. Having the rules spread out like they are is an issue.

I agree. The layout is frustrating.

Although Infantry and Aerospace Rules do need some work.

[Aotrs Commander]

Probably in the minority, but I would like to see a less colour-intenstive layout (at least as an option) for the PDF version, at least. This is a problem endemic generally for all wargames rules books - Paizo have often not been any better, printing an adventure path[1] wastes a lot of ink even in grey scale because of the apparently universal daft idea to print coloured backgrounds on everything, particularly. Nevermind printing, reading PDFs on a regular, non-colour kindle can be a pain, and if I play somewhere other than the house (which has, granted, not happened in years) I either still use BMR or copy stuff into word documents, because there's way too much background colour and wasted space in Total War (or even BMM) for me to ever consider even printing bits of it. Hell, a straight-up kindle version bundled with the PDF was be better in this day and age. BMM is definitely better in this regard, but I recall at the time I bought Total War, it was particularly egregious.

Frankly, the greyscale layout used in the TROs would be a huge improvement and I feel even that is sometimes excessive.

Colour absolutely has its practical place in stuff like tables or heading and such (and its omission is, I hazard, a probably nonfactor in terms of printing costs these days), but toning down the saturation - at least as an option - would definitely be favourite from a utility aspect; I'm a great believer that rulesbooks should serve their practical function first and art a very distant third or forth place. I am not interested in coffee-table books, personally, and absolutely not for a game I actually play.

Again, I know I'm probably in the minority, but...


[1]Because buying hardcopies is nowadays just a straight-up non option. Last time I even looked at it, Pazio was having a 50% sale and it was cheaper to buy the PDFs at full price than the hardcopy at 50% solely due to shipping.

[General308]

These are all excellent points. I'm still pondering if I'd prefer to see the BMM become the de facto "Total Warfare" with non-'Mech units as an additional volume, or if I'd rather CGL twilights BMM and Total Warfare together in favor of a new one-book solution.

As for the tech levels/rules levels thing, I totally agree. I think "rules level" is a mostly obsolete concept and can be dropped from public view. Instead, tie tech to the Eras in which it appears, like how units are tied to Eras on the Master Unit List. If tournaments are meant to be a thing (and right now they're really not), then any restricted equipment should appear in a separate Tourney rules presentation, preferably something online that can be accessed anywhere and updated as the game evolves. With the advent of Battlefield Support, abandoning the "advanced" moniker makes even more sense. Artillery can now be easily used without having to memorize a bunch of special case rules, and the old rules can moved into the future equivalent of Tactical Operations as optional - not called out as advanced, mind, but simply optional.

BMM needs to go away.  With the TW replacement being orginized well like BMM.   CGL would be making a mistake investing in plastic vechical minis and making it even more expensive to get the rules.  We should have never been in a place were BMM and TW exist.   When BMM was done all of TW should have been done in that vain.   No reason to make it more expenive to learn to play other types of units when it hasn't been that way for Battletechs history.

[ColBosch]

I would be more willing to consider and respond to counterpoints to my musings if they weren't written as absolutes. Just FYI.

[This Ends Tonight]

I think it would be neat if they looked over record sheets, and took all the best ideas, then incorporated them into their company standard. Flechs Sheets has some neat additions that make them better than what you get in the starter boxes. Also it would be nice if they worked out Quirks. If you want them to be in the game (just overall, as a part of the game) then they should be included on the 'Mechs sheet, hopefully with the full rule for the Quirk on there. If people don't want to use them, that's fine, but as it is now, people who would want to use them probably mostly don't ever use them. As part of an overall rules rewrite/reformat.

[Com Guard Precentor]

I  think the greatest friction/concern about the current core rulebook is the discussion of consolidation vs segmentation of the books (ie should the core book be a massive tome or separated into separate books). But what about a middle ground where we have the entirety of ground combat rules (which I think is the core of the game) in a single volume and then the much less-played aerospace and battlespace rules in a separate book. From my experience the ground combat manual would serve about 80% of the playerbase, with the remaining 20% able to buy the expansion aerospace/battlespace book for the full-fat experience in only two books. This would also allow TPTB that release the revamped ground rules while they figure out what to do with the quagmire that is aerospace/battlespace.

[ColBosch]

I  think the greatest friction/concern about the current core rulebook is the discussion of consolidation vs segmentation of the books (ie should the core book be a massive tome or separated into separate books). But what about a middle ground where we have the entirety of ground combat rules (which I think is the core of the game) in a single volume and then the much less-played aerospace and battlespace rules in a separate book. From my experience the ground combat manual would serve about 80% of the playerbase, with the remaining 20% able to buy the expansion aerospace/battlespace book for the full-fat experience in only two books. This would also allow TPTB that release the revamped ground rules while they figure out what to do with the quagmire that is aerospace/battlespace.

The current attitude among the devs seems to be that any aerospace game rules will need a major rewrite, if not rebuilt from scratch. I don't think it's even on the table right now. I doubt we'll see any movement on the aerospace front - aside from the greatly simplified Battlefield Support rules - for years to come. Unless CGL decides to surprise us, of course.

[House Davie Merc]

I  think the greatest friction/concern about the current core rulebook is the discussion of consolidation vs segmentation of the books (ie should the core book be a massive tome or separated into separate books). But what about a middle ground where we have the entirety of ground combat rules (which I think is the core of the game) in a single volume and then the much less-played aerospace and battlespace rules in a separate book. From my experience the ground combat manual would serve about 80% of the playerbase, with the remaining 20% able to buy the expansion aerospace/battlespace book for the full-fat experience in only two books. This would also allow TPTB that release the revamped ground rules while they figure out what to do with the quagmire that is aerospace/battlespace.

Your "middle ground" is pretty close to what I've been thinking as well as most of the long time experienced players I know
that prefer Aerotech to be separate but still usable with ground warfare if wanted.
Many of the  newer players that I've met want the same thing because many are coming to Battletech from another gaming
system in which they were tired of having to buy extra books/items for everything.
I've actually been wanting something new as a replacement for at least a dozen years myself but the influx of new
players has really brought home the need to make that next step past AGOAC smoother.

[RifleMech]

I agree about all the color. It is too much. It's okay on the tables and diagrams but it does make it more difficult to read and especially print.

As for 1 book vs multiple; there does need to be multiple books. There's no getting around that but too many is a problem. It's a problem now. If you want to use a LAM you need 3 books for the rules. Construction adds a 4th. The number of rule books should be kept to a minimum. Just going with play and construction would reduce than number in half. The number of rule books should be at a minimum.

The easiest would probably be by Introductory, Standard, and Advanced. The problem is Introductory isn't really supported in later eras.

Whatever their plans, I hope the rules are clear concise, and spread out as little as possible.

[paladin2019]

1987-2006 19 years: The BattleMech Manual ('87), BattleTech Compendium ('90), BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare ('94), BattleTech Master Rules ('98), BattleTech Master Rules, Revised ('01)

Note, first book is BattleTech Manual

The very fact that Battletech Manual exist and that it is common to reccomend it to a new player because it is easier to read tells you that Total Warfare has long out lived it's prime.   

Note, the book is BattleMech Manual.

(big winks)

As for content, I want a rewrite of the BTC. No fluff, no fiction, just the rules. All the rules. BattleTech, including artillery, combat vehicle, infantry, and LAM rules. AeroTech, again, with all the rules. And construction rules for everything. Baselined to either 3025 or, more usefully, 3050 with additional era supplements. The idea that the "current time" for the game is the latest era available and an expectation that absolutely everything published will be showing up on the same battlefield is overwhelming chaos.

But that's not going to happen.

If BMM is a model of what well have going forward, I expect a comprehensive ground combat book with all of the other rules for ground combat systems is needed. Then a new edition of AeroTech. All baselined to one era and all construction rules included. And then era books for the era updates.

Something else unlikely to happen. Stop printing on glossies. (This is one thing I despise AD&D2e for introducing to game publishing.) Game books are technical manuals. I need to be able to mark them up in pencil because notes will both be needed and will likely change. If I want an art book, I'll buy an art book.

[Adrian Gideon]

Is it time to consider a reformatting/rewriting of the Core

Yes. Already in development.

[abou]

Yes. Already in development.

I'm really glad to hear that. I imagine that CGL is aware of the deficiencies and layout problems present in the core rulebooks. BMM I think goes quite a way towards addressing that. My big hope is that we won't see information so widely split up as we have in the past.

[dddddddd207]

The thing I'm most excited to see is getting all the new rules together. There's, what, three versions of battlefield support? MBB, Tukayyid, mercs KS (currently only available in preview but coming soon)? Then knowing exactly what is and isn't standard/advanced/experimental in 3150 is difficult.