Alpha Strike: Commander's Edition?

[JadedFalcon]

Wait, the rest of the manuals aren't happening now? When did that come down the pipe?

I think it was around the time they shuffled the management. CM:Davion was originally a maybe for spring 2017.

[Kos]

Dang. That's...not great. CM: Kurita was awesome.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Dang. That's...not great. CM: Kurita was awesome.

I'm crossing my fingers that the idea isn't completely dead.... I'm hoping they're going to go back to Combat Manuals but issue them by era for all factions rather than for 1 faction in 1 (or 2) eras.

I don't have any reason to think they ARE going to do that... I'm just hoping.

[wolfspider]

I hope they bring back the Combat Manuals, I was really looking forward to the Davion and Steiner books! I think that now the classic issue has been put to bed that if they released a box set with the 4 mechs that are featured in each book it would help sales! They have the molds already for the locust, shadow hawk so all they would have to do is a mold for the warhammer and ostscout for the merc manual, and they already have the molds for wolverine and the battlemaster so they would need to make molds for the wasp and phoenix hawk for the Kurita manual!

[Papabees]

Any news as to whether this will be out for GenCon?

[wolfspider]

I thought it would later in August.

[Xotl]

There's no news.  I would not expect it for GenCon.

[Panthros]

The combat manuals are the best thing to come out of Alpha Strike or anything else in years.  I was looking forward to a Clans combat manual and a Davion one. Heck I would even preorder that now.  This is where Paizo has it right.  Let people pre-order their books!  Heck they can even have the disclaimer, your money will be returned if for any reason it does not get released in 12 months or something.

I have recently gotten many people into Battletech through Alpha Strike rules.  I would appreciate it if they gave some better background to the Commander's Edition rules.  I would hate for the people that I have had buy the Alpha Strike and Companion rules get outdated in a matter of months.  Nothing like a customer scorned to turn people away for good.

[ActionButler]

I would appreciate it if they gave some better background to the Commander's Edition rules. 

Some better background into what? 

[nckestrel]

Some better background into what?

My assumption is "what is it".

99% of it is just collected errata, and some sections from the Companion and removing some sections from the rulebook (like possibly intro rules, background).
Obviously your opinion of old rulebook + errata versus new rulebook is up to you, but there's no intent to create a new edition of the _rules_. If you're good with old rulebook + errata now, there's nothing in the new rulebook that you need.

The book isn't finalized yet, so I can't say what sections from the Companion, nor can guarantee it will be 100% old rulebooks + errata, but that's the intent so far.  It's not a new rules edition, it's a new edition of the book. The edition denotes it's organized differently rather just a simple reprint.

[DarkJaguar]

The book isn't finalized yet

So I guess this isn't happening now?



Would be quite the feat to print and distribute this book in under a month.

[nckestrel]

So I guess this isn't happening now?

I don't know anything about dates. Way above my pay scale.

[sadlerbw]

Imma be honest here: as a fan of the system I’d be fine if this gets pushed back till next year. Why? Two big reasons: the point conversion rework and aerospace. The first should be mostly good, but I think the aerospace side of Alpha Strike still needs work. I won’t get into it too deep and detail the thread, but I think we need a few more errata before we get a reprint!

[nckestrel]

The point conversion rework is done (rules wise). There’s no active work going on with it.  Same with aero.
You’d be waiting on nothing happening :).

[Tai Dai Cultist]

The point conversion rework is done (rules wise). There’s no active work going on with it.  Same with aero.
You’d be waiting on nothing happening :).

Ew.  Really?  No more fixes in the pipeline for Aero is... disappointing.. news.

[nckestrel]

Ew.  Really?  No more fixes in the pipeline for Aero is... disappointing.. news.

I don't recall if all of the fixes had been published yet, but I don't have any outstanding issues I was working on.  But this was all end of last year, so I don't remember any more how we did anything.  Just that I was done. :)

[nckestrel]

Or maybe it was done with me.  Something like that.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

there was at one time the experimental erratum of being able to offset a striking/strafing template so that the fighter had more leeway in placing the flight path, but IIRC it didn't make it into the last errata doc.

and I've been hoping for seeing a separate set of PVs for aero depending on whether the game is a ground battle or a space battle... but you've never given indication you were amenable to that :D

[nckestrel]

I have very little to do with PVs. I try to stay out of Xotl’s way unless he asks me something. I’d just mess up his excellent work.

That does sound like there are changes that haven’t been published yet as errata.  Not off the flight path, but there were changes since that was errata’d/retracted. Probably still waiting to make sure all the kinks are straightened out first.  Or maybe once we can breathe again.

[sadlerbw]

The point conversion rework is done (rules wise). There’s no active work going on with it.  Same with aero.
You’d be waiting on nothing happening :).

Good news on the PV!

I wasn’t so much hoping for more rules changes to aero so much as a whole different attempt at an abstract aero system. The interaction with the ground map is ok, but I’m not a fan of the radar map. I’m not saying I have a better solution to satisfying aerotech combat without buckets of rules, but the radar map just doesn’t do it for me. I even tried a big aero battle Scotty put together at one of the conventions. Still not a fan.

I know a drastic re-think of aero isn’t in process or anything, but I feel like it should be. Of course, I feel like Strat Ops aero is no fun either, so maybe it’s not an Alpha Strike issue so much as a BattleTech one!

[Weirdo]

Have you tried Battleforce Aero?

[Son of Kerenski]

Has the PV revision been implemented into the MUL yet?

[nckestrel]

Has the PV revision been implemented into the MUL yet?

Nope. 

[Son of Kerenski]

Yes a quick check of the MUL seems to reveal that.

I see the Locust 6M has had an upgrade to Medium range damage to 2 but no additional PV cost. Such a bargain at 19 points.

[Xotl]

We'll make sure everyone knows when it's gone through: it's too big a deal to just leave for random player discovery.

[sadlerbw]

Have you tried Battleforce Aero?

I have not. Which book is that in? StratOps?

[Sartris]

yes. there are both standard and advanced rulesets though i've never more than skimmed them so i couldn't tell you the difference. like TW, the aerospace rules for BF are integrated with ground rules

[Weirdo]

What he said. The Advanced Battleforce Aero rules can best be summed up as WarShips on hex maps with roughly Alpha Strike level of detail. Fighter squadrons are very elegantly done, and there's rules for DropShip squadrons as well for when playing very large battles.

[sadlerbw]

In that case I have, in fact, read the rules...once...when I first bought StratOps. Can't say I've looked at them since then. I'll give them another look. However, I've yet to find a version of pure aero rules in BattleTech that I've really enjoyed. Some of the versions of aero-ground interaction are functional, if difficult to balance, but the pure aero-on-aero stuff? I've never been a fan. I like the IDEA of a BT air/space battles, and I do like having the fighters zoom past a battlefield, but the execution has left me underwhelmed. To be brutally honest, if the Commanders Edition did not include ANY of the Aerospace rules from AS or the Companion and just added a 'Battlefield Support' section for off-board artillery and air-to-ground attacks like BMM has, I'd be fine with that. On-board Arty rules are still fine to keep in. I'm sure others would disagree, but I'd rather just pull full aero out of Alpha Strike for the time being and give it another go with major changes as 'AeroStrike' or something like that at a later time.

For that matter, I'd suggest pulling the construction rules out of the published AS book and making them a separate, free, PDF download hosted on the BT website. Not only would it save over 50 printed pages by pulling out the Conversion and PV calc sections, it would also make updating and tweaking the conversion rules a simpler process because you will not be invalidating people's books that they paid for to do it. The conversion rules are not a separate book, like TechManual, so CGL wouldn't really be giving up any sales, and realistically with the MUL out there hand-converting custom units is something only a brave few of us ever do.

Anyway, that is enough of a tirade from me. I'll still be plenty happy if the PV revision goes live with commanders edition, and it has the current errata in it.

[nckestrel]

Yeah, I expect you will happy with it.