Author Topic: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?  (Read 36202 times)

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5856
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« on: 22 April 2018, 03:02:11 »
Upfront Request: I know that Total Warfare is the latest and greatest, and its accolades have been sung many a time on these boards.  That's not the topic. I'd prefer such comments about it being 'the best version' and 'perfect' be left out of this thread, thanks.

I'm a longstanding BT Player, and though I didn't really get into BT until just before the release of the BattleTech Master Rules, I did cut my teeth on the 2nd ed boxed set rules, and saw the 4th ed box, too.

There are things out of the older sets that I still enjoy, and I'll break out the older rules to play a game once in a while.  Have some ongoing campaigns that I run strictly in those rules.

My question to the rest of you is pretty much in the title: What, if anything, did you like from the older rules?

I have lots, but I'll start the conversation with sharing three:

1) Clearing woods - I actually liked how the BMR handled it, rolling less than or equal to a weapon's damage value to see if you took a woods hex down a level. It was very streamlined and easy to remember, compared to the point tracking of Terrain Factor now, or the limited list of weapons which 'did it' from the 2nd ed rules. I actually wish that the 'tournament rules' of Total Warfare had gone this route for buildings, too.  There's a lot to be said for less record keeping.

2) Two locations on tanks - Specifically, the fact that tanks only took damage to one or two locations down any given facing. If glancing hits are considered part of 'missing' in the game, then shots drifting to sides adjacent to the one directly facing the attacker make no sense.  It also made them die faster - and that's what we want in faceless mook units, right?

3) Standardized Physical Attack Base To-hits - There was one thing where the green pilots could shine, putting them on the same footing as more experienced pilots: being able to punch and kick.  With the standardizing of basing it on piloting, even that little spot of excellence was taken from them. It also backed up the notion that physical attacks were stock programmed options that a pilot could just hit a trigger for, like Rock-em-Sock-em.  The truly stylized attacks would have been something that specialized pilots, dedicated to the art, would have done.

Don't get me wrong, I actually like applying the piloting as a base-to-hit, but I think it should have been more limited, or both options should be available. Personally, I think the piloting skill base and modifiers should have been a Special Pilot Ability for pilots that specialized in melee combat.

So, I pass on the discussion to the rest of you.
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #1 on: 22 April 2018, 03:08:50 »
Some of the way Anti-Missile Systems worked was nice.

Challenger

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 654
  • Six or Styx
    • My Fanfiction Stories
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #2 on: 22 April 2018, 06:11:41 »
The ability to under-load omnifighters from aerotech 2. Gave you the ability to change not just the loadout but the thrust profile as well!

Challenger


nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11045
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #3 on: 22 April 2018, 07:03:17 »
Vehicles being junk, but hovers able to go fast without skidding.
Vehicles, just because i liked having mooks. I know it didn't really make "sense", but for making 'mechs feel like kings, it was great.
Hovers, I know they needed balancing, I just hate the skidding rules.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Domi1981

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 425
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #4 on: 22 April 2018, 08:37:49 »
The clear and simple layout of the books.

Brakiel

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 230
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #5 on: 22 April 2018, 08:55:25 »
Some of the way Anti-Missile Systems worked was nice.

Agreed. The ammo consumption was crazy bad, but it did offer actually pretty good protection. IIRC it was 1D6 missiles shot down for IS, and 2D6 for Clan. For something that could only be used once per turn, I thought it was a reasonable investment of tonnage. As is, I often end up debating whether I should take AMS over something like ECM, assuming I had the choice. The flat -4 to cluster roll doesn't really click with me, especially if Streaks were fired. I feel like AMS should get the chance to negate a salvo, especially if its a particularly small one like a SSRM2 or 4. Should there ever be another rules revision, I'd like to see those old rules return, but with the current rules for ammo consumption. If necessary, rejigger the ammo per ton (or heat in the case of LAMS) to balance it out.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37359
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #6 on: 22 April 2018, 09:45:51 »
The clear and simple layout of the books.
In that vein, rule books with just rules... The fact that the fiction sections don't have page numbers makes them doubly annoying.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5856
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #7 on: 22 April 2018, 09:48:15 »
In that vein, rule books with just rules... The fact that the fiction sections don't have page numbers makes them doubly annoying.

Special equipment rules having their own dedicated section, and not flowing directly from the combat rules in the combat section.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Hythos

  • The Embiggened Man
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 503
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #8 on: 22 April 2018, 10:41:16 »
Use of two hatchets in one melee phase, and on the punch-chart.
Agent 722
Salt Lake City / Utah
Have 'Mech, will travel.

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8705
  • Legends Never Die
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #9 on: 22 April 2018, 11:27:23 »
Concise rules that don't try to account for every edge case. As I move on to writing for other companies, this is something I'm seriously having to unlearn. For one article I'm doing for Ogre, once I stopped trying to write the rules to cover every possibility, I was able to condense about half a page into two sentences.

Simple - or even no - ECM/ECCM rules. The makers of Star Fleet Battles have said that their game's electronic warfare rules are the most universally-ignored subset of the entire system, and cut the very concept from Federation Commander. As far as I'm concerned, BattleTech's ECM/ECCM rules are pure wasted page count. If I had my druthers, I'd retcon the ECM Suite (and related items) completely out of the game, or reduce its effects to a flat +1 to enemy fire passing near the carrying unit.

No (or very few) special ammunition types. Yet another "rules bloat for little effect" item. Infernos, sure. Smoke LRMs, okay. A dozen variant warheads for each missile launcher type? No.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

Fat Guy

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5004
  • I make beer disappear. What's your superpower?
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #10 on: 22 April 2018, 11:44:07 »
Use of two hatchets in one melee phase, and on the punch-chart.

None of that was ever in any official rules.    ???
I have spoken.


Porkins

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 229
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #11 on: 22 April 2018, 12:07:00 »
Special equipment rules having their own dedicated section, and not flowing directly from the combat rules in the combat section.

So much this!  The BMR was my favourite rule book for battletech and that sentiment is echoed by everone in my gaming group.  You could find something in seconds and in one spot, not four.  I miss that layout.
« Last Edit: 22 April 2018, 12:09:09 by Porkins »
Praise the Sea, but keep on Land.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19853
  • Cap’n-Generalissimost
    • Master Unit List
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #12 on: 22 April 2018, 12:22:46 »
Concise rules that don't try to account for every edge case. As I move on to writing for other companies, this is something I'm seriously having to unlearn. For one article I'm doing for Ogre, once I stopped trying to write the rules to cover every possibility, I was able to condense about half a page into two sentences.

I think the common misconceptions section at the end of BMM was a good way to address the ways people misconstrue the rules as written like they were in BMR


You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8705
  • Legends Never Die
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #13 on: 22 April 2018, 12:55:09 »
I think the common misconceptions section at the end of BMM was a good way to address the ways people misconstrue the rules as written like they were in BMR

That's a great addition, yes. But it also shows the futility in expanding rules to account for edge cases and "accidental" misreadings: many of the rules in question were worded just fine in the BMR. One of the most common mistaken rules is when re-rolling torso or arm critical hits (that is, you're supposed to re-roll both dice, not just one). It's been practically unchanged since Battledroids, yet folks still get it wrong!
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9595
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #14 on: 22 April 2018, 14:25:59 »
The only thing I miss is how easy it was to kill infantry and tanks. Sure, no one used infantry or tanks (or machine guns) but it made mechs the unquestionable kings of the battlefield.

Only reason I miss it is because of the zerg rush crowd always post 'Y not tanks? Y mechs at all?'   
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com

Syzyx

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 638
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #15 on: 22 April 2018, 14:53:48 »
I feel that I am in the vast minority in this, but I greatly prefer the old partial cover rules. It's hard enough to land a hit in BattleTech as it is. Landing one only to waste time with another roll that negates it is frustrating at best.
But as a matter of fact I was quite busy getting potty-trained at the time and had no time for interstellar politics.- ykonoclast

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13286
  • I said don't look!
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #16 on: 22 April 2018, 17:14:18 »
I feel that I am in the vast minority in this, but I greatly prefer the old partial cover rules. It's hard enough to land a hit in BattleTech as it is. Landing one only to waste time with another roll that negates it is frustrating at best.

I've gone back and forth on that myself.  I really hate mechanics where after I make my to hit roll I still miss but going straight punch table was a bit much.  So I'd be all for a compromise of some sort where leg locations just took reduced damage instead when rolled.  Could even vary it by what was in the way of the legs if one really wanted to as well.

The only thing I miss is how easy it was to kill infantry and tanks. Sure, no one used infantry or tanks (or machine guns) but it made mechs the unquestionable kings of the battlefield.

Only reason I miss it is because of the zerg rush crowd always post 'Y not tanks? Y mechs at all?'   

*nod*

Vehicles probably did need a bit of help but they do feel a bit too good now versus older rules and I do have to argue way harder than I feel I should for what is supposed to be the staple of this game to be the king.

Some of the way Anti-Missile Systems worked was nice.

Another one I am torn on.  AMS isn't effective enough against smaller missile launchers under current rules, streaks in general, but the reduced ammo consumption was an absolute godsend.  Though I'd be loathe to add another roll to the game when we already have so many.

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9595
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #17 on: 22 April 2018, 17:32:10 »
*nod*

Vehicles probably did need a bit of help but they do feel a bit too good now versus older rules and I do have to argue way harder than I feel I should for what is supposed to be the staple of this game to be the king.

Game balance isn't easy and it doesn't help wargamers in general over analyze everything.   
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #18 on: 22 April 2018, 17:43:48 »
I do miss vehicles being flimsy...  honestly, the game revolves around 'Mechs, so anything other than a 'Mech should be usable but squishy.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37359
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #19 on: 22 April 2018, 17:49:01 »
I think not being able to survive destruction of a section is flimsy enough, honestly.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10497
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #20 on: 22 April 2018, 17:50:29 »
hmmmm....

VTOL hit location table, rotor destruction rules from BMR were actually pretty solid, and emphasized the fragility of the unit-type while still leaving it effective, (along with the movement modifiers.  Plus five after calculation at 10/15 with a single facing change).  Also miss the days when a five point hit-as in any hit of five or more, would drop a VTOL, the adopting of Munchtek's 'one point rule' to rotors was a mistake, it just flipped their relative position with pre-nerfing Hovertanks. and honestly, it's a set of changes obviously meant to make the Yellowjacket and similar designs viable-when there is no real need to do so.

The main reason I miss it though, was that it underlined how VTOL use was different from 'mech use, and how the VTOLs as a class had diminishing returns as you went up in tonnage-that being, heavier VTOLs tended to be not only slower, but also less effective (culminating in the Yellowjacket, which was, and largely remains, one of th more expensive ways to give your opponent a Gauss Rifle as salvage.)

The Vehicle Ground hit table.  (tracked, hover, wheeled).  This made running vee forces substantially different in style from running 'mechs, esp. at the higher end, since parking was a suicide pact under BMR, and slower vees were basically high-value targets.  Inferno rules espl. hold a place in my heart, because it underscored that your Alacorn was in danger from that COM-2D commando that came through the woods to catch it...

on 'paradigm'; the TW ground vehicle rules encourage 'bunkering' (Find a place to park, and wait a few hours for fire to penetrate your armor).  The old system's crit table was simple, easy to memorize, easy to teach, and could fit on the same paper with the damage diagram, thus making it less like a 'mech (which is a good thing, given the setting's emphasis on who is, after all, king of the battlefield).  Under total warfare, you could NOT afford to park  your vehicles the way you park  your Clanner Assault munchmek, and roll dice at medium range against someone else who is parking his clanner assault munchmek for an hour or two before it's time to go watch sportsball on ESPN.  The reason was, there was a weapon in play that would make you DIE if you stayed in one place after it missed you.  this makes for a much more fluid battlefield.  (make your survival roll, and move your ASS before it kills you is a more fluid battlefield.)

with VTOLs, there was a way to use them, and again, it wasn't 'park and shoot'-you needed high cruise, with long range weapons if you wanted to keep that VTOL useful. 



I do like how they added sideslip/skidding to Hovers, but they didn't need to change Infernoes vs. Vehicles or the hit tables on vees-those worked, you could run 3025 era mixed regiments in a single afternoon, and company level clashes in a couple hours using vees, things got decisive quickly.

« Last Edit: 22 April 2018, 17:52:57 by Cannonshop »
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25831
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #21 on: 22 April 2018, 17:52:56 »
Another one I am torn on.  AMS isn't effective enough against smaller missile launchers under current rules, streaks in general, but the reduced ammo consumption was an absolute godsend.  Though I'd be loathe to add another roll to the game when we already have so many.

On the other hand, under the old rules AMS wasn't very effective against large missile launchers, especially MRMs.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #22 on: 22 April 2018, 18:02:49 »
I think not being able to survive destruction of a section is flimsy enough, honestly.

Yeah.  Your results may vary.  The older ruleset was fine, IMO.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

klarg1

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2435
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #23 on: 23 April 2018, 07:53:58 »
I seem to be in the minority here, but I rather appreciate most of the changes in Total Warfare. I'll agree that the organization of the book is pretty lacking, but I like having the clarifications, edge cases and wrinkles spelled out, where possible. I'm also a fan of rules that encourage people to actually take advantage of vehicles, partial cover, etc.

To each their own, I guess.

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4498
    • Tower of Jade
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #24 on: 23 April 2018, 08:36:09 »
I seem to be in the minority here, but I rather appreciate most of the changes in Total Warfare. I'll agree that the organization of the book is pretty lacking, but I like having the clarifications, edge cases and wrinkles spelled out, where possible. I'm also a fan of rules that encourage people to actually take advantage of vehicles, partial cover, etc.

To each their own, I guess.

I'm going to agree with klarg on all points. Organization took a hit, but explicit is better than implied for me as well.
Be the Loremaster:

Battletech transport rules take a very feline approach to moving troops in a combat zone: If they fits, they ships.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your BT experience. Now what? (Thanks Sartis!)

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5856
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #25 on: 23 April 2018, 09:03:39 »
I feel that I am in the vast minority in this, but I greatly prefer the old partial cover rules. It's hard enough to land a hit in BattleTech as it is. Landing one only to waste time with another roll that negates it is frustrating at best.

You're not. It was equally exciting for both sides. I actually prefer them. You took a huge gamble taking it, but the reward looked pretty good. It was especially effective if you could also apply terrain, either natural (on the map woods) or applied (smoke).


I've gone back and forth on that myself.  I really hate mechanics where after I make my to hit roll I still miss but going straight punch table was a bit much.  So I'd be all for a compromise of some sort where leg locations just took reduced damage instead when rolled.  Could even vary it by what was in the way of the legs if one really wanted to as well.

Leg hits are treated as corresponding arm hits. Did that for an alternate setting, and my friends like it.

« Last Edit: 23 April 2018, 09:06:36 by Daemion »
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13286
  • I said don't look!
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #26 on: 23 April 2018, 09:18:29 »
Leg hits are treated as corresponding arm hits. Did that for an alternate setting, and my friends like it.

I wouldn't be opposed to that either for simplicity's sake but it creates a bit of a problem for quad mechs where there would be no getting around concentrating damage a bit unfairly which is why I think a reduced damage to the legs mechanic would be better.

Bedwyr

  • A Sticky Wicket
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10195
  • RIP. Again. And again. And again.
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #27 on: 23 April 2018, 10:20:50 »
That's a great addition, yes. But it also shows the futility in expanding rules to account for edge cases and "accidental" misreadings: many of the rules in question were worded just fine in the BMR. One of the most common mistaken rules is when re-rolling torso or arm critical hits (that is, you're supposed to re-roll both dice, not just one). It's been practically unchanged since Battledroids, yet folks still get it wrong!

You're not wrong, but I think that having rulings on edge cases is a good thing. Just probably the primary rule book shouldn't be the place to carry "case law". That's what the internet is for. It can store scads of data and information to clarify anything.
Alas poor Photobucket. I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25831
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #28 on: 23 April 2018, 10:22:08 »
If you want to simulate the old partial cover rules, just use the Aimed Shot rules from TacOps.  Mathematically it's identical.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

sadlerbw

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?
« Reply #29 on: 23 April 2018, 11:45:21 »
I kinda miss infernos being only for size-2 SRM racks. Don’t remember which ruleselt that came from, but it made the size-2 racks suck just a wee bit less.

I liked tanks and infantry being real squishy, but looking back I think that was as much because I could ignore them (and the extra rules associated with them) more easily when they were cannon fodder. These days I play mostly Alpha Strike, so I have less rules to remember in general, but I still feel like vehicles are a little too durable. Infantry...I guess standard infantry are plenty squishy with the right weapons, but I wouldn’t mind them being a little easier to take out, even with the wrong weapons. Again, less of an issue in AS, but BA especially can still be tough little boogers. I realize this is in direct conflict with what some other fans want. They want infantry to have a valid role on the battlefield. I just want them to make a satisfying crunch when you accidentally step on them. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

 

Register