Author Topic: BattleMech Manual input  (Read 50101 times)

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6820
  • BattleTech Line Developer
BattleMech Manual input
« on: 28 November 2016, 15:10:34 »
This is the thread for any input or suggestions for the BattleMech Manual. As Randall says below, "If you were leading this development, what rules would you want to see included from Tactical Operations, or Strategic Operations, or beyond? And what rules would you absolutely not want to see?"


Here's Randall's post in full:
Quote

I mentioned a few weeks back the coming of a new BattleTech rulebook in the BattleMech Manual.

Of the six rulebooks noted in that previous post, I was able to participate in half of them. Which means I’ve seen just about everything...every angle you can think of for how develop and present these rules. At least, that’s what was running in the back of my head when this all began.

However, one of my goals was to try things differently. Just because we’ve done it X and Y doesn’t mean we can’t do it better. Come at it from different angles. For example, unlike all six previous rulebooks, we took the text of this book and went to a select group of our demo agents and asked them to go over it with a fine-toothed comb. Not just to find potential issues, but to look at it in new ways. Different angles where we might present things in a new light for ease of not simply learning, but most importantly, for actually using it at the table.

Unequivocally I can say that that process has paid off in spades. Mary Kaempen (our lead BattleTech Demo Agent), along with the rest of the agents involved in this project, have significantly improved the quality of this rulebook. It really will be a different (and hopefully superior) experience to use this at the table.

Taking all of that into consideration, one of the bigger questions that was asked right up front and that we vacillated on all through the summer and fall development was what other parts to include. Yes, this is all about the BattleMech and needs to stay focused there. But even if you strip out everything else from Total Warfare, there’s a lot of rules that were previously included in the core rulebooks that for space and organization purposes where shunted off to books such as Tactical Operations and even Strategic Operations and beyond. Rules often used by the player base.

As I previously mentioned, my watch-word on this has been trying to create a book that “95 percent of the players will use 95 percent of the time.” So that means going beyond just Total Warfare into those other rulebooks and trying to bring in materials that fit within that watch-word above.

The discussions on that have been pretty intense at times as Keith Hann, Ray Arrastia (Xotl and Adrian Gideon on this forum, respectively) and I (along with input from Mary and her team) went round and round. [As an aside, Keith Hann is the BattleTech Errata Coordinator and due to some serendipitous simultaneous development on this project late last year, he’s stepped up in a monster way to help lead this development. And once again, he brought a very different perspective that should help set this book apart in usability. For example, while there’s some fun rules in those books that we might want to include, the complex and/or fiddly nature ultimately lead us to not include them.]

Ultimately, at every step, this has been about trying to embrace the community as much as possible. In reading and reviewing and remembering all the experiences over the last decade of what most player’s are using.

But now, we’d like to hear from you. If you were leading this development, what rules would you want to see included from Tactical Operations, or Strategic Operations, or beyond? And what rules would you absolutely not want to see?

Obviously there’s no way we can take every last feedback into consideration. But in that effort to hit the “95 percent of the players will use 95 percent of the time” we’d love your feedback.

Next time I’ll dive into more elements that were involved in the development, as well as starting to show off the layout.

Enjoy...and thanks in advance for your input!

Thanks for the feedback!
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

jimdigris

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8734
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #1 on: 28 November 2016, 16:36:09 »
I'd like to see all the artillery and mine field rules in one place.  Also, the weapons charts should have damage, range, heat, tonnage, critical spots, cost, and ammo costs all in the same chart.

Hammer

  • Numerorum Malleo
  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4101
    • MegaMek Website
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #2 on: 28 November 2016, 17:08:24 »
For rules that should be included.  They might need to be simplified but think they are important.

From TO:
Planetary Conditions TO pgs 28 - 68
Artillery TO 179- 186
Minefields TO 207- 210

From SO:
Quirks - 193 - 199  Logic behind this is if someone buys the BM and some of the later TROs they would see quirks and would be good to give them a reference to them.


MegaMek Projects Wiki
Bug Trackers
MegaMek Tracker
MekHQ Tracker
MegaMekLab Tracker
New Units and RAT's aren't added until after the 2 month release moratorium is passed.
Join the official MegaMek Discord

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #3 on: 28 November 2016, 17:27:56 »
Sufficient construction and repair rules to supplant the old Master Rules book. (A suggestion: on my own charts, I don't have a weapon type column; instead, I've used the "direct fire energy" etc. as the group headers for groups of rows.)

Better guidelines for linking scenarios or creating a simple campaign. Probably better guidelines for individual scenarios too, if you can swing that.

Not "forced withdrawal" or "clan honor rules," those should be replaced with more practical incentives built into the scenario or campaign guidelines. (I have a suggestion as to how, but I don't know if ideas not already found in published books are appropriate for this thread.)

The old physical attack rules - flat TN for all skill levels, punching is a little different - might be a worthwhile option. By no means necessary though.

If MechWarrior skill advancement is included, then Edge points should be also.

(A suggestion: I assume you're doing this already, but LOS should illustrated with a vertical section as well as the usual overhead view.)
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5796
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #4 on: 28 November 2016, 17:42:25 »
This might be a good opportunity to shore up all the advanced equipment from the various Dark Age TRos and Era Reports and whatever else they may be spread out in.

I'm sure you're including floating crits since 95% of the people I talk to seem to include that in their game.

A lot of the optional rules presented seem to weaken the mech in my mind, and I'm wondering if there's a way for you to bring back the power that set mechs apart from everyone else.

I hope you haven't forgotten all the things Mechs interact with on the map, like buildings and terrain.

If you're up for reconsidering things, maybe have a look at the old clearing woods rules from the BMR days, maybe the old partial cover rules, and other things to reduce record-keeping, but still keep the terrain modification aspect of BT Mech Combat.

Definitely include the campaign rules system, or a simplified version of.
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

Vampire_Seraphin

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 220
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #5 on: 28 November 2016, 18:00:23 »
For rules that should be included.  They might need to be simplified but think they are important.

From TO:
Planetary Conditions TO pgs 28 - 68
Artillery TO 179- 186
Minefields TO 207- 210

From SO:
Quirks - 193 - 199  Logic behind this is if someone buys the BM and some of the later TROs they would see quirks and would be good to give them a reference to them.

With a full list of quirks for Mechs, Aeros, Vees, and all other units from TRO 3039 please. These are the main units that form the core jumping off point for the franchise.
« Last Edit: 28 November 2016, 18:28:10 by Vampire_Seraphin »

Stinger

  • Freelance Artist
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1423
  • Artist, Writer, 3D Modeler Extraordinaire
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #6 on: 28 November 2016, 18:01:25 »
I fully recommend floating criticals.  I've only played without them 1 or 2 times.  They are an immense difference that feels really good with BattleTech.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7155
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #7 on: 28 November 2016, 18:05:18 »
Want
TO: Planetary Conditions (but compacted)
SO: Quirks
IO: Primitive Mechs
(old) Floating criticals

Don't Want
Costs (please find a way to abstract them away for campaigns)
Construction (replace with abstracted campaign repair rules)
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

fuzbuckle

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #8 on: 28 November 2016, 18:06:02 »
I second all of the mech weapons and equipment/construction rules under one roof.  The salvage & repair rules from SO.  Fire & Smoke.  Mechwarrior specific SPAs, and Mech specific design quirks.  Battlemech miniature conversion rules.
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain!

c_gee

  • Number of the Be(a)st!
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 95
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #9 on: 28 November 2016, 18:11:34 »
When I think about the 95% majority of all the tabletop games I've run or played in in the last 5 years or so, I think the only things outside TW that I really ever needed the majority of the time were these:

Artillery rules (TacOps)
Mines (TacOps)
Floating Crits rules (TacOps)
Sprinting rules (TacOpcs)
Stacking 20's and weight class modified PSR rules (TacOps)
LAM rules (can't remember where they are now - Strat Ops?)
Infantry Field Gun rules (Strat Ops?) - Obviously this is not Mech-related.
Alternate munition rules (TacOps)
Experimental/Newer Tech like Tri-pod rules, Hardened Armor, Quad-Vees, etc (various)



I really don't want to start a discussion on the following points, but I still feel the need to ask:

1) Please fix the Ultra-AC jamming forever rule.

RACs can unjam and MASC failure isn't as brutal as it once was. Isn't it time to fix the Ultra AC jamming rule?  :)

2) Please fix the ThunderLRM-Vibramine rules from TacOps. They're broken AF.
 
Firing a pair of LRM-20's with Thunder-Vibramines that are set as low as possible at a hex with an enemy occupying it, and then, losing initiative and charging your largest unit closer and setting them off BEFORE the enemy can even move is so wrong.  You can AUTOMATICALLY take a leg off of a light or medium mech that you likely would have had a hard time hitting thanks to its speed.

You basically get a -4 to hit the hex, don't have to worry about target move mods, and depending on who wins initiative, you either automatically wreck your enemy's legs OR you force the enemy in that hex to move immediately or else he risks taking auto-damage to the legs. If there's two enemies in that hex, or if you mined two different enemy-occupied hexes on the same turn, you're guaranteed to score auto-damage to at least 1 unit as your enemy won't be able to move one unit before you can charge your "mine-setter-offer" closer.

There's no way that, outside of having extreme pilots (which you pay for), extreme pulse laser/TC combos (again, which you pay for) or having an enemy pilot immobilized, you should be able to get free damage on your enemy... Especially free damage to his legs (which, usually are one of the hardest spots to hit).
« Last Edit: 28 November 2016, 18:28:22 by c_gee »
Demo Agent #666
Vancouver, Canada

Vampire_Seraphin

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 220
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #10 on: 28 November 2016, 18:18:01 »
For the beyond bit there, if that means ideas for whole new systems, I'd like to see a new optional scoring system that encourages playing using faction motifs.

For the clans, their half would be an honor system, eg +30 points for each starting mech fewer than your opponent, +25 pts for killing an enemy with only one unit, killed an enemy with battlemech talons as a Jade Falcon +20, etc... The system should be weighted heavily toward honorable clan practices, but only lightly towards objectives. Eg, the flat kill score might be worth only 25% of a solo kill's points.

The Inner Sphere half could flip and focus on objectives, with heavy points for missions or faction themes, eg +30 points for killed objective building, +20 points for used a tank in a Davion army, all units have C3I as WOB +10,  etc... Clan style themes like solo kills would be worth only marginal points compared to areas of greater IS interest like raw kill totals.

The main idea being to create an optional system where its not just fun to play to your faction's style, its downright mechanically beneficial.

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9102
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #11 on: 28 November 2016, 19:00:46 »
I really, really recommending making a beta-version available to minimize errors in the final product.

EDIT Revising some stuff

Total Warfare and general stuff:
-Buildings (TW pg 167), urban combat is a fact of life.
-Scenario creating guidelines.
-Standard rules relevant for scenarios, such as carrying and lifting stuff, hidden units.
-Make sure to enable these to be used without a GM, assume smart, co-operative players.
-Basic linked scenarios, "Campaigns" along with XP points for MechWarriors.
-Clan Honor should be included but perhaps include a more clear, game-like form too?
-All equipment rules classed as Tournament Legal or Advanced in 3150 or later. There are also several experimental technologies that would be nice to have (such as RISC APDS, Interface Cockpit, Void Signature System, and other such used in some XTROs), on the other hand, prototype systems are irrelevant (eg Clan-tech prototypes, Age of War of prototypes).
-(Armed) Industrial 'Mechs should be included as an option, especially for those playing the early Dark Age sub-era.
-Keep art limited, minimalistic. No full page or half-page pictures that have no purpose beyond looking cool. Art style should be coherent. Art should never bump important information to another page or interrupt the flow of information.
-Rule addition: allow flamers to deal both damage and heat at once?


Tactical Operations:
-Planetary Conditions (TO pg 28-68).
   *Exclude extreme depths and bug storms as too odd and/or specialized.
   *Simplify fire and smoke.
   *At very least include some of the additional terrain types and time of day and weather modifiers.
-Advanced Determining Critical Hits, Expanded Critical Damage (TO pg 75-76 [and the relevant tables, of course]).
-Called Shots (TO pg 78).
-Extreme Range (TO pg 85).
-Expanded Reversing (Flipping) Arms (TO pg 87).
-Other Combat Weapons and Equipment (TO pg 99-104), everything in the section.
-Rerouting Heat Sink Coolant and Heat Sink Coolant Failure (TO pg 105).
-Artillery (TO 179-186), simplified?
-Minefields (TO 207-210), include ability to pre-place them?


Strategic Operations:
-Simplified customization (SO pg 188->) rules for players to use if they use experience gaining and keep existing pilots between scenarios. Maybe no rolling dice required but instruct players to establish what level of field refits is allowed.
-Design Quirks, include any added in TROs etc. Logically part of the construction rules. (SO pg 193-199)


Interstellar Operations and related:
-Direct Neural Interface. (IO pg 68)
-SLDF Advanced Neurohelmet. (IO pg 68-69)
-Clan Enhanced Imaging system. (IO pg 75)
-Possibly simplified Manei Domini for Jihad era games like in Jihad: Blake Secrets.


Absolutely no:
-Strategic Operations stuff except for customization which i've described above. This would be clutter in a book that is more or less a basic 'Mech rules book.
-Campaign stuff beyond simple linked scenarios arguably can be found in Strategic Operations and Campaign Operations. Clutter for 'Mech rules.
-No BattleForce, Alpha Strike. This isn't about quick-playing system or large scale stuff.
-No short stories beyond perhaps opening fiction. Unnecessary. Small fluff side-bars are acceptable and perhaps even recommended, they're what sold me on BT long ago after all.


Unsure if exclude or include:
-LAMs and QuadVees. Their nature as hybrids makes them questionable for a book about 'Mechs since they rely on vehicle and aerospace rules.  On the other hand, they are 'Mechs and their special rules are mostly expansions to 'Mech rules. And LAMs transforming into fighter-mode can be treated as leaving the gaming area and counting as destroyed/retreated units.
-Super Heavy 'Mechs are just too specialized and rare, as cool as they are. On the other hand, they're but slight expansions to normal 'Mech rules.


Might have other ideas later.
EDIT Added a couple of points.
EDIT Another couple of points, from Interstellar Operations.
EDIT Removed irrelevant stuff i have no real opinion about.
« Last Edit: 30 November 2016, 09:31:46 by Empyrus »

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #12 on: 28 November 2016, 19:36:30 »
Not so much rules, but TABLES.  Having a consolidated table of all the available equipment in one place (spread across two pages like in TacOps and IO, with a column for the main book reference) would be invaluable, even away from the gaming table.

Most of the rules I have issues with are aerospace related, but I do recommend including LAMs in the book.  And throw my vote in the kitty for quirks.

Kharim

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #13 on: 28 November 2016, 20:04:50 »
Rules from TacOps I think might be usefull:
-Floating criticals
-Advanced determining critical hits table.
-Active Probes aid targeting
-Eccm and ghost targets for ECM
-Weight class physical attack modifier
-TacOps Taking damage psr modifier (+1 for every 20)
-Taking damage weight class psr modifier
-Mines
-Artillery

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #14 on: 28 November 2016, 20:46:52 »
*snip*
-Active Probes aid targeting
*snip*
I totally missed that one... It should definitely go in the new book!

Also, throw my vote in the kitty for no fiction.  If the intent is a rulebook for tabletop use, fiction has no place in it.

JadedFalcon

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 868
  • Wins at Battleteching
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #15 on: 28 November 2016, 21:31:34 »
In favor of including mines on the condition that Thunder LRMs are also included. Otherwise, why have them in a mech-only book? One option is to only include rules for conventional mines and leave the rest as part of the TacOps upsell.

Other recommendations:

- ECCM rules (TacOps)

- Powering down Gauss rifles (TacOps)

- Careful Stand (TacOps)

- Rapid-Fire Mode rules for Machineguns (TacOps)

- Including common weapons and equipment for all eras would be nice (namely Dark Age, Jihad, Age of War).

Please no Fumbles.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24877
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #16 on: 28 November 2016, 21:44:41 »
Wants
Tac Ops - Vehicle Effectiveness
We don't need a lot of rules for vehicles in a BattleMech book, but I'd like see it put into a regular rules. Keeps making a 15 million C-bill tank become enviable pillar box and fiery explosion.

Don't Wants
Less wordy explanations on how things work. The old Battletech Manual Revised rules kept it simple and to the point. Total Warfare book can handle the in-dept stuff.

"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #17 on: 28 November 2016, 22:46:41 »
This is actually Tech Manual, but I think it's pretty important with the goal of making is a single (Basic) book for 'Mech combat, the Game Rules section for each piece of equipment should be added, in particular the bit about Heat Sinks working even if the 'Mech is shut down.

Beyond that, if a rule or piece of equipment is Advanced or Experimental I think it should be kept OUT of this book, or at the very least kept optional, so as to avoid fights over what rules people should be playing with

Sigil

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 807
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #18 on: 28 November 2016, 22:50:33 »
'Mech Construction
Tables of all 'Mech-based Weapons and Equipment including era availability, cost, critical slots, weight, damage, ranges, etc
Maintenance, Salvage, Repair and Customization
Land-Air-Mechs
Alternate Munitions



Wolf Reaper

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1516
  • Malo Mori Quam Foedari - Death Before Dishonor
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #19 on: 28 November 2016, 22:52:24 »
I would love to see the rules we use for of our games in Chicago.
Floating Crits
Tac Ops Engine explosions
+1 to Piloting for every 20 pts of damage (Not modified by weight)
One arm prop fire
Careful stand
Backward elevation changes

This tends to add flavor to our games and everyone seem to enjoy it.

As an agent, I would not need the construction rules. We have a book for that one. :)
Star Colonel Vladik Ward
318th Wolf Striker Cluster
"The Blood Pack"


Sic Vis Pacem Parabellum  -"Those who seek peace, prepare for war."
"Grant me stillness and serenity as my enemies pound and howl." -Incantation against bombardment

Probable Koz

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • C'mon Alpha Strike Box...
    • Video Battle Reports
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #20 on: 28 November 2016, 22:52:49 »
I think the biggest thing is to keep the Rules tight and approachable for the new blood that could potentially come into the game.

The Main Rule Book should be your gateway into this world.
Catalyst Demo Agent #806 - Nashville, Tennessee

In the Middle Tennessee area? On Facebook? Find us on the Middle Tennessee Battletech Group

Check out my YouTube page for Alpha Strike and Classic Battletech Battle Reports!

https://www.youtube.com/user/ProbableKoz

jackpot4

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 666
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #21 on: 28 November 2016, 22:53:28 »
If this book is intended to be used 95% of the time then I think we need to look at smaller scale.  Battlemechs, Vehicles, and Infantry (BA and Conventional).

In our group, we have never used aerospace or artillery and after two years have only recently expanded to vehicles and BA from Battlemechs. 

The first chapter(s) could cover Battlemechs ins and outs, next for vehicles, next for infantry (All of these should be base rules.  There is opportunity for a chapter afterwards that is divided up into more common advanced rules that could be implemented such as floating crits, TacOps vehicle rules, etc.).  After that I would go into planetary conditions.  Beyond that I would have a scenario building chapter, maybe introduction to campaign building and the Chaos Campaign rules with Support Points and Warchest Points.  Perhaps finish it off with pilot and lance type abilities scaled down to a chart that lists the abilities and their modifiers, none of the fluff or explanations like in Campaign Ops. 

We have 4-6 hour play times and even with these three types of units, we run to the very end, many times without a defined conclusion.  Throwing in aerospace, artillery, and other things wouldn't suite a 4-6 hour play time in my opinion. 
« Last Edit: 28 November 2016, 22:56:54 by jackpot4 »
Truth is treason in an empire of lies.

Be the Light in the darkness.

cavingjan

  • Spelunca Custos
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4470
    • warrenborn
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #22 on: 28 November 2016, 23:05:17 »
Simple artillery and air strike rules that can be used as X number of air strikes or Y number of artillery strikes.

Lionheart

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 190
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #23 on: 29 November 2016, 00:07:46 »
We always play with floating crits, but I have a slight problem with them. 
If Mech A and Mech B have the same BV and Xl engines, but A is all energy weapons, and B is all Ballistic, then B is most likely subject to a floating crit instant death, where as A is not. 
This should be reflected in their respective BVs, but I have no idea how to make that work.

Also, a charge attack should do more damage to the charger.  It should be an attack of last resort type of thing, not a the best offensive tactic which it often is for several mechs.  See the Fireball etc...

Careful stand, One arm prop-fire, and backwards elevations changes are all good things to include. 

Because I am huge into the backstory of the game system, I love playing historical fights.  But this should NOT be emphasized in the basic rules.  The breadth and depth of the fiction is WAY to daunting for new player.  The separation of the mechs into Eras (succession wars, Clan Invasion) is fine, but those terms should also come with year emphasis to avoid a new player not understanding what they mean.
Catalyst Demo Agent #62

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13013
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #24 on: 29 November 2016, 00:42:40 »
"If you were leading this development, what rules would you want to see included from Tactical Operations, or Strategic Operations, or beyond? And what rules would you absolutely not want to see?"

After a quick look at the ToC, these are the items that I feel are both common enough & relate directly to mechs to warrant being in the BMM.                     
                     
TacOps:                     
   Advanced Ground Movement:                   
      Standing Still, Sprinting, Evading, Backward Movement, Crawling               
      Terrain:  Smoke & Fire               
      Careful Movement               
      Extreme Temperatures & Heat Scale Modifiers               
   Advanced Combat:                  
      Floating Crits               
      ALL Eras Weapons/Equipment               
   General Rules:                  
      Ejection               
      Minefields               
      Rolling Maps               
      Concealing Info               
      Underwater Combat               


Surprisingly, There was NOTHING in Strat Ops that I felt needed to be in the BattleMECH Manual.
                     

What don't I want to see? 
Anything not listed above  ;).
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19827
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #25 on: 29 November 2016, 09:53:09 »
Wants:
-Tournament-legal gear for 3150
-Off-board artillery
-Ejection
-Minefields
-Smoke, fire
-Rolling Maps
-Called shots
-Backing up downhill (TO, 22)
-Firing while down with one arm missing (TO, 85)
-Floating Crits
-Combat Drops (SO, 22)


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?

SeeM

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 339
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #26 on: 29 November 2016, 14:02:16 »
From what I just have read, people want a Compedium Revised.
(+)

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5817
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #27 on: 29 November 2016, 15:15:12 »
From what I just have read, people want a Compedium Revised.

Pretty much.


For my two cents...

Yes
Construction
Ejection
Minefields
Tourney-legal weapons & equipment only
Artillery
Floating Crits
Combat Drops
Any backwards movement
Planetary conditions (high/low temp, etc)
Salvage/Repair

No
LAMs
Warchest/Campaign rules (beyond salvage & repair)
Any weapons/equipment not tourney legal
Excessive fluff/short stories/background

I would also like to see advanced terrain simplified, but that is a wishlist for another book. 
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #28 on: 29 November 2016, 15:26:28 »
In case people haven't read Randall's earlier tumblr post, or otherwise followed some of the discussion on the book:

The BattleMech Manual is about mechs, period (hence the name).  It will not contain anything on infantry, battle armour, protos, vehicles, etc.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6324
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #29 on: 29 November 2016, 17:47:19 »
Hopefully no 'Construction rules'

That is the providence of the TECH MANUAL

Please make BMM mechs and nothing but mechs.

Rules on Buildings and how they pertain Mechs: YES
Rules on Buildings and how they pertain to infantry: NO
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

cmoreland

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 92
  • I've got a gut feeling in my stomach...
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #30 on: 29 November 2016, 23:25:58 »
My opinion as a player that has only ever played with Battlemechs and not tanks, VTOLS, LAMs etc and these thoughts are based on games I've played with my son since he was 5 and is now 10.

- Ejection rules clarification. We have no idea how this works and it would be nice for clarification there and it should be very important toward the end of a battle. We naturally have always wondered how this works
- Clarification on line of sight next to cliffs etc. Can a 'mech REALLY see the other 'mech if it's one or even two hexes away but more than 2 levels above it? Always seemed obscure and house rules nearly always apply here
- I know what the answer is here, but I had to look all over the place to figure out if a 'mech could run backwards or if it could back into water or if it could run forwards into a woods hex (still counting the two MP of course)
- Confused the dog out of me while learning the game with regard to assigning crits. There are parts of the Battlemech innards that have -no critical slot-...so do you just keep re-rolling until you hit the 1 or 2 critical slots that exist in say, the upper arm? What if you potentially roll 15 times without rolling a 1 or a 2? lol. It's a bit confusing for newer players and the rules left something to be desired there.
- Easier to understand rules on a falling 'mech. What does two hexsides right even mean? Is the 'mech on it's back or on its front or lying on its side? I don't know haha!

Well that's about all I can think of off the top of my head. Like I said, I know the answer to most of these now, but the wording could be worked on or elaborated on I think to help newbies out. THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS! :)

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #31 on: 30 November 2016, 05:22:40 »
In case people haven't read Randall's earlier tumblr post, or otherwise followed some of the discussion on the book:

The BattleMech Manual is about mechs, period (hence the name).  It will not contain anything on infantry, battle armour, protos, vehicles, etc.
I can't find the post right now, but 'Mechs only means this volume EXCLUDES LAMS because they depend on so much stuff that is outside of scope for this book (Like Aero)(I believe that also extends to cover QuadVees as well)

Also no infantry means no ejecting, or at least no rules for what happens to the 'Warrior once he's out of his 'Mech, because that's all we're interested in.

Ice_Trey

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 671
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #32 on: 30 November 2016, 06:51:13 »
On the subject of 95% of the players 95% of the time, I'm only going to talk about my own experiences, and how I have used each of the books. In order to help to make the best product possible, I need to offer criticism on what I think needed work. I don't want to poo-poo on Catalyst or it's authors.

CAVEAT: Don't mind the Battlemaster. I am speaking as a player. I have no more authority over things than any other run-of-the-mill player. Being demo team just makes things easier to help teach new players how to play.

First of all, I do not do campaign games. Campaigns work when you have a venue that is your own. Probably your own house. You have to wrangle cats to get everyone in the same spot, and as soon as one of those cats starts getting bored, the whole thing collapses in on itself. The GM always has to be there to run the other guys through the game, and play mooks, rather than allowing each player to fight other players on their own time. Combine that with all the crunch in the standard Battletech campaign system (Not to say I'm not enamoured by the idea, but I'd have an easier time finding Sasquatch than someone to be my GM for a Battletech Campaign) and it really does make more sense for me to stick to pick-up games at an LGS. That has been the play style I have used most frequently. Scenario games that I run at cons do use a lot more content from the other books, but those are for planning, prepared ahead of time at home, not made up on the spot. The things I need when running the scenarios have proven to be the same, or less, than for pick-up games.

Tech Level:
I love keeping up with the latest tech, but for every pick-up-game where I get to play with the newest toys, there are another ten where I'm getting shoehorned into using tech from the clan invasion or earlier. This is either due to players' inexperience with the game and needing to be weaned into it at introbox level, or because they're the grognardy-type who bought things 20 years ago and they'll be explitive verbed if they ever have to spend money again. Lots of Introductory, A good amount of Tournament Level, Advanced/Experimental, besides artillery, I've never used in a tabletop game. I will use any Adv/Exp gear introduced in this rulebook, though. It's more about not having to lug extra weight or concede to extra rule use.

Total Warfare: Most of the rules come into play in Total Warfare, though buildings have often been treated as impenetrable concrete bricks. Most of melee gets used, too, but I have never seen anyone use a club in the game - ever. Neither tree, girder, or mech limb. I have never seen anyone use Semi-Guided LRMs, but that might be in part because many people still think that TAG counts as spotting for indirect fire, and it's not explicitly said well enough that spotting and designating are different things, making the extra BV costs for SG LRMs not worth it to them. Also Missile-related? One Shot launchers have been all but unused for years due to inefficiency, so most players don't realise that they can't explode from crit hits or overheating. Being clear about that is important. C3 Networks had small wording changes that made huge changes on gameplay. For a while, C3 could be spotted without LOS between the closest mech and the target (Attacker needs LOS though). This was almost enough to make C3 worth the brutal BV costs. Later, it was written back to requiring LOS for the closest mech. It really makes C3 little more than a white elephant in a BV-based pickup game, that way. Industrial Mechs never got used, nor the equipment that they usually carry. All the Combines and Chainsaws and Mining Drills were dead weight. Same can be said of Support Vehicles, and all the Aerospace stuff. VTOL is OK, but there aren't enough VTOL in the game that have minis for it to have ever come into play. WiGE rules I still haven't used, and they're kind of tough to wrap my head around.  Speaking of unused things: Rail. There are no train minis. There are no maps with traintracks. Not sure why this wasn't TacOps'd
I did not like the inclusion of Miniatures assembly and painting tips, as it really isn't something I need at an LGS, and doesn't do much but add page-count. It should be reserved for an introbox, website, or miniatures rules book.
The mission types in the "Creating Scenarios" was nice, but some need more clarification or to be reworked. Most of the scenarios sound like "Kill'em all" with differing start points. I'd love to use hidden units rules, but when both sides' objective is "kill'em all", I can't see justification for the defenders needing to have half the BV of the attackers, even if they can hide some of their units.
I love RATs both as a means to have randomly selected forces, and as a means to know what kind of mechs each side should have, but I think greater care is needed in balancing the quality of mechs in each RAT. In all honesty, though, RATs don't see use in my games, because it means you don't know in advance what it is you need to bring to the LGS in terms of record sheets, and unless you're buying dozens of each, you don't know how many of each mini you need before you're forced to proxy. RATs are fantastic as part of campaigns and RPGs, and I think it's a must have. As part of a pickup game away from the comforts and resources of home? Never.
There are a lot of people who still prefer older editions of BMR over Total Warfare, but most of those complaints are about layout and difficulty of finding rules. I'm inclined to agree that TW's layout and ease of use is lacking, but I LOVED a lot of the changes that were made in TW. Partial cover not being a handicap? Falling in water doing half-damage? Machine Guns and Flamers being useful at anti-infantry work? Superb. Vees, BA, and Infantry being made viable alternatives oh my yes. The index, however... That was the biggest issue. I remember finding no entry for Improved Jump Jets, but for some reason, there was an entry for Pin Vice.
Lastly... Personal taste... I really prefer to see artwork in books. Illustrations, especially full color ones, are WAY more exciting and dynamic to me than pictures of minis. Later rulebooks get the hang of minis dioramas that look interesting, but much of Total Warfare looked like snapshots of any old miniatures-rules pickup game and didn't feel exciting or dynamic enough. By TacOps and beyond, the dioramas started looking like real dioramas, but all things considered, I'd still rather see some art from Alex Iglesias or Anthony Scroggins in there.

TechManual: I'll be honest, save for calculating the BV of a force, this book has been almost completely unused by me. Checking the production year of some equipment was handy, but it's otherwise meh. We've had mech editing programs for years, and it's way more convenient and clean-looking than churning record sheets off by hand. Further, it's too time consuming to be doing that before a pick-up game. I am glad that they put the construction rules in their own book. That's another 10-50 pages (Depending on how many unit types and level of equipment) of unused rules I don't need to lug around. Calculating how much BV a force costs, though? HUGELY important for playing pick-up games. There was a short, "blink and you miss it" blurb in Total Warfare that a lance should be about 6000 BV, but clearly stating some "Standard BV Values" for players who are trying to build their first mech lance/star for use at an LGS would save them a lot of grief. Scaling these values (or tips for scaling these values) to make play between IS and Clans faster and easier would be a good idea.  I'd also suggest some BV tweaks/errata for C3 networks, while we're at it. A C3 lance isn't good. A Level II isn't great, but at least C3i is less fragile. A C3 company is just outright brokenly bad and why I hate double-master mechs with a passion.
Reminding players that Clan mechs' record sheets are pre-calculated as though they had a 4/5 mechwarrior, and not a clan-standard 3/4 mechwarrior, would get me out of some unpleasant conversations I had in the past.
One thing not included in Techmanual/TotalWarfare that should be included: Game-organising etiquette. Clarification that whether or not custom mechs are expected to be permissible for use in a pick-up game without prior agreement. Whether or not the team behind Battletech want to put their foot down on whether or not custom mechs are tournament legal is fine, but more importantly is what is to be expected as the default game. For example, if I show up to a pickup game with a stock lance of mechs with 3025 tech, I don't think anyone's going to complain, but if all of those mechs are min-maxed custom builds using Jihad-era Tournament-level tech, I'm pretty sure that some folks would take issue with having to fight against it with the stock 'mech record sheets they printed off. On that note, with the fluff for Omnimechs, are players allowed to customize the pod space however they like before a match without asking, or is the default to stick to the canon configurations? Likewise, if someone has a star of clan mechs at 15000 BV, and the other guy only shows up with a lance of 3025-mechs valued at 5000 BV... Different people have different tastes, and agreeing in advance on things is the best way to go, but having a clear setup of "If we didn't talk it out before the game, what are the guidelines I should follow for preparing for a pickup game" should be listed.

Tactical Operations: I wanted to use this book more often, but it was a whole lot of book for something that I would need to pick and choose rules from. I felt it better to just say "Total warfare, final destination" than having players pick and choose rules that benefit only them. I have had bad experiences with hells horses players refusing to play unless enhanced vehicle survivability rules were in play. I wouldn't mind rules like those if they came with positives and negatives, but outright improving something with no drawbacks might as well be throwing BV out the window. Having the equipment would be nice, but the extra rules are just points of contention and aren't really needed.
In theory, variable weather sounds fun and awesome. In practice, pretty much everything means "your shooting is even worse, now". Good for adding flavor to scenario games, but overall seems like overkill when TNs are often already at 10+ with regular warriors.

Strategic Operations: Only for Campaigns. I felt like the Repair/Refit/Customization rules in here should have been included in Techmanual, because so many players treat mechs like nothing but a mass of lego bricks. If my suggestion for not having construction rules in BMM goes ignored, at least include the Refit/Customization rules, too.

Interstellar Ops: Some of the era-related tech was interesting and could be handy for sculpting scenario games, but again, nothing there is something I need for a pick-up game.

Campaign Operations
For campaigns. No duh. That being said, if you guys want to beat me to building a simple, No-GM, come-as-you-please pickup game campaign system that allows players to use whatever minis they have/want and can be taped to and tracked on the wall of an LGS (and no, not the whole wall), I'm all for it being included.
« Last Edit: 30 November 2016, 08:27:01 by Ice_Trey »

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5796
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #33 on: 30 November 2016, 09:32:12 »
Quick question/suggestion:

Did the alternate sensor modes from the Tac Handbook get reprinted somewhere? If not, that would be a neat addition, imo.
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

Descronan

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • "No multi-pass."
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #34 on: 30 November 2016, 11:43:52 »
I want to state this ahead of time - I love Battletech and I want it to succeed. But...

I've been reading and buying several recent books and one thing stands out. Formulas are unnecessarily complex and the number of steps needed to come up with resolutions takes too many steps.

Please, please, please, look at the success of Alpha Strike. Simplify, streamline, and look for ways to make your books more ACCESSIBLE by more people. If the books are easier to use and digest, you will sell more books. But if you cater to the uber-fan, you're shooting yourself in the foot. Focus on the least common denominator AND THEN add details that the 1% fan wants. That means we need standards that everyone can agree to. If you'e going to use Cbills as the currency, then everything needs a price reference. If its based on BV, then everything needs a BV. And if its PV, then everything needs a PV. Or at MINIMUM, provide an official conversion so we can "ball park" figures.

I also realize that you've locked yourselves into a d6, which is highly restrictive. Consider adding other die types to streamline some rolls or move to a tiered 1d6 system for some tables like you did with Critical Hits on mech sheets. With a 2-layer table system you can offer 36 different results. With 3-tiers, that's up to 216 possible outcomes.

Mission Type (6) - Mission (36) - Objective (216)

Lastly, each book should be self-contained. It is fine to reference another book for more details, but if you're making a book on Infantry, for example, it should be the definitive book. We should not have to flip to another book to get a table or reference a chart. Likewise, if the resource is online, give us the full URL.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #35 on: 30 November 2016, 12:01:33 »
Hi all.  Something else that needs to be clarified (my apologies for failing to do so in my earlier post) is that this is most definitely NOT a new edition.  As such, rules changes will be next to none (and any that do appear will be backported to TW via errata).

The idea is that you're getting a reformatting of the existing rules for mechs, rather than a whole new version of the game, and we're looking for feedback on how exactly to best accomplish only this goal.  Thanks.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

CampaignAnon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Living the Meme...
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #36 on: 30 November 2016, 20:13:30 »
Please, please, please, look at the success of Alpha Strike. Simplify, streamline, and look for ways to make your books more ACCESSIBLE by more people. If the books are easier to use and digest, you will sell more books. But if you cater to the uber-fan, you're shooting yourself in the foot. Focus on the least common denominator AND THEN add details that the 1% fan wants.

Alpha Strike is Alpha Strike. I think mixing the two might hurt in its own way. If only because a lot of people have already invested a lot of time in playing the old game. It might be interesting, but I like the original game more. But who knows, some cool ideas might come out of it.
« Last Edit: 30 November 2016, 20:29:36 by CampaignAnon »

Ice_Trey

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 671
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #37 on: 01 December 2016, 03:06:32 »
Agreed.

Though Campaign Operations might have been better laid out to have the Chaos campaign system listed first, and the full-detail system towards the back. Give the simple system for those who don't like the crunch first, and if they keep reading on, the real-deal for those who want the complete minutia.


Descronan

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • "No multi-pass."
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #38 on: 01 December 2016, 09:53:37 »
I want to see external, disposable weapons. An Atlas has hands and can carry 10 tons of weight without being slowed so why not give it an external AC2 or 5 with 1 ton of ammo? Likewise, a large laser with a battery would give it just enough ammo for a single engagement.

You could also have various levels of external armor. This stuff doesn't HAVE to be included in the mech's design weight. That's why they have hands and arms. Give us more stuff to pick up and use in combat. 

Descronan

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • "No multi-pass."
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #39 on: 01 December 2016, 11:10:21 »
Alpha Strike is Alpha Strike. I think mixing the two might hurt in its own way. If only because a lot of people have already invested a lot of time in playing the old game. It might be interesting, but I like the original game more. But who knows, some cool ideas might come out of it.

You're missing the point of that request. I'm not asking for you to do Alpha Strike, just learn the lessons from it. By streamlining I mean cut out unnecessary rules and rolls and simplify calculations. If you have a calculation that says Divide by X then multiply by Y, then do the calculations for us. There's no reason to have your players do the extra steps.

The specific example I can cite off the top of my head is in Campaign Ops. The rule says to add up the number of light-years between points and divide by 30, then multiply that result by 1.2 to represent average deviation. That could be simplified by saying "Divide by 25". Do the math so your players don't have to. (Note, I'm not complaining about the rule, but the added calculation step)

Bottom line, if it isn't NEEDED for game balance or other purposes, cut out the clutter.

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9102
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #40 on: 01 December 2016, 11:17:47 »
Descronan, this book isn't doing rules changes or adding new stuff, like those "external weapons/armor" you suggest. Those don't exists in current rules, thus they're not being added. (Well, there are handheld weapons... they might get added but then they're existing rules.)
Just a rulebook with rules pertaining to playing with BattleMechs, nothing else.

Streamlining here probably only happens by clarifying rules and cutting out non-'Mech stuff.
It is not a new edition of Battletech.

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6820
  • BattleTech Line Developer
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #41 on: 01 December 2016, 11:28:15 »
Yeah Descronan, I think you know from FB that I'm with you on that 100%, but this isn't the book for it, that's not the mission statement.

The BattleMech Manual takes the core books and condenses down the most used rules—for BattleMechs only—into an easy-reference guide for using during play. It's not a rewrite of the rules, there are very few new rules*, and isn't meant to be a gateway for inexperienced players(though we've tried our best to keep them in mind).

*That said, there is a very new set of optional rules within one chapter that I think many people will love, and will certainly adapt pretty easily to Alpha Strike, BattleForce, and beyond.
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

Pat Payne

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1435
  • 352nd Combat Group -- Ex cinis ad astra
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #42 on: 01 December 2016, 17:09:32 »
*That said, there is a very new set of optional rules within one chapter that I think many people will love, and will certainly adapt pretty easily to Alpha Strike, BattleForce, and beyond.

OK, you have my attention now... :)

Descronan

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • "No multi-pass."
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #43 on: 01 December 2016, 19:17:02 »
 O0 Understood. Just throwing my 2 cents in. Hope it helps for future endeavors. I'm one for trying to stretch the limits of what we can do with this game so any and all ideas I've got are free of charge :D

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10106
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #44 on: 02 December 2016, 08:18:02 »
Better quirk list.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5817
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #45 on: 02 December 2016, 09:10:56 »
*That said, there is a very new set of optional rules within one chapter that I think many people will love, and will certainly adapt pretty easily to Alpha Strike, BattleForce, and beyond.

Interesting.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

jackpot4

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 666
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #46 on: 02 December 2016, 10:57:55 »
Going off my previous post, if this book is to be used 95% of the time I really think that more in depth explanations of rules is necessary, for instance I had to get clarification from the forums about mechs falling and how their facing is determined. 

Kind of similar to my post earlier, keeping it simple is best.  The first chapter can cover basics such as mech height, movement, movement through various terrain, falling, facings, etc.  A second chapter could be all about combat, shooting to physicals and heat, as well as diagrams showing and explaining where shots are going and where shots are coming from both standing and prone.  A third chapter could cover advanced rules for mechs from TacOps.  A fourth chapter could cover the various pilot abilities and lance abilities/modifiers, this could be compiled into a chart without fiction to ease the use of just finding the numbers.

I think these are the most relevant concepts.
Truth is treason in an empire of lies.

Be the Light in the darkness.

Karasu

  • Mecharcheologist by appointment
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 833
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #47 on: 02 December 2016, 11:59:34 »
Somewhere near the beginning should be one (or more) basic scenarios, the 'Here's how to play the game without any other planning'.  Possibly some sort of patrol encounter: "Two lances on patrol in no-man's land encounter each other and fight."

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #48 on: 02 December 2016, 14:47:30 »
For getting rid of " unnecessary rules and rolls" would probably begin by nerfing LB-X's, I can't think of a single item that slows gameplay down more.

And rules for carrying weapons in hands already exist.

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9102
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #49 on: 02 December 2016, 15:06:11 »
For getting rid of " unnecessary rules and rolls" would probably begin by nerfing LB-X's, I can't think of a single item that slows gameplay down more.

Build a box of death. Roll 10x2d6 at once and things get easier.

Pretty sure that belongs to group of "rule changes, not happening".

Oh, and try massive numbers for Swarm missiles...

StoneRhino

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2269
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #50 on: 03 December 2016, 00:31:20 »
Personally I hate the idea of this book. The reason is that it is focused on a single unit type, which reinforces the problem that the game has had in the past which is to make the mech something beyond every other unit type. Strangely the mech is not critted very often compared to how many moving parts it has and the need to armor those while still making them mobile. MaxTech then TW moved in the right direction. A book focused on mechs only just pushes to reset things, which makes the game 2D.

To keep the page count down just drop the stories. BT compendium:RoW used sidebars instead of stories that took up a few pages each, but still gave players nuggets of fluff to get their interest while infusing the book with some connection to the story of the game.


Martius

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1849
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #51 on: 03 December 2016, 09:35:01 »
Add advanced AMS rules and the rules about Probes helping with targetting as wehh as the Ghost targets rules.

Those add utility to pieces of equipment that do not much under normal rules considering their weight.



Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24877
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #52 on: 03 December 2016, 10:08:37 »
I also agree with the use floating crits and new version of Ghost Targeting adding + 1  to hit rolls.
Using dice to show movement mods.

Edit: Stupid Auto-correct got the better of my typing..
« Last Edit: 03 December 2016, 16:56:59 by Wrangler »
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13013
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #53 on: 03 December 2016, 14:44:56 »
Is anyone else puzzled by all the Artillery requests for the MECH manual?

I'm sure there are a few more now, but pre-Jihad there couldn't have been more than half dozen mechs that used Artillery & only 1 (Naga) of those was designed for it as a primary weapon.  The O'Bakemono & Catapult variants were there in lower #'s & anything else was a fluke 1 off or rare-ish variant.

Not saying I don't like Artillery, I love me some, just can't say that I see it as being needed in the MECH book where 90% of the people will use it.  At least it our games its almost always used in vehicle form.

Anyway, just a random thought I had.


Also,  I only went over TO/SO in my earlier post.

I would add the BV calculations for C3/TAG from TechManual, but that is about all I could find there.

3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9102
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #54 on: 03 December 2016, 18:58:39 »
Artillery is actually confirmed to be in, though apparently in simplified, off-board form.

Also, apparently earlier BT rulebooks had artillery, so people wanting it and this having it is kind of a throwback to them, even if arty isn't tournament legal.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24877
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #55 on: 04 December 2016, 13:33:03 »
I'd like see the TacOps rule letting you the Beagle let you have -1 through woods.  Least give it some more functionality, special in pickup game.  Least thing be semi-useful!
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Hobbes

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #56 on: 05 December 2016, 02:18:27 »
Personally, I'd like to see the rule from TacOps where a pilot must make a piloting skill roll at a cumulative +1 for each 20 points of damage sustained in a single phase (40 damage = PSR +2, etc.). My friend and I had played for over 15 years thinking this was just the way it was done, as well as the fact that it just made sense to us, only to be surprised to find it was an optional TacOps rule and not included as standard in TW.

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5817
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #57 on: 05 December 2016, 09:31:44 »
I think a big part of the 'What should be in this book' problem revolves around the '95% of players' comment. 

What equipment, terrain, environmental conditions, and rules are tournament legal?  Add those.
Rules for constructing tournament legal units?  Add those.
Rules for salvaging equipment from one game to the next?  Probably add those. 
Rules for running a full-fledged campaign?  Drop those
Rules for interacting with other, non-mech units?  Maybe add those?  Pilot ejection, for example, is probably a keeper.
Rules for fighting/deploying/using/creating non-mech units?  Drop those. 
Rules for things that are very rare in the BT Universe or for mech-units that act like non-mech units (LAMs and Quad-Vees)? Drop those.
Rules for equipment, units, technology that are not tournament legal? Drop those.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #58 on: 05 December 2016, 19:42:29 »
I don't think 95% of BattleTech players play in tournaments, so that may not be the best metric for inclusion or exclusion of rules.

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9102
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #59 on: 05 December 2016, 20:11:07 »
After thinking about equipment, i came to this result:

Include 'Mech-relevant introductory, tournament legal (by the Dark Age) and advanced (by the Dark Age) equipment. Experimental by the Dark Age or ever, it is not necessary, for those one uses IO and/or TacOps and/or relevant scenario-/sourcebooks.

I specify the Dark Age because a lot of former experimental and advanced stuff is TL level by then. But a lot of interesting stuff, like alternate armors (Reflec, Blazer, Ferro-Lamellor) are still advanced yet used often enough (or by iconic 'Mechs like Mad Cat IV) by that era they might as well be included.

Actual experimental stuff is best left out, as they're uncommon or very era-limited and probably need specific book anyway. Eg, early Clan prototypes, one uses Operation Klondike for games set during that era which also includes them. Or the Interface Cockpit, which is used by grand total of three 'Mechs in the entire game currently.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #60 on: 05 December 2016, 20:29:31 »
OK, since experimental stuff in general is taking a hit here, I feel compelled to say Blazer Cannons should be in, experimental or no.  Anyone who's ever seen any number of my posts in the design forums will know why.

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9102
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #61 on: 05 December 2016, 20:49:47 »
OK, since experimental stuff in general is taking a hit here, I feel compelled to say Blazer Cannons should be in, experimental or no.  Anyone who's ever seen any number of my posts in the design forums will know why.
Blazers are TL level stuff as of TRO Prototypes.
Still not sure why one would use them other than as replacement for AC/20...

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #62 on: 06 December 2016, 00:18:05 »
Dear all,

Thanks for the solid feedback to date.  Just to let you know: we'll be closing this thread early Friday (the 9th).  So if you want to get your feedback in, make sure you do it before then.  Cheers.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #63 on: 06 December 2016, 00:32:37 »
I don't think 95% of BattleTech players play in tournaments, so that may not be the best metric for inclusion or exclusion of rules.
True, but I think that the reason that many items where removed from tournament level and made experimental, or made that way in the first place, was because they slow play down too much. Considering that this seems to be a sort of introduction book, that is to get people into BT, rules that slow it down too much might be a bad idea.

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9102
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #64 on: 06 December 2016, 06:24:09 »
True, but I think that the reason that many items where removed from tournament level and made experimental, or made that way in the first place, was because they slow play down too much. Considering that this seems to be a sort of introduction book, that is to get people into BT, rules that slow it down too much might be a bad idea.
This isn't an introduction book but a reference book for those who play with 'Mechs, as i understood it.

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5817
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #65 on: 06 December 2016, 08:59:18 »
This isn't an introduction book but a reference book for those who play with 'Mechs, as i understood it.

True, but I have also understood the book to be the reference that the overwhelming majority of players will need.  Not the overwhelming majority of us (where 'us' is a stand-in for decades-long fans, forum-goers, die hards, grognards, etc).  Most players will not play in tournaments, that I will grant you, but do most players need experimental equipment rules?  If a gun only shows up on one or two mechs, in the entire catalog of TROs, does it fall into the 'most players' category? 

Personally, I would say 'no'.  I would argue that 'most players' would need vehicle and infantry rules before they need rules for half the weapons that we are currently carting around.  There is a reason that I don't make important decisions, though. 

The question becomes, how much Battletech stuff is the average player going to buy?  A rulebook or an Intro Box, a couple of TROs and record sheets, maybe some campaign material, and some mechs.  Most players are not going to obsessively collect CGL publications like we do, so will they need the rules for the Super Mega LBX Extended Range Variable Pulse Particle Projection Missile Cannon that one guy used in a Solaris duel to finish off an opponent that was already critically wounded? 

Also, maybe this book could be used as a pivot point for the franchise to spur on more tournament play?  Honestly, I don't think I have ever seen a Battletech tournament in any of the FLGSs that I have frequented.  We could use this as a catalyst for that change. 
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #66 on: 06 December 2016, 15:04:51 »
This book isn't about "what does the average player need", the idea from the start has always been "95% of the rules for 95% of the players when playing 'Mechs".  Construction rules are not necessary to play a game, for example, but fire and smoke are probably necessary even if most people don't play them frequently because they're common enough to be included.  This book similarly isn't limited by Succession Wars/Clan Invasion/Jihad eras along the timeline, so common equipment up to and including the Dark Ages should also be included, and also things like CASE II, Angel ECM, Superchargers, Thunderbolt Missiles, Mech Mortars, etc.  I'd personally like things like Hardened Armor, Reflective, Reactive, Ballistic-Reinforced, and Ferro-Lamellor included, too.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24877
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #67 on: 06 December 2016, 16:10:36 »
This book isn't about "what does the average player need", the idea from the start has always been "95% of the rules for 95% of the players when playing 'Mechs".  Construction rules are not necessary to play a game, for example, but fire and smoke are probably necessary even if most people don't play them frequently because they're common enough to be included.  This book similarly isn't limited by Succession Wars/Clan Invasion/Jihad eras along the timeline, so common equipment up to and including the Dark Ages should also be included, and also things like CASE II, Angel ECM, Superchargers, Thunderbolt Missiles, Mech Mortars, etc.  I'd personally like things like Hardened Armor, Reflective, Reactive, Ballistic-Reinforced, and Ferro-Lamellor included, too.
Totally agreed. The book isn't hedged into a certain time frame like Total Warfare-series (Jihad).  Stuff in TacOps is Standard Tech/Advanced Tech in Dark Age.

I rather see stuff your going find in a TRO in this book, because there plenty of Mechs that have them.  Long Tom Cannons, In there.  Artillery mounted on a Mech, some have them.  Should be in there. Etc.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #68 on: 08 December 2016, 12:22:08 »
Reminder that this thread closes early tomorrow.  If you have any final feedback, now's the time to get it in.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Bartholomew bartholomew

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 167
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #69 on: 08 December 2016, 22:07:40 »
Only thing that comes to mind is a good index showing a well laid out book. I.E. not 16 different pages of reference for one thing. If you got that. It should be easy to use.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #70 on: 09 December 2016, 00:26:57 »
This book isn't about "what does the average player need", the idea from the start has always been "95% of the rules for 95% of the players when playing 'Mechs".  Construction rules are not necessary to play a game, for example, but fire and smoke are probably necessary even if most people don't play them frequently because they're common enough to be included.  This book similarly isn't limited by Succession Wars/Clan Invasion/Jihad eras along the timeline, so common equipment up to and including the Dark Ages should also be included, and also things like CASE II, Angel ECM, Superchargers, Thunderbolt Missiles, Mech Mortars, etc.  I'd personally like things like Hardened Armor, Reflective, Reactive, Ballistic-Reinforced, and Ferro-Lamellor included, too.
If 95% of the players 95% of the time isn't considered average I don't know what is.

Totally agreed. The book isn't hedged into a certain time frame like Total Warfare-series (Jihad).  Stuff in TacOps is Standard Tech/Advanced Tech in Dark Age.

I rather see stuff your going find in a TRO in this book, because there plenty of Mechs that have them.  Long Tom Cannons, In there.  Artillery mounted on a Mech, some have them.  Should be in there. Etc.
That's fine, but Advanced level rules should be marked as such, part of what I get from this project is that it's an alternative to the Box Set for introducing people, and even if that isn't the case I'd lay good odds (Around 95%) that this book will serve as peoples first introduction to the BT rules, confusing them about things like that is never a good idea.

Asmo

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #71 on: 09 December 2016, 06:31:47 »
Hi Randall,

Instead of a rule suggestion I'd like to propose that some serious time is spent on the index. The one thing that annoys me the most about TW and TacOps is that the index lacks key words you can look up and the find the relevant rules section.

An example would be if I look up Jumping then I want to see an index of every page that mentions the jumping rules.

Jumping Page XX
      Jumping Movement Modifiers Page xx
      Death from Above Page yy
etc.

Cheers,

Rob
"If words were wisdom, I'd be talking even more". I Choose - The Offspring

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual input
« Reply #72 on: 09 December 2016, 15:00:38 »
Thank you all for your feedback.  I'm submitting it now, so this thread will be closed shortly.  Cheers.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

 

Register