BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => Alpha Strike => Topic started by: DarkJaguar on 18 March 2018, 20:46:00
-
So...Commander's Edition.
From the blurb, this sounds like it combined the Core and Companion into one book, with all of the errata? Any other changes that are super exciting? I'm looking forward to retiring my signed first-print, but the info I can find is a bit scanty! What do you all know about this?
-
You have as much info as any of us. And that pretty much sounds like it all. My guess is that if there is anything we haven't heard of, it might include some of the new lance/star types from Campaign Operations.
-
I'm quite excited to learn more about this edition.
-
Me as well. Alpha Strike is my primary way of playing these days.
-
Biggest thing to fix is not having small units dominate the game as much.
-
One thing that would be nice (It's a pipe dream, but still) is to have the remaining unit availability lists from the unreleased Combat Manuals included.
-
I'm guessing it's a major clean-up...maybe even like a 2nd edition if one will....
-
I hope there is some stuff in there for non standard unit sizes, such as comstar/wob or the society even if it's just sidebar rules .
-
I hope there is some stuff in there for non standard unit sizes, such as comstar/wob or the society even if it's just sidebar rules .
What stuff would you want?
-
What stuff would you want?
Stuff that helps them make use of Lance Abilities. The fact that Lance Building kinda hoses these guys because they are all about Mixed Units.
i.e. Hard to build an Assault Lance when there is not many jumping infantry for the Word of Blake outside of Djinns and a few others :(
-
That just means that Level IIs featuring injury can only be assault formations in strictly limited circumstances.
In other words: working as intended, feature not bug, etc.
-
Biggest thing to fix is not having small units dominate the game as much.
I took one longtom for 37 PV with cluster munition and destroyed 2 stealth special Wolfen's and two Fire Moths. They don't dominate, just need the right kinds of counter.
-
That just means that Level IIs featuring injury can only be assault formations in strictly limited circumstances.
In other words: working as intended, feature not bug, etc.
Actually the can also be Scout...and the mere fact that one views the limited Roles WoB can fill is a Feature is a pretty poor excuse.
-
Actually the can also be Scout...and the mere fact that one views the limited Roles WoB can fill is a Feature is a pretty poor excuse.
Maybe just rewrite Novas to be less Clan specific. A formation (CS/WoB Level II) can be any number of 'mechs/vehicles (3+) that must meet the requirements. The infantry do not have to, but then they cannot be assigned the bonus abilities of the formation.
But that example seems to be about mixed units, not formation size.
-
Maybe just rewrite Novas to be less Clan specific. A formation (CS/WoB Level II) can be any number of 'mechs/vehicles (3+) that must meet the requirements. The infantry do not have to, but then they cannot be assigned the bonus abilities of the formation.
But that example seems to be about mixed units, not formation size.
And that I could live with. It would also help with something of the we have Lance Size/Abilities spelled out, and we have Star/Novas spelled out, but LEVEL IIs seem to be missed.
Also, having just run it this weekend, where would a Marian Hegemony Century fit in? Same rules as a Nova I would expect.
-
Can’t you just play a real faction? (Kidding!)
More seriously, what does a Marian formation need rules for it doesn’t have already?
-
And that I could live with. It would also help with something of the we have Lance Size/Abilities spelled out, and we have Star/Novas spelled out, but LEVEL IIs seem to be missed.
Also, having just run it this weekend, where would a Marian Hegemony Century fit in? Same rules as a Nova I would expect.
Un, Sept...... ?
-
Anything 3+ follows the same rules. Doesn’t matter what it’s called.
Its a formation, there’s nothing in the rules (for most) that says it has to be four or five or six. As long as it’s three or more.
-
"...four or five or six. As long as it’s three or more."
Please see "Horde Lance" - CM:K.
(Has anyone used one of these?)
-
Anything 3+ follows the same rules. Doesn’t matter what it’s called.
Its a formation, there’s nothing in the rules (for most) that says it has to be four or five or six. As long as it’s three or more.
This is essentially what I was getting at. 'Mech/tank Level IIs get exactly the same treatment as 'Mech/tank Lances and Stars. X/Y/Infantry Lances get exactly the same treatment as X/Y/Infantry Level IIs.
Infantry are inherently inflexible on the strategic and organizational scale in BattleTech.
If anything, having easier access to things like Assault and Fire Lances will (unless the abilities therein have been changed to be more in line with other bonuses) be worse for the game overall, in my opinion. The formations with great bonuses shouldn't really be the flexible and easily built ones (again, pending a formation rebalance).
-
I asked if this new edition would include the new PV calculation Xotl was working on. The answer was unknown, but probably not unless someone had poked Brent/Ray about it.
-
A formation-based bit of information we need is how to run Society Uns/Treys/Septs. It's hard to tell if the three-mech Trey is the formation to look at for SPAs, the seven-mech Sept...and if it's the Trey, is there any way for a Sept's commander(which is outside either Trey) can get any SPAs...there's an entire can of worms in there.
On top of that, it'd be nice to have rules supporting combined-arms formations, lances and stars and such with multiple unit types. Last I read, my impression was that proper formations had to be unit-pure, with the exception of Novas and Support lances. This can be an issue for units that go combined-arms by necessity(struggling mercs, backwater militias) or by choice(Cornstar, WoB).
-
A formation-based bit of information we need is how to run Society Uns/Treys/Septs. It's hard to tell if the three-mech Trey is the formation to look at for SPAs, the seven-mech Sept...and if it's the Trey, is there any way for a Sept's commander(which is outside either Trey) can get any SPAs...there's an entire can of worms in there.
On top of that, it'd be nice to have rules supporting combined-arms formations, lances and stars and such with multiple unit types. Last I read, my impression was that proper formations had to be unit-pure, with the exception of Novas and Support lances. This can be an issue for units that go combined-arms by necessity(struggling mercs, backwater militias) or by choice(Cornstar, WoB).
combined arms formations would be nice, at least for the freeborn scum to be able to put up a worthwhile fight.
-
The rules for Novas don't really do much outside of the force org chart. If I make my star of Elementals a support formation to a separate formation composed of my omnimechs, then I get more gameplay benefits from playing a Nova, where the Elementals gain no abilities (apart from using their numbers to mitigate the loss of formation SPAs). Though I really don't have a brilliant solution to solve this issue for Novas and Air Lances.
-
I'm told the revised PV system will be used going forward. However, whether or not it's in the book is up in the air, as things are still being hammered out.
-
The rules for Novas don't really do much outside of the force org chart. If I make my star of Elementals a support formation to a separate formation composed of my omnimechs, then I get more gameplay benefits from playing a Nova, where the Elementals gain no abilities (apart from using their numbers to mitigate the loss of formation SPAs). Though I really don't have a brilliant solution to solve this issue for Novas and Air Lances.
Their numbers don't count toward or against formation requirements though, so losing 3 mechs out of a nova would still count as losing the formation.
-
I'm told the revised PV system will be used going forward. However, whether or not it's in the book is up in the air, as things are still being hammered out.
Well get a nice, big hammer and knock it out of the air and onto the page! The math wasn't really that bad to describe verbally, and I think the PVs it produced were a better fit to the 'how good is this stuff' data. In fact, while I know some folks wanted more or less in some areas, by the time everyone stopped poking at it regularly, I don't think ANYONE looking at the numbers though we would be better off sticking with the original PV's. Of course, I may be preaching to the choir a bit here.
-
Well get a nice, big hammer and knock it out of the air and onto the page! The math wasn't really that bad to describe verbally, and I think the PVs it produced were a better fit to the 'how good is this stuff' data. In fact, while I know some folks wanted more or less in some areas, by the time everyone stopped poking at it regularly, I don't think ANYONE looking at the numbers though we would be better off sticking with the original PV's. Of course, I may be preaching to the choir a bit here.
Just to get a feel for things, since you seem to have been able to play with the new PV system, what kind of PV would a Fire Moth H have under the new system?
-
I don't remember the specific number but I'm pretty sure it was close to a 30% PV bump.
-
I don't remember the specific number but I'm pretty sure it was close to a 30% PV bump.
for things with high TMM? or across the board?
-
According to the Excel Spreadsheet they had a while back (I downloaded towards end of December)
A Dasher (Fire Moth) H is:
OLD PV VALUE - 13
NEW PV VALUE - 25
12 point increase or a 52% bump in PV
-
for things with high TMM? or across the board?
For things with High TMM.
Some things went down (again, basing on an Excel Spread sheet they had for download)
Example the Centurion CNT-1A went down 1 from 18 PV to 17 PV
-
Yeah as a rule of thumb anything that had a CBT move of 3/5 or slower goes slightly down in PV, anything 4/6 stays the same, and anything faster goes up.
That's not the actual rule and there's lots of examples of how that rule of thumb gets broken, but it's generally right.
-
The Spreadsheet can be found here:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=53612.0
-
Yeah as a rule of thumb anything that had a CBT move of 3/5 or slower goes slightly down in PV, anything 4/6 stays the same, and anything faster goes up.
That's not the actual rule and there's lots of examples of how that rule of thumb gets broken, but it's generally right.
Sounds good though, as things get exponentially harder to hit as TMM goes up.
-
I ran the stats for average PV changes when submitting the final revision to Ray. They were:
Light mechs go up by ~25%, light vehicles by ~ 30%
Medium mechs go up by ~12%, medium vehicles by about ~25%
Heavies and assaults stay pretty much the same.
Battle armour goes up by ~15%.
Aerospace gets cheaper, dropping by an average of 7%.
These are averages, though: as noted above some units saw greater increases, and some mechs did drop in price (typically slow ones with jump jets).
-
I seem to recall some 'Mechs with IJJs were being hideously overcosted also got fixed, too. I remember because they were a bizarre anomaly where you would expect them to kick ass from high TMM but then the sims had them losing horribly to things a third cheaper than they were.
-
There were a lot of things that were brought up and looked at. It wasn’t perfect, but was definitely much better, especially with the reigned-in indirect fire bonus stacking that also occurred last year. Best part? If it does get published, the MUL can get updated with all the new values and we will have access to current, correct PV for all the things! I love the MUL!
-
Their numbers don't count toward or against formation requirements though, so losing 3 mechs out of a nova would still count as losing the formation.
Dang! Novas really need something to make them worthwhile. Having the battle armor as a separate Support formation fits better with the fluff than the AS rules. Right now, integrated combined arms formations that train together are worse than two independent formations.
-
Thanks for the reminder on Novas, seeing if we can do something to fix that..
-
Thanks for the reminder on Novas, seeing if we can do something to fix that..
Oh! Nice!
-
Thanks for the reminder on Novas, seeing if we can do something to fix that..
Don't forget Level II's and The Hegemony's Centuries!
-
Don't forget Level II's and The Hegemony's Centuries!
I thought Centuries simply acted as a Clan Star?
-
I thought Centuries simply acted as a Clan Star?
Ah, you are correct...LEVEL II's on the other hand...
-
Pure L2s already work under the current rules exactly the same way as a lance or star. Combined-arms L2s are currently unsupported.
-
Pure L2s already work under the current rules exactly the same way as a lance or star. Combined-arms L2s are currently unsupported.
Yep, and those are the ones we need support for, because COMSTAR and WoB refuse to play by the rules.
-
I'm all for having both books combined.
I do have a few questions... is variable damage getting looked at? I actually prefer rolling 2d6 for each point of damage rather than rolling a d6 per point AFTER rolling for a hit. Maybe even apply this to physical attacks as well (except charge and DFA). It is slower, but it is more in line with how BattleTech actually works.
Also, is there going to be an anti-infantry ability? This way units with Machine Guns (like the Phoenix Hawk) don't feel as vanilla. Using it as an example, it could have MGx and it gives a +x damage bonus against infantry?
And... since 0* was introduced, will we see other abilities use it? Like an Assassin with SRM 0*/0* or a Vulcan with AC0*/0*/0*? Kind of like the last example, it would make some designs less vanilla, and since you can only do one ability I don't think it would break anything except morale for editing the MUL.
-
I'm all for having both books combined.
I do have a few questions... is variable damage getting looked at? I actually prefer rolling 2d6 for each point of damage rather than rolling a d6 per point AFTER rolling for a hit. Maybe even apply this to physical attacks as well (except charge and DFA). It is slower, but it is more in line with how BattleTech actually works.
I actually asked that same question in this thread:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60756.0
-
I'm all for having both books combined.
Maybe even apply this to physical attacks as well (except charge and DFA)
Variable damage does not effect melee attacks. That's in the book.
-
Variable damage does not effect melee attacks. That's in the book.
Yes. I know.
I actually asked that same question in this thread:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60756.0
When the game is down-scaled so much I guess it makes sense. I'm torn.
-
Will these be done by Gencon this year? or should I throw money into another Catalyst product there to help fund it?
TT
-
Will these be done by Gencon this year? or should I throw money into another Catalyst product there to help fund it?
TT
No.
I'm not privvy to that kind of behind the scenes knowledge, strictly speaking, but new product you've never heard of doesn't happen in time for convention season in 11 weeks.
If it's there I'll be shocked beyond description.
-
Hey guys, a bit of a thread necro, but do we have any word on the image below? It seems to match up with the cover for the new book and I am wondering if I just lost out on seeing my favorite 'Mech in my unit's colors (even if he is getting blasted apart) thanks to ongoing legal matters. I have not been able to dig anything up on it, so I thought I would turn here. Thanks for any insights!
(https://i.imgur.com/4VOmPkcm.jpg)
-
Currently in legal limbo with the Warhammer, Marauder, Archer, and Wasp, Valkyrie, and Phoenix Hawk (which these last three are not even part of the case).
-
That was to be the cover of the BattleMech Manual, before legal shenanigans scuttled it.
-
What's the odds of getting the Alpha Strike custom card maker to calculate the PV for us? With the new PV model coming out, we really need tools for converting custom units and the easier the better.
Since you have the PV formulas, it seems like it would be fairly easy coding to grab the numbers input to the card maker and pre-calculate the PV for the custom cards.
-
I’m hoping for a late succession wars ‘inner sphere general’ list of available mechs etc along with early clan wars stuff to help build out your first lances
-
So kinda like the Combat Manual lists, but generic?
-
So kinda like the Combat Manual lists, but generic?
Exactly, since the rest of the manuals seems to be (sadly) vapor ware.
-
Wait, the rest of the manuals aren't happening now? When did that come down the pipe?
-
Wait, the rest of the manuals aren't happening now? When did that come down the pipe?
I think it was around the time they shuffled the management. CM:Davion was originally a maybe for spring 2017.
-
Dang. That's...not great. CM: Kurita was awesome.
-
Dang. That's...not great. CM: Kurita was awesome.
I'm crossing my fingers that the idea isn't completely dead.... I'm hoping they're going to go back to Combat Manuals but issue them by era for all factions rather than for 1 faction in 1 (or 2) eras.
I don't have any reason to think they ARE going to do that... I'm just hoping.
-
I hope they bring back the Combat Manuals, I was really looking forward to the Davion and Steiner books! I think that now the classic issue has been put to bed that if they released a box set with the 4 mechs that are featured in each book it would help sales! They have the molds already for the locust, shadow hawk so all they would have to do is a mold for the warhammer and ostscout for the merc manual, and they already have the molds for wolverine and the battlemaster so they would need to make molds for the wasp and phoenix hawk for the Kurita manual!
-
Any news as to whether this will be out for GenCon?
-
I thought it would later in August.
-
There's no news. I would not expect it for GenCon.
-
The combat manuals are the best thing to come out of Alpha Strike or anything else in years. I was looking forward to a Clans combat manual and a Davion one. Heck I would even preorder that now. This is where Paizo has it right. Let people pre-order their books! Heck they can even have the disclaimer, your money will be returned if for any reason it does not get released in 12 months or something.
I have recently gotten many people into Battletech through Alpha Strike rules. I would appreciate it if they gave some better background to the Commander's Edition rules. I would hate for the people that I have had buy the Alpha Strike and Companion rules get outdated in a matter of months. Nothing like a customer scorned to turn people away for good.
-
I would appreciate it if they gave some better background to the Commander's Edition rules.
Some better background into what?
-
Some better background into what?
My assumption is "what is it".
99% of it is just collected errata, and some sections from the Companion and removing some sections from the rulebook (like possibly intro rules, background).
Obviously your opinion of old rulebook + errata versus new rulebook is up to you, but there's no intent to create a new edition of the _rules_. If you're good with old rulebook + errata now, there's nothing in the new rulebook that you need.
The book isn't finalized yet, so I can't say what sections from the Companion, nor can guarantee it will be 100% old rulebooks + errata, but that's the intent so far. It's not a new rules edition, it's a new edition of the book. The edition denotes it's organized differently rather just a simple reprint.
-
The book isn't finalized yet
So I guess this isn't happening now?
(https://i.imgur.com/TxciwsE.png)
Would be quite the feat to print and distribute this book in under a month.
-
So I guess this isn't happening now?
I don't know anything about dates. Way above my pay scale.
-
Imma be honest here: as a fan of the system I’d be fine if this gets pushed back till next year. Why? Two big reasons: the point conversion rework and aerospace. The first should be mostly good, but I think the aerospace side of Alpha Strike still needs work. I won’t get into it too deep and detail the thread, but I think we need a few more errata before we get a reprint!
-
The point conversion rework is done (rules wise). There’s no active work going on with it. Same with aero.
You’d be waiting on nothing happening :).
-
The point conversion rework is done (rules wise). There’s no active work going on with it. Same with aero.
You’d be waiting on nothing happening :).
Ew. Really? No more fixes in the pipeline for Aero is... disappointing.. news.
-
Ew. Really? No more fixes in the pipeline for Aero is... disappointing.. news.
I don't recall if all of the fixes had been published yet, but I don't have any outstanding issues I was working on. But this was all end of last year, so I don't remember any more how we did anything. Just that I was done. :)
-
Or maybe it was done with me. Something like that.
-
there was at one time the experimental erratum of being able to offset a striking/strafing template so that the fighter had more leeway in placing the flight path, but IIRC it didn't make it into the last errata doc.
and I've been hoping for seeing a separate set of PVs for aero depending on whether the game is a ground battle or a space battle... but you've never given indication you were amenable to that :D
-
I have very little to do with PVs. I try to stay out of Xotl’s way unless he asks me something. I’d just mess up his excellent work.
That does sound like there are changes that haven’t been published yet as errata. Not off the flight path, but there were changes since that was errata’d/retracted. Probably still waiting to make sure all the kinks are straightened out first. Or maybe once we can breathe again.
-
The point conversion rework is done (rules wise). There’s no active work going on with it. Same with aero.
You’d be waiting on nothing happening :).
Good news on the PV!
I wasn’t so much hoping for more rules changes to aero so much as a whole different attempt at an abstract aero system. The interaction with the ground map is ok, but I’m not a fan of the radar map. I’m not saying I have a better solution to satisfying aerotech combat without buckets of rules, but the radar map just doesn’t do it for me. I even tried a big aero battle Scotty put together at one of the conventions. Still not a fan.
I know a drastic re-think of aero isn’t in process or anything, but I feel like it should be. Of course, I feel like Strat Ops aero is no fun either, so maybe it’s not an Alpha Strike issue so much as a BattleTech one!
-
Have you tried Battleforce Aero?
-
Has the PV revision been implemented into the MUL yet?
-
Has the PV revision been implemented into the MUL yet?
Nope.
-
Yes a quick check of the MUL seems to reveal that.
I see the Locust 6M has had an upgrade to Medium range damage to 2 but no additional PV cost. Such a bargain at 19 points.
-
We'll make sure everyone knows when it's gone through: it's too big a deal to just leave for random player discovery.
-
Have you tried Battleforce Aero?
I have not. Which book is that in? StratOps?
-
yes. there are both standard and advanced rulesets though i've never more than skimmed them so i couldn't tell you the difference. like TW, the aerospace rules for BF are integrated with ground rules
-
What he said. The Advanced Battleforce Aero rules can best be summed up as WarShips on hex maps with roughly Alpha Strike level of detail. Fighter squadrons are very elegantly done, and there's rules for DropShip squadrons as well for when playing very large battles.
-
In that case I have, in fact, read the rules...once...when I first bought StratOps. Can't say I've looked at them since then. I'll give them another look. However, I've yet to find a version of pure aero rules in BattleTech that I've really enjoyed. Some of the versions of aero-ground interaction are functional, if difficult to balance, but the pure aero-on-aero stuff? I've never been a fan. I like the IDEA of a BT air/space battles, and I do like having the fighters zoom past a battlefield, but the execution has left me underwhelmed. To be brutally honest, if the Commanders Edition did not include ANY of the Aerospace rules from AS or the Companion and just added a 'Battlefield Support' section for off-board artillery and air-to-ground attacks like BMM has, I'd be fine with that. On-board Arty rules are still fine to keep in. I'm sure others would disagree, but I'd rather just pull full aero out of Alpha Strike for the time being and give it another go with major changes as 'AeroStrike' or something like that at a later time.
For that matter, I'd suggest pulling the construction rules out of the published AS book and making them a separate, free, PDF download hosted on the BT website. Not only would it save over 50 printed pages by pulling out the Conversion and PV calc sections, it would also make updating and tweaking the conversion rules a simpler process because you will not be invalidating people's books that they paid for to do it. The conversion rules are not a separate book, like TechManual, so CGL wouldn't really be giving up any sales, and realistically with the MUL out there hand-converting custom units is something only a brave few of us ever do.
Anyway, that is enough of a tirade from me. I'll still be plenty happy if the PV revision goes live with commanders edition, and it has the current errata in it.
-
Yeah, I expect you will happy with it.
-
We are interested in acquiring the full AS rulebooks, but if there is an incoming updated and upgrades edition we would rather get that one. Any idea of when this will be available to the general public?
-
We are interested in acquiring the full AS rulebooks, but if there is an incoming updated and upgrades edition we would rather get that one. Any idea of when this will be available to the general public?
When the Powers that Be says it is ready.. they do not give out time lines. Till Product is in hand..
-
So.... should we getting the current AS rules + Companion or should we be waiting?
-
So.... should we getting the current AS rules + Companion or should we be waiting?
We don’t know when it will be out.
-
With no street date for the Commander's Edition yet, I'd go pick up at least the main rules. The companion has some nice stuff, but none of it is required. The main book will more than take care of your Alpha Strike needs for now. Just be sure to download the latest errata files.
-
With no street date for the Commander's Edition yet, I'd go pick up at least the main rules. The companion has some nice stuff, but none of it is required. The main book will more than take care of your Alpha Strike needs for now. Just be sure to download the latest errata files.
Well, the Companion has all the lance building rules etc that are referenced in the HANDBOOKS, etc.
Personally, I'd recommend the PDFs. It'll get you your stuff, will be most up date and cheaper.
-
unless you're going PDF the AS book + companion will cost you at least several dozen dollars
-
Will get the main book only and as a PDF. Thanks all
-
I'm looking to get back into playing (lost all my BT stuff during a flood years ago), and came across the Alpha Strike:Quick Start rules. The Commander's Edition looks like a great way to start.
Has there been any update on a release date? I see there has been a delay in the upcoming box sets, is this going to delay AS:CE?
/cheers
-
no word as of late but the box set delay shouldn't interfere unless the books are produced at the same facility as the boxes (i assume they're not)
-
So I noticed on the coming releases that the Commanders Editions is a print on demand? Does that mean, I have to pay to buy the electronic copy and then pay someone to print it?
-
Those are separate, unrelated categories. Print on Demand doesn't have a cover image, so AS:CE looks like a subcategory with the indentation, but it's not one. It's just the lack of a cover image.
-
Also, when people say print on demand, that's not what they mean. It's more akin to ordering a pizza*, and means the printer folks don't actually print any books until you place an order from their website. Then they print out one copy just for you, and ship your hot and fresh sourcebook directly.
*I really hope your local pizza places wait until you actually order before making the pizza. Unlike books, pizzas don't last very long after they've been printed and bound.
-
*I really hope your local pizza places wait until you actually order before making the pizza. Unlike books, pizzas don't last very long after they've been printed and bound.
Health Law states a 3/4 cooked pie can last for 6 hours before throwing away,most pies are sold within 30 minuets of cooking. It takes a proper 500* stone oven 10-12 minuets to cook through.
I know, I do pies everyday! But not here for GENCON! xp
TT
https://www.google.com/search?q=What+is+the+minimum+hot+holding+temperature+requirement+for+pizza%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL-Iyil9feAhWvneAKHaU5B-kQzmd6BAgGEAk&biw=1094&bih=506 (https://www.google.com/search?q=What+is+the+minimum+hot+holding+temperature+requirement+for+pizza%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL-Iyil9feAhWvneAKHaU5B-kQzmd6BAgGEAk&biw=1094&bih=506)
-
Those are separate, unrelated categories. Print on Demand doesn't have a cover image, so AS:CE looks like a subcategory with the indentation, but it's not one. It's just the lack of a cover image.
So then the Alpha Strike Commanders Edition will be able to be ordered from local game store? If so that is great!