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

[Xotl]

Maybe see you at nashcon?

Nashville is about 3,000 km from where I live, so unfortunately not.  I've been to Texas for a con, and GenCon once, but in general the States is a place largely out of reach for me.

[Daemion]

So with that in mind:

Introtech is mostly obvious, anything that you can find in A Game of Armored Combat.  Most of that is normal, but we could probably add in Light Autocannons, Light PPCs, and maybe Heavy PPCs and Thunderbolt Missiles.  They don't have any fancy rules and you don't have to worry about Ammo switching like MMLs do (though, I do wish Infernos were considered here).

And ER energy weapons.  No special rules. Just different stats.

[Charistoph]

And ER energy weapons.  No special rules. Just different stats.

Maybe, but they are much more Heat intensive than their Standard counterparts with no Double Heat Sinks to assuage that particular upgrade, particularly with the Large Lasers and PPCs.  I know I mentioned the Heavy PPCs, which generate as much Heat as the ER PPC, but I did put that one in the "maybe" list.

[NeonWolf]

Interesting idea.

Our group only looks at Era when doing story-based scenarios, like the monthly campaign mission I run, or gits and shiggles.  Otherwise it's only focused on the level of Tech.  Honestly, it would be even easier to keep it to 3 stages, Intro/Level 1, Standard/Level 2, Advanced/Level 3.

So with that in mind:

Introtech is mostly obvious, anything that you can find in A Game of Armored Combat.  Most of that is normal, but we could probably add in Light Autocannons, Light PPCs, and maybe Heavy PPCs and Thunderbolt Missiles.  They don't have any fancy rules and you don't have to worry about Ammo switching like MMLs do (though, I do wish Infernos were considered here).

Standard would be whatever people should be expected to handle in a tournament setting, i.e. either what's in Total Warfare now or in BattleMech Manual.  Battlefield Support rules would be available.

Advanced MIGHT be regular Artillery rules, along with equipment that has a fair bit of shenanigans in it (i.e. Nova CEWS) or is just stupidly poor (i.e Rifle Cannons).

A book along the lines of Alternate Eras or Campaign Operations would handle the availability for the different Eras.  The MUL can even be kept tied in to this as well so we don't have to try and reformat the whole dang thing and break it even more.  I'm pretty sure that the software engineers who do the likes of MegaMek and MechFactory would be appreciative of that as well.  Just include an option for "Era-less" in the MUL and you're golden.

I think it is more important to determine what rules should be considered Intro, Standard, and Advanced. CGL already seems to have sorted the tech out in the BattleMech Manual and started on the rules themselves as well.  If you look through the BattleMech Manual ToC you can see where they could add in the rules for Combat Vehicles, Infantry, and possibly ProtoMechs in the existing categories.  The downfall of Total Warfare is that the rules for these units are contained in categories for those units instead of incorporated into the default Movement, Combat, Damage, and Heat categories where they probably should be.

[Charistoph]

I think it is more important to determine what rules should be considered Intro, Standard, and Advanced. CGL already seems to have sorted the tech out in the BattleMech Manual and started on the rules themselves as well.  If you look through the BattleMech Manual ToC you can see where they could add in the rules for Combat Vehicles, Infantry, and possibly ProtoMechs in the existing categories.  The downfall of Total Warfare is that the rules for these units are contained in categories for those units instead of incorporated into the default Movement, Combat, Damage, and Heat categories where they probably should be.

I'm not quite understanding what you're saying here.  You're not really delineating much of anything in regards to what should be where, which is where your paragraph started.

As it is, we do consider Combat Vehicles who are using Introtech equipment to be Introtech now.  I guess that got tossed over with what I said regarding AGoAC.  I think a lot of our group consider Conventional Infantry (without Field Guns) to be Introtech as well.  It's mostly about what they are equipped with that really matters, hence the 'tech' part.

Protomechs aren't considered Introtech because they are pure Clantech, which is Standard in Total Warfare already.  There are exceptions to this now because those rules are in Alternate Eras.  And yeah, their rules don't take up much room, most of it being about how they take Damage and Critical hits.  A lot less than Combat Vehicles do, that's for sure, but there are 3 different considerations for Vehicles between ground-bound, VTOLs, and whatever mixture Hovers and WiGEs operate in.

LAMs, Tripods, QuadVees, and Super-Heavies are also not in it because of Alternate Eras and at the point of that writing, were very recent developments.  LAMs also were set up to require Turn Modes, which are Advanced Optional Rules from Tactical Operations.

[NeonWolf]

I'm not quite understanding what you're saying here.  You're not really delineating much of anything in regards to what should be where, which is where your paragraph started.

My point was that Tech isn't how the rules should be sorted, it should be by unit type. If you do that then the only thing you really need to add to the BMM is the movement rules for Combat Vehicles and Infantry (both types). There might be a few more rules like turrets and transporting infantry to add but for standard rules (not Tech) that is pretty much it.

[Charistoph]

My point was that Tech isn't how the rules should be sorted, it should be by unit type. If you do that then the only thing you really need to add to the BMM is the movement rules for Combat Vehicles and Infantry (both types). There might be a few more rules like turrets and transporting infantry to add but for standard rules (not Tech) that is pretty much it.

You forgot how Damage applies to them, how Infantry does Damage, as well as how to Transport Infantry as well as Anti-Mech Attacks.  Oddly enough, Infantry have the biggest section on those taking up to 16 pages for Infantry in Total Warfare (before getting in to their other equipment), with Protomechs only taking up 4 pages, and Combat Vehicles taking up 9 (if adding Sideslipping in to that).

[NeonWolf]

You forgot how Damage applies to them, how Infantry does Damage, as well as how to Transport Infantry as well as Anti-Mech Attacks.  Oddly enough, Infantry have the biggest section on those taking up to 16 pages for Infantry in Total Warfare (before getting in to their other equipment), with Protomechs only taking up 4 pages, and Combat Vehicles taking up 9 (if adding Sideslipping in to that).

Fair, I did leave that out.

However the first two fall under Damage, Transport falls under Movement, Anti-Mech Attacks are part of Combat. Even if ProtoMechs are included your are only adding roughly 30 pages, by your count, to what is already in the BMM.

[Charistoph]

Fair, I did leave that out.

However the first two fall under Damage, Transport falls under Movement, Anti-Mech Attacks are part of Combat. Even if ProtoMechs are included your are only adding roughly 30 pages, by your count, to what is already in the BMM.

But they still expand the Damage and Movement sections, just like Sideslip rules will.  Where in the book they are wasn't my point, it's fitting in all the sections in a cohesive manner.  Instead of looking up the section on the unit, you're now looking for that specific part of the Movement or Combat section.

[NeonWolf]

But they still expand the Damage and Movement sections, just like Sideslip rules will.  Where in the book they are wasn't my point, it's fitting in all the sections in a cohesive manner.  Instead of looking up the section on the unit, you're now looking for that specific part of the Movement or Combat section.

I'm an Alpha Strike player, not BattleTech, so I'm used to how that rulebook is laid out which is the way I'm describing. Rules for individual unit types are included under the main categories like I've described so to me, that makes sense when reformatting the BattleTech rules. The BattleMech Manual has the same layout (Intro, Movement, Combat, Damage, Heat) so I would expect anything new that replaces or updates Total Warfare will follow the same format as these two rulebooks.

Ultimately it sounds like we are both on the "Total Warfare needs an update" side of the question.

[Charistoph]

I'm an Alpha Strike player, not BattleTech, so I'm used to how that rulebook is laid out which is the way I'm describing. Rules for individual unit types are included under the main categories like I've described so to me, that makes sense when reformatting the BattleTech rules. The BattleMech Manual has the same layout (Intro, Movement, Combat, Damage, Heat) so I would expect anything new that replaces or updates Total Warfare will follow the same format as these two rulebooks.

Ultimately it sounds like we are both on the "Total Warfare needs an update" side of the question.

We are on the same side that it needs an update.  The biggest questions are the approach and how much should be included or excluded.

The Battlemech Manual can afford to keep things simple because it's only dealing with a single unit type, not 4-7, each with their own sub-unit types.

Alpha Strike is similar as the biggest differences between "ground" units are how they react to HEAT, their Critical Hits table, and Vehicle Motive Checks.  Those Critical Hits even have the same affect across the board no matter which unit type you're dealing with.

Classic is notably different in this regard.  A Critical Hit on a Vehicle could mean that the Crew is just Stunned, or the Stabilizer on one side is now out.  Specific Location Hits on a Vehicle mean that the Motive System may also be damaged.  Infantry take Damage considerably different, taking far less Damage from Heavy Weapons, and often taking more from Burst-Fire Weapons.  Protomech Pilots take a Hit every time their Internal Structure is damaged.  Hovercraft and VTOLs have a chance to sideslip if they do a turn while Flanking.

So there is a LOT that goes in to the crunchiness of Classic Battletech that one rulebook can't quite fit.  It's doable to fit a lot in to one book, but you have to set limits or it will literally break its own binding before a year is out.

I like the BMM.  I think setting up a Manual series so that you only have to bring what you use would be a good idea.

[Geg]

If they have a Battlemech Manual with full BSP rules, I doubt that would completely replace Total Warfare in peoples' minds as a tournament standard except in cases where tournaments specifically state it.

The BSP rules for Vehicles aren't really that good representations of the Vehicles, but then again, they aren't supposed to be.  Honestly, I would prefer paying BV for Vehicles. 

I'm torn on the Infantry, because in some ways the BSP Conventional Infantry can be tougher at times, but they are so dirt cheap is it worth giving up Artillery or Air Strikes to have them?  And that's only if scenarios call for Infantry to take Objectives.  Battle Armor will be more useful, but also tend to be more expensive.

BSP units are part of the setting, like a hazard on the map.  They are obstacles to be navigated around like hills but not the hero's of the battlefield that are going to decide the engagement.  So while BSP is great for bringing the battle to life, and expanding the scope and scale of the conflict with our necessarily expanding the time, you still need to have those full vee rules for units that are part of the main caste and not just a supporting cast member.  It would be super unsatisfying to use a BSP unit for Callandre Kell's SM1 Tank Destroyer, or Kara Fletcher in her Scorchers.  Likewise a hardened armored Schrek  sitting in overwatch, or a tagging VTOL can be come a core part of a given lists strategy and identify, that you could hate to see reduced to their simplified BSP equivalent.

I know it would be silly for CGL to release a BMM+BSP and a repeat those sections in BMM+BSP+Combined Arms in a larger more expensive book. But that is exactly what I want.  I hate needing to bring two books to games. The BMM so good that it almost invalidates TacOps, and all it needs is just a few more pages to be that one book to rule them all.

[LAMFAN]

Actually since we’re on the topic of tournament rules….are there any rules for tournament legal customizations? Like, you can’t do full blown overhauls but replacing AC/20s with AC/10s, or other minor changes to either weapons or armor?

Or would it only be strictly CANON units?

[Cannonshop]

BSP units are part of the setting, like a hazard on the map.  They are obstacles to be navigated around like hills but not the hero's of the battlefield that are going to decide the engagement.  So while BSP is great for bringing the battle to life, and expanding the scope and scale of the conflict with our necessarily expanding the time, you still need to have those full vee rules for units that are part of the main caste and not just a supporting cast member.  It would be super unsatisfying to use a BSP unit for Callandre Kell's SM1 Tank Destroyer, or Kara Fletcher in her Scorchers.  Likewise a hardened armored Schrek  sitting in overwatch, or a tagging VTOL can be come a core part of a given lists strategy and identify, that you could hate to see reduced to their simplified BSP equivalent.

I know it would be silly for CGL to release a BMM+BSP and a repeat those sections in BMM+BSP+Combined Arms in a larger more expensive book. But that is exactly what I want.  I hate needing to bring two books to games. The BMM so good that it almost invalidates TacOps, and all it needs is just a few more pages to be that one book to rule them all.

maybe start...smaller.  Total Warfare's big problem, is that it's difficult to navigate and laid out for use with search functions on a computer, not 'turn to index, find page, read.'

So, let's really get more practical/pragmatic with this;  The first need isn't new rules, or old rules, or extra rules, it's the imposition of order.  Order and clarity.  From there, it's EASIER to see what rules CHANGES need to be made (additions, subtractions, versions, etc.)

Organize the existing text BETTER, then see about making rules changes.

That's my last word on this, because any rules changes I would like aren't likely to happen, just due to how unpopular my other ideas really are, but fixing the core rules has more to do with making them handy and accessible to newer players (in my opinion).  This goes for every aspect people complain about on the forum, from the Ground game, to Aerospace.

Make the book simpler to use, codify the format, and then make your additions and changes.

[Charistoph]

BSP units are part of the setting, like a hazard on the map.  They are obstacles to be navigated around like hills but not the hero's of the battlefield that are going to decide the engagement.  So while BSP is great for bringing the battle to life, and expanding the scope and scale of the conflict with our necessarily expanding the time, you still need to have those full vee rules for units that are part of the main caste and not just a supporting cast member.  It would be super unsatisfying to use a BSP unit for Callandre Kell's SM1 Tank Destroyer, or Kara Fletcher in her Scorchers.  Likewise a hardened armored Schrek  sitting in overwatch, or a tagging VTOL can be come a core part of a given lists strategy and identify, that you could hate to see reduced to their simplified BSP equivalent.

All I was saying was that the BMM including Combined Arms BSP wouldn't replace Total Warfare as a go to for me, because I would be fielding BV-priced Infantry and Vehicles if there isn't a restriction against them.  Two of the advantages of Infantry is that they make for great spotters and are cheap for numbers to Initiative scum.  While the BSP can do the former (I think), they can't do the latter since they all have to move before anyone else does (as of the latest beta rules).

If a tournament/scenario was 'Mech-only, but allowed BSP Combined Arms, then they would be a consideration.

I know it would be silly for CGL to release a BMM+BSP and a repeat those sections in BMM+BSP+Combined Arms in a larger more expensive book. But that is exactly what I want.  I hate needing to bring two books to games. The BMM so good that it almost invalidates TacOps, and all it needs is just a few more pages to be that one book to rule them all.

I bring at least 3 books to game night unless it's Alpha Strike.  I bring Total Warfare for combined arms, BMM for clarification, and Tactical Operations: Advanced Rules for the Optional Rules we run.  The other TacOps book and Alternate Eras get brought in on nights where there is no tech limit.

maybe start...smaller.  Total Warfare's big problem, is that it's difficult to navigate and laid out for use with search functions on a computer, not 'turn to index, find page, read.'

Agreed.  Partly why I advocate for just embracing The Manual series with the BMM as a starting point.

Of course, the indexes of the books could be better, too (and that includes the BMM).  I've seen all to many obvious references being completely missed because reasons like they are in the Table of Contents (but it's easy to look under the wrong heading)...

[House Davie Merc]

So, let's really get more practical/pragmatic with this;  The first need isn't new rules, or old rules, or extra rules, it's the imposition of order.  Order and clarity.  From there, it's EASIER to see what rules CHANGES need to be made (additions, subtractions, versions, etc.)

Organize the existing text BETTER, then see about making rules changes.

<Above is snipped>

THIS ! SO much this.
Earlier I saw talk about changing vehicle rules. WHY ?
Those rules themselves aren't the problem.
The problem is the overall organization and a lack of clarity.

We need all of the corrected rules put close enough to their subject
to be easy to find and understand.
I can understand moving some things out of an initial Core book but
not changing rules that aren't a part of the problem.

[General308]

maybe start...smaller.  Total Warfare's big problem, is that it's difficult to navigate and laid out for use with search functions on a computer, not 'turn to index, find page, read.'

So, let's really get more practical/pragmatic with this;  The first need isn't new rules, or old rules, or extra rules, it's the imposition of order.  Order and clarity.  From there, it's EASIER to see what rules CHANGES need to be made (additions, subtractions, versions, etc.)

Organize the existing text BETTER, then see about making rules changes.

That's my last word on this, because any rules changes I would like aren't likely to happen, just due to how unpopular my other ideas really are, but fixing the core rules has more to do with making them handy and accessible to newer players (in my opinion).  This goes for every aspect people complain about on the forum, from the Ground game, to Aerospace.

Make the book simpler to use, codify the format, and then make your additions and changes.

I have to agree the Organization of the rules is the biggest problem.   You are right sure you can find things if you got that PDF.  But reading that book to find things yeah it is not great.  If you solve that porblem you solve it's biggest problem in my opinion.    The crazy part is they had the templete to make it easy to read.  One thing about BMRr and the others before it you didn't see complaints about the way the books were orginized.

[Nerroth]

Before I begin, I should note that my primary "on-ramp" into the setting has been through sourcebooks and fiction. While I do have PDFs of various rulebooks for both Total Warfare and Alpha Strike, those are still the primary means by which I connect with BattleTech overall. So I'm cautious about getting too far into the finer details of how things are for on-table tabletop play.

That said, I did have a few thoughts, such as they are:

-----

Firstly, if the Total Warfare title is to go away, I might ask for there to be some other means to distinguish the "Classic" game system from BattleTech as an overall setting.

To put it another way: the old "Classic BattleTech" title was coined in the days of MechWarrior: Dark Age/Age of Destruction, at a time when the latter was the place where the timeline was being moved forward, and where new 'Mech designs (such as the Ares and Savage Wolf) were being created to fight in that new era. But even after MW:DA/AoD went away, it didn't take long for the "Quick-Strike" side-rules to evolve into Alpha Strike - which, as noted above, has been around for quite some time now.

And with BattleTech Universe being a "system-agnostic" way of bringing players old and new up to speed with the setting through to 3150, it would soon be possible to leverage that book for people who play what we currently refer to as TW, those more into AS, and/or for those who focus on the novels and sourcebooks as "their" BattleTech.

So, perhaps calling the new core TW-scale book... "BattleTech: Classic" (or some such) could be a way to give both it and Alpha Strike their respective due, while framing them as equally part of the present and future of the BattleTech franchise overall.

-----

Secondly, while the rules needed to play Alpha Strike are mostly in the Commander's Edition - minus those rules still only to be found in the old Alpha Strike Companion - the Total Warfare scale of play is of course a very different beast indeed.

Yet I was wondering about how the existence of BattleTech Universe might allow for a more flexible approach towards what needs to be covered in a "core" rulebook, and what does not.

To put it another way: perhaps it might be possible to offer a "master" or "reference" version of the ruleset, which focused exclusively on a fairly comprehensive set of rules needed for ground combat (and for aerospace ground support, so as not to leave the Outworlds Alliance and/or their current Clan Snow Raven co-tenants out of the loop). This could be in parallel to offering a more iterative set of books and box sets, in which various concepts and technologies (and background material) could be digested over time.

Indeed, one could use such a thing to encourage players to side-step from AS, should they wish to do so. As in: say if someone buys the Alpha Strike Boxed Set, and then gets both the Commander's Edition rulebook and the forthcoming BattleTech Universe book. Since the player already has a set of Spheroid and Clan miniatures to place on the tabletop, plus a sourcebook helping them understand who might use which ones in which places and points of time, a "master" book - plus a pre-curated set of Record Sheets, themed to match the AS Boxed Set, perhaps? - might be a good way to leverage what this payer already has, in order to get into a new scale of play without too much trouble.

Plus, for older players who are returning to the setting, yet who might have not heard about the onset of Alpha Strike: the above approach could be looked at in reverse, sort of. As in, they could be advised to get a would-be "master" rulebook in order to start playing "Classic" scale once again; get the Alpha Strike Boxed Set for a handy set of minis to paint up and use (and, maybe, to encourage them to give AS itself a try); and grab BattleTech Universe so as to get caught up with what's been going on in-universe while they were away.

-----

.
In this, my main point if comparison would be with the Star Fleet Universe.

Once again, a disclaimer: I don't speak for the folks over at ADB, but I have had a few things published by them here and there. So what I'm about to type is my own perspective alone.

There was a time when, in game terms, Star Fleet Battles and the Star Fleet Universe were essentially synonymous, at least in game terms. But these days, SFB is part of a broad stable of games, all set in the SFU. There are "sibling" tactical starship combat games like Federation Commander and A Call to Arms: Star Fleet (the latter using a modified version of a game system created by Mongoose Publishing); the strategic-level game Federation and Empire; the Prime Directive RPG (which nowadays uses third-party game engines, such as GURPS 4th Edition); the Star Fleet Marines ground combat game; and others.

Of course, SFB remains at the heart of the SFU. But the Venn diagram of players interested in one or more of these game systems would not exactly overlap. Indeed, there are some games which suit the use of miniatures (to include the vast range of minis ADB now offers via Shapeways) over others; for example, ACtA:SF is both hexless and entirely miniatures-based, whereas both SFB and FC are hex-based and primarily (though by no means exclusively) designed around the use of counters.

But with of both SFB and FC, there are different ways to get into either game system, along the lines I noted above.

In the case of SFB, one option is to buy the Basic Set, move onto Advanced Missions, and then go from there to wherever in the game setting you might want to go (to the Early Years, to alternate settings like Omega or the LMC, or elsewhere and elsewhen). Another option is to buy the Master Rulebook, which includes the rules needed to fly a given Alpha Octant starship; a Master Starship Book for your chosen Alpha empire (Fed, Klingon, etc.) to get the "R-section" data needed to explain the ships being used; and then order this or that SSD book as a spare part or PDF to make use of in actual game play.

Similarly, FC can start with either the Klingon Border or Romulan Border box sets, and then build out from there. But it also has a Reference Rulebook which consolidates most of the rules needed to use the various Ship Cards, which in turn can be ordered as spare parts or as PDFs.

So, if someone wanted to play both SFB and FC, they could mix and match the means by which they can get the tools they need to play both games. Or, if thywant to stick with one or the other, each offers multiple "on-ramps" to get them where they might wish to go.

Given that the SFU and BT are both long-standing game universes with their own respective families of game systems to build upon, it seemed... logical for me to keep both in mind in conversations like this. But, of course, parsec-ages might vary on that front, so whether anyone else agrees or not is another matter entirely.

[Geg]

Actually since we’re on the topic of tournament rules….are there any rules for tournament legal customizations? Like, you can’t do full blown overhauls but replacing AC/20s with AC/10s, or other minor changes to either weapons or armor?

Or would it only be strictly CANON units?

Non-Canon units would be almost impossible to effectively police.  Especially if the tournament was BV balanced.  Its not that it couldn't be done, but its almost definitely not worth the headache.

[Daemion]

<Above is snipped>

THIS ! SO much this.
Earlier I saw talk about changing vehicle rules. WHY ?
Those rules themselves aren't the problem.
The problem is the overall organization and a lack of clarity.

We need all of the corrected rules put close enough to their subject
to be easy to find and understand.
I can understand moving some things out of an initial Core book but
not changing rules that aren't a part of the problem.

Absolutely.  As someone who wanted to bring the Dark Age to into my BT games with Industrials, you know one of the hardest things to find in Total Wafare?  The rule on ICE engines and flooding when submerged.  I did a thorough readthrough of the rules when I first got it and noted that rule.  But, when I go back to look for it, It's near impossible to find. It think it's a footnote in some table somewhere, or a bulleted point.  But, it's not in ANY of the sections I would go to first thing to find it.  I don't think I could find it again without some time spent.

[SCC]

If we do get rewritten rules, can we have the stuff related to JumpShips be worked over so that it more closely matches the lore? Like due to the evolution of things there are some minor but noticeable differences, like how the rules say to Jump 300k tons of stuff you need a 95k ton core, but the fluff says 100k ton, and that's OK. But the Rules for Primitive JumpShips say that 95k ton core can only Jump a JumpShip of up to 100k tons if it can jump 30 ly, which doesn't match up and implies that Docking Collars/KF Booms increase the capacity of what can be Jumped, which is not in agreement with the normal rules, which limit the number of collars based upon the weight of the JumpShips, saying the relationship goes the other war around.