Upcoming Releases Volume XV: Pitter Patter Let's Get At'er

[Colt Ward]

Its actually a good chunk of the 'current' 3145/50 offerings since those variants did not get official sheets.  Off the top of my head . . . Juliano w/Clan ERLL, 3 or 4 other Scourge variants, Orion C, Longinus C, Tempest C, and 4 variants of the Havoc are all missing official sheets- or in some cases even hints.

[Sartris]

i'm not arguing against more sheets. the problem is that the proposed fix (this isn't the first time i've seen it) - DIY stat blocks - are inherently more time consuming, inefficient, and inaccurate than just releasing the sheets. would it increase the sales enough to justify the transcription and formatting if that data were included in a TRO? who knows. if it is the case, just put the sheets in the back of the digital version like with the 3145 faction series.

the last real record sheet release (besides RS:SW, which is almost all reprints) was the Vehicle Annex workmech compilation in 2014. we don't get new sheets because we don't buy enough sheets to make the resources spent making them worth the effort. SSW and MML are great tools but we've kind of painted ourselves into a corner in that regard - new designs can't be added to those databases until they're released officially. for sale. it's ironic that the next major sheet release is going to be the KS stuff, which we've had in various forms for 25-30 years for the most part.

[Colt Ward]

What I was suggesting was not a new additional step in TROs, merely the addition of a bit of information to the entry.

I know some sheets were unofficially released but its still not a good fix for what I assume is a very marginal (I still use my HMP) product but one that is needed for the game.  Unfortunately it also happens to hamper the leading edge of the timeline.

[Empyrus]

Extremely frustrating that cool variants are hinted at but they aren't usable. And even more so that it happens with the "now" moment of the game timeline.

If it were up to me, i'd probably cut the concept of variants in general, to avoid issues like this in the future. Advanced variants do keep older units relevant, but at the same time this leads to question why have new units at all. No variants, no problems. Let variants stay in XTROs or other specials (eg "hero units" in scenarios or sourcebooks).

[Daryk]

The thing that most drives cognitive dissonance is that BattleTech is a non-WYSIWYG game, yet a significant part of the community obsesses about canon record sheets.  As long as the sheet in question is within the rules and what we know about the variant (or whatever), why care?  Yes, crit-padding vs. extra cooling for leg mounted HS is a thing.  As long as both players know what's on the sheet before starting play, what real difference does it make?  It's only when one player tries to hide the actual placement of things that problems arise.  To me, that falls within "don't be a dick" territory.  I daresay Weirdo wouldn't be so fanatical about canon sheets if someone back in the day hadn't screwed him with a surprise in this vein.

[Empyrus]

WYSIWYG is about miniatures and whether they match stats. It has nothing to do with record sheets, canon or not.
Record sheets are essential in this game, WYSIWYG minis are just a preference.

As for recreating described variants, if it were just about "where do heat sinks go", it wouldn't be so bad. (Especially for DHS units, since they rarely have many options where to put them.) But the issue isn't so simple. For example, take the Penetrator 7D from 3150NTNU. The descriptions gives us "AES in arms with Snubbies, and reflective armor". The problem is, what else? Does it change lasers? What about the AMS the original Penetrator has? The descriptions aren't enough to recreate the variants. And the example i gave is one of the more complete ones.

[Wrangler]

You guys realize that the record sheets themselves are the core of the game itself that we play? It's important to have the least all those in place. The fiction is important it supports of the game and of course the actual record sheet. Also the units that show up in the technical readouts we get every couple of years makes the game function. Sure we have plenty of material over the decades. But we need to finish up things so we can move on. And we do need those record sheets.

[Daryk]

Re Empyrus: The concepts are absolutely similar.  Given a rough description of a unit (i.e., the appearance of a miniature, or a text description of a variant), is that enough to employ it on the table?  I'm not saying the two examples are identical (because they're clearly not), but they are similar enough.  I'll hold at that until Weirdo comes back, since he's been identified as the main example of the latter case.

[Sartris]

You guys realize that the record sheets themselveslf sheets are the core of the game itself that we play? It's important to have the least all those in place. The fiction is important it supports of the game and of course the actual record sheet. Also the units that show up in the technical readouts we get every couple of years makes the game function. Sure we have plenty of material over the decades. But we need to finish up things so we can move on. And we do need those record sheets.

what's necessary is that CGL turns a profit. the non-existence of new sheets for sale indicates they aren't that necessary to enough people to justify the creation of more (or if people do find them necessary, enough are mooching off the free ones and expecting others to pick up the bill). the timeline will creep along whether we ever see the 3150 NTNU or not

[Empyrus]

Re Empyrus: The concepts are absolutely similar.  Given a rough description of a unit (i.e., the appearance of a miniature, or a text description of a variant), is that enough to employ it on the table?  I'm not saying the two examples are identical (because they're clearly not), but they are similar enough.  I'll hold at that until Weirdo comes back, since he's been identified as the main example of the latter case.

They're not even analogues. A different miniature does not affect the game, a record sheet does.

I prefer my minis to match stats roughly (as a rule of thumb: "does the silhouette change or not") but i don't care what my opponent has, as long as we're clear about what miniature or proxy represents what record sheet. Rules don't mandate  that miniatures must match stats.

But record sheets based on interpreted stats do affect the game. If my opponent says they'll bring a Penetrator 7D, that does technically satisfy the description but also sports a couple of Gauss Rifles, i'm going to be annoyed. Technically BV takes care of balancing (that dual-Gauss unit probably costs a lot) but it is not perfect (and that is assuming the BV is calculated correctly...).

Throw in practical considerations. I can print sheets for myself and opponent if necessary as long as we're talking about canon units. Can't do that with interpreted units. Depending on time and place, making custom units (based on real variants or not) may not be possible even if printing official sheets is.

the timeline will creep along whether we ever see the 3150 NTNU or not

Will feel like half-assed thing without record sheets to support the said era.

[Daryk]

They are absolutely analogs if you look at different rule sets.  BT doesn't hold to miniatures, but others do.  Some BT players hold to Record Sheets as religiously as some others hold to miniature verisimilitude.  That's the parallelism.  As I said, I'll hold for Weirdo on this one.

[Empyrus]

They are absolutely analogs if you look at different rule sets.  BT doesn't hold to miniatures, but others do.  Some BT players hold to Record Sheets as religiously as some others hold to miniature verisimilitude.  That's the parallelism.  As I said, I'll hold for Weirdo on this one.

BattleTech cannot be played without record sheets. Whether canon or custom units.
Minis are completely optional, just need tokens that can be told apart and have front and rear side.

Canon sheets just happen to be far more convenient and neutral than custom units.

[DarkSpade]

They are absolutely analogs if you look at different rule sets.  BT doesn't hold to miniatures, but others do.  Some BT players hold to Record Sheets as religiously as some others hold to miniature verisimilitude.  That's the parallelism.  As I said, I'll hold for Weirdo on this one.

If a player is using an Atlas mini to represent his Griffon, it's a little off, but totally within the rules.  If a player is using an Atlas record sheet for his Griffon, that's a whole other matter.

[Empyrus]

Reminds me of that joke about Japanese engineers using Russian plans and always getting a locomotive rather than whatever was intended.
"Hey boss, we assembled these Griffin parts and got an Atlas".

Atlas mini to represent a Griffin just means the Griffin has gotten a bit chonk.

[Daryk]

If a player is using an Atlas mini to represent his Griffon, it's a little off, but totally within the rules.  If a player is using an Atlas record sheet for his Griffon, that's a whole other matter.

That's not the analog.  The analog would be a Griffin sheet generated by SSW or MML vs. a canon one.

[Stormy]

Unhelpfully: the Beginners Box game can be played just fine without record sheets 

More meaningfully: the existence of canon rules for construction suggests that Record Sheets are a nice-to-have that has been turned into a must-have by pockets of player culture. If they’re not a profitable priority then maybe it’s our expectations that could change?

It might be heresy, but I feel like we’ve got the tools for filling the gaps in our hands already.

[Daryk]

That's not heresy at all... in fact, I'd assert it's orthodoxy...

[Empyrus]

Unhelpfully: the Beginners Box game can be played just fine without record sheets

Only if you play using stripped-down rules which are useful for introducing game concepts to new players but not particularly fun as a game. (Recently got my brother to try BT, he did say after intro game that next time with full introductory rules.)

Or if you go full calvin-ball.

For BT proper, you need record sheets. Canon sheets are the simplest and most convenient source for units and playing the game. The suggested method. RATs, scenarios refer to official sheets.
Official units are easy to use, they're mostly OK, not too good and not too bad few outliers aside. A casual player might read a TRO, note a described variant and decide they'll use that. And they'll be disappointed to find there is no RS for that unit. I very much doubt they'll start making a custom unit from a description. Not to mention a casual player probably isn't adept at making units that are reasonable whether or not they have a vague description of a unit.
And even if these are not issues, how many are going to make custom units before a game? Much faster to use canon sheets.

Which really sucks when you want to play a Dark Age scenario with smattering of latest tech and can't because the stats are not available.

EDIT Furthermore, no record sheets for units in official TRO is a bad precedent.

[GRUD]

That's not the analog.  The analog would be a Griffin sheet generated by SSW or MML vs. a canon one.

But, if SSW and MML (and HMP) all use the Official Rules, what makes them "Bad" compared to so-called "Canon" Record Sheets?   ???

Especially since I Think the ones made using MML ARE the "Canon/Official" Record Sheets.


I know a guy that used to talk crap about HMP, "Because they're not Up to date" regarding the rules, and he refused to game with anyone that had RS printed using HMP.  He was all about MML.  Which ALSO lets you create Non-Canon and Non-Legal  designs.   ;D  Note that I have NOTHING against ANY of those programs.  I Prefer using HMP, because I'm so used to it.  Still working with MML, and never tried SSW, though I've heard a lot of GOOD about it.

[Sartris]

3150 NTNU in the TRO is comprised of

4 battle armor
9 vehicles
30 mechs
5 Protomechs
6 Aerospace fighters

vs the hundreds in 3145u / 3145 NTNU (many of which have that cutting edge tech). let's not act like there is a chronic shortage of dark age units.

Would they be cool to have? Undoubtedly yes. But I see why we don’t have them

[Colt Ward]

Huh?  I was referring to mostly new units (Havoc, Scourge, Juliano) in the original example.  Being mixed tech I could argue the Orion, Tempest and Longinus are actually 'new' as well.

[SteelRaven]

I know a guy that used to talk crap about HMP, "Because they're not Up to date" regarding the rules, and he refused to game with anyone that had RS printed using HMP.  He was all about MML.  Which ALSO lets you create Non-Canon and Non-Legal  designs.   ;D  Note that I have NOTHING against ANY of those programs.  I Prefer using HMP, because I'm so used to it.  Still working with MML, and never tried SSW, though I've heard a lot of GOOD about it.

Yeah, I personally don't get players that are that cagey with record sheets outside of a official event. If you need to police your game group that much, not only is trust a issue but I'm not sure how you are having any fun.

I really need to give MML another go.

[Sartris]

Huh?  I was referring to mostly new units (Havoc, Scourge, Juliano) in the original example.  Being mixed tech I could argue the Orion, Tempest and Longinus are actually 'new' as well.

either way we're quibbling about  edge cases. the consternation around missing sheets is largely over a small and fragmented minority of total units. this, unfortunately, does not equate to a sufficient level of demand to justify making them. maybe they'll find a home someday and maybe they'll remain a fixture in Beachead's missing unit thread for the rest of time.

 

[Empyrus]

3150 NTNU in the TRO is comprised of

4 battle armor
9 vehicles
30 mechs
5 Protomechs
6 Aerospace fighters

vs the hundreds in 3145u / 3145 NTNU (many of which have that cutting edge tech). let's not act like there is a chronic shortage of dark age units.

Would they be cool to have? Undoubtedly yes. But I see why we don’t have them

Add in TRO prototypes stuff and ER2750 variants and the Dragoon variants from Liberation of Terra and there's certainly enough for a RS release or two. Besides, a RS release doesn't need to be massive.

Edit TRO3150 also describes variants for TRO3145 units that weren't in the faction versions.

[Sartris]

i'm in agreement there are enough (and they would be cool to have)

but would they sell enough? their long general absence does not engender confidence

[Empyrus]

Well, they sure as hell don't sell if they're not available at all.
If making them to RS format is too costly, just sell the raw stats, i can fill sheets on my own.

Or include them in that maybe-planned RS app if it ever gets off the ground. Incidentally wondering if the proof of concept is still part of the kickstarter?

[SCC]

i'm not seeing adding another layer that will likely create a host of mistakes to be errata'd as particularly helpful. it would NOT be a clean or easy process.

ultimately it's a time vs return on investment issue. first making the internal sheets, then converting them into a notation in a TRO is going to take more time than just releasing the sheets now that they largely use MML (vs back in the 3039 days a decade ago when the sheets were manually edited graphics). If it were worth their time to put in the effort to release those sheets, they would be a higher priority.

i guess i find it absurd that people are up tight about approximated units that are simulated by pushing metal around on a table. if it's not an official event or money isn't on the line, i dunno, live on the wild side.

I think the problem is that there aren't even internal sheets for these designs at this stage.

[Sartris]

it's been six years

[Empyrus]

I think the problem is that there aren't even internal sheets for these designs at this stage.

Given that the variants are described to an extent and because some have been unofficially released, I'm inclined to think they do exist.

[Karasu]

Being in the UK, I've been asleep through a lot of this argument, but I'd like to clarify.  I wasn't proposing some sort of project to go back and produce erratta for every single existing Technical Readout.  I was suggesting that, going forward, whenever a statblock is written up for a product they put in a couple of extra pieces of information compared to the current (and since TRO 3025) standard.  This is information that must be known, because it's required to confirm that a design is legal.  We're just not getting told it.

• The first thing is which critical location any 'outside-the-engine' Heat sinks are located in.
• The second thing is whether the Lower Arm and Hand actuators have been replaced.

If I was doing this, I'd put an extra row beneath the 'Heat Sinks:' one to list the locations.  Then I'd put a couple of rows beneath 'Cockpit:'.  'Lower Arms:' and 'Hands:' which would then get 'Present', 'Right only', 'Left only' or 'Absent' as options.