Some of the way Anti-Missile Systems worked was nice.
The clear and simple layout of the books.In that vein, rule books with just rules... The fact that the fiction sections don't have page numbers makes them doubly annoying.
In that vein, rule books with just rules... The fact that the fiction sections don't have page numbers makes them doubly annoying.
Use of two hatchets in one melee phase, and on the punch-chart.
Special equipment rules having their own dedicated section, and not flowing directly from the combat rules in the combat section.
Concise rules that don't try to account for every edge case. As I move on to writing for other companies, this is something I'm seriously having to unlearn. For one article I'm doing for Ogre, once I stopped trying to write the rules to cover every possibility, I was able to condense about half a page into two sentences.
I think the common misconceptions section at the end of BMM was a good way to address the ways people misconstrue the rules as written like they were in BMR
I feel that I am in the vast minority in this, but I greatly prefer the old partial cover rules. It's hard enough to land a hit in BattleTech as it is. Landing one only to waste time with another roll that negates it is frustrating at best.
The only thing I miss is how easy it was to kill infantry and tanks. Sure, no one used infantry or tanks (or machine guns) but it made mechs the unquestionable kings of the battlefield.
Only reason I miss it is because of the zerg rush crowd always post 'Y not tanks? Y mechs at all?'
Some of the way Anti-Missile Systems worked was nice.
*nod*
Vehicles probably did need a bit of help but they do feel a bit too good now versus older rules and I do have to argue way harder than I feel I should for what is supposed to be the staple of this game to be the king.
Another one I am torn on. AMS isn't effective enough against smaller missile launchers under current rules, streaks in general, but the reduced ammo consumption was an absolute godsend. Though I'd be loathe to add another roll to the game when we already have so many.
I think not being able to survive destruction of a section is flimsy enough, honestly.
I seem to be in the minority here, but I rather appreciate most of the changes in Total Warfare. I'll agree that the organization of the book is pretty lacking, but I like having the clarifications, edge cases and wrinkles spelled out, where possible. I'm also a fan of rules that encourage people to actually take advantage of vehicles, partial cover, etc.
To each their own, I guess.
I feel that I am in the vast minority in this, but I greatly prefer the old partial cover rules. It's hard enough to land a hit in BattleTech as it is. Landing one only to waste time with another roll that negates it is frustrating at best.
I've gone back and forth on that myself. I really hate mechanics where after I make my to hit roll I still miss but going straight punch table was a bit much. So I'd be all for a compromise of some sort where leg locations just took reduced damage instead when rolled. Could even vary it by what was in the way of the legs if one really wanted to as well.
Leg hits are treated as corresponding arm hits. Did that for an alternate setting, and my friends like it.
That's a great addition, yes. But it also shows the futility in expanding rules to account for edge cases and "accidental" misreadings: many of the rules in question were worded just fine in the BMR. One of the most common mistaken rules is when re-rolling torso or arm critical hits (that is, you're supposed to re-roll both dice, not just one). It's been practically unchanged since Battledroids, yet folks still get it wrong!
You're not. It was equally exciting for both sides. I actually prefer them. You took a huge gamble taking it, but the reward looked pretty good. It was especially effective if you could also apply terrain, either natural (on the map woods) or applied (smoke).
I wouldn't be opposed to that either for simplicity's sake but it creates a bit of a problem for quad mechs where there would be no getting around concentrating damage a bit unfairly which is why I think a reduced damage to the legs mechanic would be better.
I kinda miss infernos being only for size-2 SRM racks. Don’t remember which ruleselt that came from, but it made the size-2 racks suck just a wee bit less.
Concise rules that don't try to account for every edge case. As I move on to writing for other companies, this is something I'm seriously having to unlearn. For one article I'm doing for Ogre, once I stopped trying to write the rules to cover every possibility, I was able to condense about half a page into two sentences.Concise, clear rules in the basic area, with edge cases covered in extra rules sections about that edge case, is what I prefer. It's (another) reason I hated the Warmachine rules, but liked the way that FFG has set up their Star Wars wargames.
Simple - or even no - ECM/ECCM rules. The makers of Star Fleet Battles have said that their game's electronic warfare rules are the most universally-ignored subset of the entire system, and cut the very concept from Federation Commander. As far as I'm concerned, BattleTech's ECM/ECCM rules are pure wasted page count. If I had my druthers, I'd retcon the ECM Suite (and related items) completely out of the game, or reduce its effects to a flat +1 to enemy fire passing near the carrying unit.Wait, Federation Commander is based off Star Fleet Battles? This is relevant to my interests.
But your idea is what the Battletech game desperately needs more of: Simplification.
Trim the fat, dammit, and there's a LOT of fat which has built up over thirty years. It isn't just flabby, it's morbidly obese. When the reference tables for your basic game book, just the stuff you need to play with some 'Mechs, some tanks, and maybe some buildings, occupy FIVE PAGES, that's bad. Almost unplayable. Either you have to have internalized them over decades of playing, OR you use a computer to do it.
*snip*That's more a gauss rifle problem than one with the way partial cover used to work. The old rule was, in fact, simpler.
The only problem with changing the rules to make them better is that there are players who still complain about rules changes that happened what, twenty years ago? Only minor offense intended, people pining away for the days of having your 'Mech's head removed by gauss rifles on a one in six chance rather than a one in thirty-six chance, thus making partial cover a NEGATIVE game effect rather than a POSITIVE one, but it's true: the rules removed and changed were bad rules. Arbitrary. Nonsensical. Negative play experiences.
*snip*
That's more a gauss rifle problem than one with the way partial cover used to work. The old rule was, in fact, simpler.
No. The old partial cover rule was bad. It's just that its replacement is equally bad. The partial cover hit location chart should be 2D6, just reconfigured to only include the head, arms, and torso.
No. The old partial cover rule was bad. It's just that its replacement is equally bad. The partial cover hit location chart should be 2D6, just reconfigured to only include the head, arms, and torso.
This. Especially since the only things that regularly get referenced on those five pages of tables in most games is: the cluster table, the hit location tables, the terrain movement modifier table, and the piloting check modifier table.I like to use the table sheet in the back of my 4th ed box, just because it's more compact. I've made annotations for things like partial cover.
Wait. What? I don't understand how that's any different than using the punch table. What I'm hearing in my head is "I want to make a punch hit table that has twice as many numbers in it" which I don't think is what you want.
The issue here, in this case, is that under the old rules going into partial cover was perversely counter-productive. I'll gladly take a +1 to-hit if it means I'm rolling on the punch hit location table. The new rule eliminates that, but introduces the unsatisfying possibility of rolling an actual hit, but having the shot hit dirt instead of the target. Whether or not it's "realistic," it's not fun to think you've managed a difficult shot only to see the target literally unscathed.
Concise rules that don't try to account for every edge case. As I move on to writing for other companies, this is something I'm seriously having to unlearn. For one article I'm doing for Ogre, once I stopped trying to write the rules to cover every possibility, I was able to condense about half a page into two sentences.I've been coming to the same conclusions. I agree with the the rest of what you wrote, but primarily this.
I don't see what's wrong with the Total Warfare partial cover rules.
I think what they're getting at is that the effect of the exposed portion of the 'Mech would prompt the shooter to focus on the exposed part and not the covered part. It is, in effect, a loss of verisimilitude in the response of a reasonable, trained gunner. I'm not going to argue one way or the other, but I think that represents what's behind the opinion.
| **base to-hit number-- | **chance with +1 and leg roll-- | **chance with +2-- |
| 2 | 75.6% | 91.7% |
| 3 | 71.3% | 83.3% |
| 4 | 64.8% | 72.2% |
| 5 | 56.2% | 58.3% |
| 6 | 45.4% | 41.7% |
| 7 | 32.4% | 27.8% |
| 8 | 21.6% | 16.7% |
| 9 | 13.0% | 8.3% |
| 10 | 6.5% | 2.8% |
| 11 | 2.2% | 0% |
| 12 | 0% | 0% |
Ah. Well, that gets into how silly weapons scatter tends to be in Battletech in the first place.
I've been coming to the same conclusions. I agree with the the rest of what you wrote, but primarily this.
this is how i imagine BT hit locations playing out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBz3PqA2Fmc&feature=youtu.be&t=1m32s
I've been coming to the same conclusions.
And it's a nice dream, but impossible. Just eyeball the Rules Questions forums for a while to spot how the edge cases come up. Recent example: what happens when you Combat drop (simple rules) and your Jump Pack is destroyed (or effectively, if you lose your Jump MPs due to damage) on the way down? There is no way to tackle that item without adding more text.
The real underlying problem is:
More options in gameplay = more interactions = more text = more complexity
You cannot reduce the complexity without removing options. Literally impossible.
Heck, just look at Colbosch' suggestion on Partial Cover: Another ****** table! =)
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, occasioned by my work on the Battlemech Manual.
Re: Skidding -
I gotta admit that if the skidding rules get changed, I won't miss the current ones.
If a Mech can wade through 100 feet of trees without tripping, then the program which allows that should easily handle pavement. I know that in a lot of our games, we've simply ignored the modifiers and made a PiSR only with damage mods. I did play around with preplanning the turns and the number of hexes moved and calculating the modifier on that. Worked under the premise that you weren't building speed from turn to turn, but already there.
I like and approve of every part of that post.
(Didnt quote the whole thing: spam)
Yikes, yeah. I found them awful and cumbersome in CityTech 1, and they've only gotten worse since. The rules are especially egregious since travelling along roads should be a net positive, since you get to avoid terrain effects of the underlying hex, but then if you take advantage of that you're more likely to lose control...bleah, I say, bleah. If I want vehicles going out of control and careening into stuff, I'll play Car Wars.
They're seeing all of the weird interactions and edge cases that most players - and even developers - miss. However, the EC doesn't have the standing to say, "we should just delete this entire section." Believe me, I tried...
I tried having the entire C-bill section redacted from the TechManual PDF reprint some years back. Randall politely refused.
Either make these some combination of simple and useful, or toss it. It's ultimately a matter of one part trimming and one part making a potentially entertaining option actually playable.
This also covers unit types. Each comes with the necessity for its own rules exceptions. I think its time we relegated support vehicles and protomechs and WiGEs at the very least to the "niche combat units/IntOps" type book.
I tried having the entire C-bill section redacted from the TechManual PDF reprint some years back. Randall politely refused.You'd make us refer to yet another book to work out our mercenary units? Or make costs up ourselves? ???
You'd make us refer to yet another book to work out our mercenary units? Or make costs up ourselves? ???
Mercs don't work for a fistful of BV...
Seriously, C-Bill costs have been there since the beginning and are an integral part of the MUL. If you're going to have customization at all, it has to be part of the equation. Randall was right to refuse (and kudos to him for being polite about it... you're worth every ounce of politeness than can be squeezed out of this community).
With regards to #1, there's a lot in the base game that results in slow gameplay (not to be confused with difficult gameplay; BT is not a hard game, but it is a slow one).I agree with your whole post, but I pulled out the important sentence, because it reinforces something that I've thought about CBT for years after finally playing Megamek:
Classic Battletech is a computer game, not a tabletop game.
Classic Battletech is a computer game, not a tabletop game.
Yikes! The extra to-hit rolls might work for Ultras, but RACs? That's just a few too many die rolls for one turn...
I would posit that, with all of its granularity, Classic Battletech is Role Playing Game.No, it's a Roll Playing Game. See how many rolls you can play at one time! Piranha machine guns away!
As a GM, I have to disagree... there's SO much more to the game than the battlefield...Yes, the Battletech universe is rich, unique, and varied, with multiple opportunities for role-playing. Solaris stables! Clansmen on their way up! Nobles managing their titles and obligations! Mercenaries trying desperately to earn money without losing too much of it!
Yikes! The extra to-hit rolls might work for Ultras, but RACs? That's just a few too many die rolls for one turn...
My point is TW is a small part of BattleTech. BattleTech (as remarked by many) is a huge house, whose roof covers many things beyond TW. I don't begrudge the AS players, as much as I won't touch those rules with a ten foot pole. What is TW today grew out of the older rulesets, as did literally everything else about the game. Is TW perfect? Certainly not! But the mere fact we're having this conversation means the game is alive and well. We may disagree, but we're both players of a game recognizably called "BattleTech". And for that, I am grateful to TPTB (even Jordan). I have my disagreements with them too, but they're keeping this game alive.Yes, but my response was to a claim that Classic Battletech (the game of armored warfare itself) is an RPG, which is patently ridiculous. It's like calling CBT a first-person shooter, because there are computer games out there where you pilot the 'Mechs from a first person perspective!
My point is: The Total Warfare rules are NOT an RPG (even if the BT universe has potential for one!), and it takes a serious stretch of the imagination to even think they could be.
Yes, but my response was to a claim that Classic Battletech (the game of armored warfare itself) is an RPG, which is patently ridiculous. It's like calling CBT a first-person shooter, because there are computer games out there where you pilot the 'Mechs from a first person perspective!I take a more expansive view of Classic BattleTech, and can see where the folks that say it's an RPG are coming from. It's certainly closer than most miniatures games, and I definitely wouldn't dismiss the claim as "patently ridiculous".
Where I think we disagree on is the need to change. The game needs to change. What needs to happen, and how far it needs to go to make the game better - more playable, more accessible, more FUN - is something to have arguments over, but I honestly don't think Battletech is viable as it is, aside from a dead-end game with lots of dusty minis on a shelf. Alpha Strike is a step in the right direction, but it's too far IMHO.
Nope. They're the 'mounted combat' portion of the RPG Rules. Every incarnation of RPG has said 'Go to {Insert BattleTech Rule Book Here} for Mech Combat.'Nope, Its far in excess of an RPG for detail. Part of running a good RPG session is keeping the pace and speed of combat encounters, using the TW system for combat for even a basic minion-lvl encounter can take the better part of an entire session. Its why I never use the TW rule set when I've GM'd a campaign. Basic encounters take as much time as other RPGs boss encounters, and Boss encounters can take multiple sessions to play through.
But, the level of detail is RPG level, that's for sure.
Many of the revised and new rules is the result of my play testing and writing group displaying how broken the old rules were. Still the only one I truely miss is how partial cover was done in the old days . The punch table if you score a hit was always exciting . The new way makes more sense but is less exciting .I think people would have less of an issue with the current partial cover rules if there was less time to get to that point.
*snip*I don't think that at all. The old rule was very simple: +3 to hit, but if you did, use the punch table (high risk, high reward). Now it's +1 to hit and you don't know if you actually hit until you roll location (low risk, no reward).
I think people would have less of an issue with the current partial cover rules if there was less time to get to that point.
I've been coming to the same conclusions. I agree with the the rest of what you wrote, but primarily this.
Please don't eliminate these clarifications entirely. I'm all for offering a condensed version of the rules, but I have watched, or been involved in, way too many gamer arguments over vague wording. Precision and completeness are virtues in a rules set. (even if perfection is unachievable)
I don't think that at all. The old rule was very simple: +3 to hit, but if you did, use the punch table (high risk, high reward). Now it's +1 to hit and you don't know if you actually hit until you roll location (low risk, no reward).The issue is that a +3 modifier is not inherently high risk. This comes from the bell curve. To look at consider a walking mech shooting at another behind partial cover with a +2 movement mod.
First off, this is just a bull session. As far as I know, there are no plans to rewrite the rules for BattleTech. Second, I think everyone would agree that if such a rewrite were to happen - to bring things back to the relative complexity of, say, Second Edition - the goal would be to streamline the rules in such a way that no loss of meaning would occur even if word count is reduced. The BattleMech Manual is a good example: it is focused on a single subject ('Mech combat) and thus presents the game in an easier format, while still being fully core rulebook-compatible.
My personal goal (were I ever to work on such a project) would be to eliminate the situations that result in wordy edge case rules. As an example, I would dramatically simplify ECM to reduce the insane bookkeeping and rules needed while still trying to keep the in-universe flavor. I wouldn't want to just cut options, but instead redesign them so that more players actually use said options in games - but if a given rule adds only complexity at the cost of gameplay, I wouldn't be averse to removing it entirely.
but I'm sure plenty of people would riot [and worse, eyeroll] at the thought of [yet] another [doggoned] hit location table. ;D
On reflection I could see myself a... little... disappointed. <channeling Gary Oldman's Zorg> :)
The issue is that a +3 modifier is not inherently high risk. This comes from the bell curve. To look at consider a walking mech shooting at another behind partial cover with a +2 movement mod.
Gunnery 4 + walking (+1) + TMM (+2) + PC (+3) = 10 to hit roll or 16.67%
Gunnery 2 + walking (+1) + TMM (+2) + PC (+3) = 8 to hit roll or 41.66%
Gunnery 0 + walking (+1) + TMM (+2) + PC (+3) = 6 to hit roll or 72.22%
And headhits go from 2.77% to 16.66%. So as your gunnery goes up and the number of headcap weapons does as well it becomes very high reward for okay risk.
I suppose we could have left it at +2 and created a new hit location table just for partial cover, but I'm sure plenty of people would riot at the thought of another hit location table. ;D
Why have the punch hit location table as it is at all, then? Seems too many people don't like that sudden 1-in-6 chance at the head, even when it's giant metal fists. The new rules went so far as to put the standard Punch Base to hit at 5 (+/- 0 modifier - with hand actuators intact.)
The old partial cover rules were awful simply because they made cover a very bad idea at short range.
Under the old rules, didn't you only get +2 in Depth 1 Water, instead of +3 like any other partial cover?
But the whole process needs to be streamlined. I just keep running over ideas to make it smoother, more easy, not as much of a pain, while still allowing that Battletech feel. But I also feel as though suggesting changes, any changes, would be met with hostility.
Any change, addition, or retraction will be met with hostility. It's the nature of the beast.And yet change is the one inevitable constant of life. Your life has changed and will change in the future, as is with mine. Those changes have almost always been for the better. NOT changing is often more perilous, as those who adapt to and enjoy change are stronger and more fit to survive.
For cluster weapons, maybe the first cluster hits that spot, THEN scatters all over. Maybe use the damage migration chart instead of rolling a bunch of times for location?My thoughts on anything that uses the cluster table is to have a split damage value with the first being the damage applied to the hit location and the second being applied to each "connected" location. So hit the arm/leg and some damage applies to corresponding torso. hit a side torso and hit the arm/leg/CT, etc..
Just anything to cut some dice rolls out.
My thoughts on anything that uses the cluster table is to have a split damage value with the first being the damage applied to the hit location and the second being applied to each "connected" location. So hit the arm/leg and some damage applies to corresponding torso. hit a side torso and hit the arm/leg/CT, etc..
My thoughts on anything that uses the cluster table is to have a split damage value with the first being the damage applied to the hit location and the second being applied to each "connected" location. So hit the arm/leg and some damage applies to corresponding torso. hit a side torso and hit the arm/leg/CT, etc..
I really dig this idea.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. It might make the head a bit too easy to hit, but that could be handled with an exception rule of some sort. The very idea of getting rid of the cluster hit table and endless rolls for each 1-point LB-X impact...it gives me chills, in a good way. You could play around with the values, to give different types of weapon different damage patterns.
Because the game enables some utilizations of three dimensions, with things like kicks from 1 level above and Death From Above.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. It might make the head a bit too easy to hit, but that could be handled with an exception rule of some sort. The very idea of getting rid of the cluster hit table and endless rolls for each 1-point LB-X impact...it gives me chills, in a good way. You could play around with the values, to give different types of weapon different damage patterns.
My thoughts on anything that uses the cluster table is to have a split damage value with the first being the damage applied to the hit location and the second being applied to each "connected" location. So hit the arm/leg and some damage applies to corresponding torso. hit a side torso and hit the arm/leg/CT, etc..
If you follow damage transfer rules, you'd significantly increase torso hits, but head would never get extra hits.Well, this would also go in reverse damage transfer direction as well, but over all damage would only hit things that currently damage would transfer too or from so it wouldn't need to be more then a single extra line.
It also eliminates the need for any new rules/charts/rolls for cluster transfer.
I don't really like the box of dice solution frankly as I feel it at best sidesteps rather than solves the issue of too much rolling and too much time invested in something that could have a far more elegant solution.Yeah, I have to agree with this sentiment. There are two different categories of playing aids. Those that help organize information better and those that fix a problem with the core game. The former are nice because they are always optional and usually heavily optional. The latter, are rarely optional because the underlying system that requires them is heavily broken. That latter description is the case for the Box of Dice, once you roll a 12 on the cluster table for a LBX-20 you will be desperate to find anything to fix the issues of all those rolls and you will never voluntarily go back to not using it.
After watching a Yu Huang take partial cover from a Fortune tank and getting sprayed in the face SEVEN TIMES with pellets for its trouble, yeah, I learned real quick to avoid partial cover under those rules. TW was a nice change there.
Rolling dice is fun, though.
And this would be great for combining with a new punch table and partial cover. You could still get splash damage on intervening terrain (buildings that track it) if the shot hits a side torso, and splashes the corresponding leg. Other more direct weapons wouldn't have this issue.Well your going to hate me, because I'm trying to get down to a single hit table so I can print the numbers as a watermark behind the circles on the record sheets.Thinking remove the head and TAC from 2 and 12 replace with them with the corresponding arm location from 3 and 11 respectively. Then just apply a +/- 1 to the hit location in the side arc. Then you just have a natural 2 or natural 12 be the TAC and head hits.
I figured on the mech sheet I would include arrows that determine adjacency and the Head would only be connected outgoing So It would only take damage from a direct hit. At the minimum pilot damage would only apply on a direct hit. But yeah, my idea was things like LB-X, and even basic AC to give them a little bump, would be high primary/ low "cluster" value while Missiles would be more balanced. Some rough examples
AC-2 : 4
AC-5 : 7
AC-10 : 10/1C
AC-20 : 20/2C
LBX2 : 1/1C
LBX5 : 3/1C
LBX10 : 5/2C
LBX20 : 10/4C
LRM5 : 1/1C
LRM10 : 2/2C
LRM15 : 3/3C
LRM20 : 4/4C
Each type retains a unique damage profile, the damage actually applies like a proper shotgun hit now in the case of the LBX, and you eliminate the cluster roll plus any other cluster location rolls.
So those tables then over-power the LB-X 2 and entirely nerf the missiles. It's entirely impossible for an LRM-20 to actually do 20 points of damage (as the largest number of connected locations is 3 so the maximum you can get is 16 points of damage, and the LB-2X can do as much as 4 points of damage off a 2 point shot.Well this was part of an overall re-balance of the weapons I'm working with the only requirement being I can't touch Tonnage or Crit slots so as to keep all constructed mechs at least be viable that way. And while you can do a maximum of 20 damage for a LRM 20 you can do 6,9,12,16,20 with 12 or less being normal on a roll of 2-8. So the LRM 20 as well as all LRMs actually gets a fairly significant bump in average damage as well.
Well your going to hate me, because I'm trying to get down to a single hit table so I can print the numbers as a watermark behind the circles on the record sheets.Thinking remove the head and TAC from 2 and 12 replace with them with the corresponding arm location from 3 and 11 respectively. Then just apply a +/- 1 to the hit location in the side arc. Then you just have a natural 2 or natural 12 be the TAC and head hits.Or perhaps if you're in a side arc you count a side torso/arm/leg hit, no matter if it's left or right, as HITTING that side? It reduces each unit types to-hit table down to one.
Yeah, I have to agree with this sentiment. There are two different categories of playing aids. Those that help organize information better and those that fix a problem with the core game. The former are nice because they are always optional and usually heavily optional. The latter, are rarely optional because the underlying system that requires them is heavily broken. That latter description is the case for the Box of Dice, once you roll a 12 on the cluster table for a LBX-20 you will be desperate to find anything to fix the issues of all those rolls and you will never voluntarily go back to not using it.Oh my god, so much this. My experience with Shadowrun 5e was horrifically negative simply because of the mass of d6s involved, and how the game... slowed... down... while... you... counted... your... hits... and... then... compared... it... to... the... defender's... Considering that just starting out characters can often be rolling 18-20d6 for their specialties if built correctly, ugh. I was having high-level WEG Star Wars flashbacks.
After watching a Yu Huang take partial cover from a Fortune tank and getting sprayed in the face SEVEN TIMES with pellets for its trouble, yeah, I learned real quick to avoid partial cover under those rules. TW was a nice change there.
I think we might be wandering into Fan Rule territory
My thoughts on anything that uses the cluster table is to have a split damage value with the first being the damage applied to the hit location and the second being applied to each "connected" location. So hit the arm/leg and some damage applies to corresponding torso. hit a side torso and hit the arm/leg/CT, etc..
I have done that in the past. I even posted them on the forum, but it seems that it was the previous incarnation of the forum. Would you like me to post what I have again (in the Fan Rules area)?a
Many of the " upgraded " 3050 mechs seemed to drop faster against the clanners
then many of the 3025 era mechs .
It's because most of the 3050 upgrades have XL engines. That's a huge drop in durability.
Battlemechs being strong enough to flip tanks over.
Battlemechs being strong enough to flip tanks over.
Was that an old rule? I don’t remember it, but I like it! I actually told Brent I would consider using industrial mods more often instead of just conventional vehicles if they could do something special like flip tanks over to mission-kill them. I didn’t realize it was something all mechs used to be able to do.
This might be faulty memory talking, but I miss hatchets coming in on the punch table. Taking a 3 ton, range 0, heat 0 weapon for 9 points of damage made sense for a hatchetman on the punch table, since it came free with a 9 point pulse version on the 'Mech that hit only the legs.
a
I'd be interested, I was going to look for some people interested in tossing some ideas back and forth to find out what could be gotten rid of, what needs to stay, etc... to doing a new rule set that fits somewhere between the heavy simulation of Battletech and what I think is a bit over simplified version of Alpha strike.
Battlemechs being strong enough to flip tanks over.
10 shot gauss rifles! Old star league tech!
Because the rules to use them are too cumbersome to be part of the base game.
And I'm saying that as a big fan of smoke ammo in weapons.
How long ago did that get nerfed?
Rolling dice is fun, though.
That was always an error on the part of players. The rules never specified using the Punch table.
/rant modeAnother 100% agreement, here. Throwing dice is fun when it has meaning, when it can effect non-incremental change in the gamestate: The AC/20 roll that might just core out a medium 'Mech? Fun. Rolling the sixth of ten Medium Laser rolls for a Komodo? Less fun.
I think this, right here is the problem. There are some people for which rolling dice and seeing what numbers they come up with is inherently fun. For me, and for many others, it could not be more boring.
A game can be defined as "an interesting series of choices". Adjudicating the action is some random number system that responds to your choices with bonuses and penalties. Manipulating those bonuses and penalties to increase the chance of a favourable outcome is what gives the player agency, and what makes it a 'game'.
You want to design a system whose bonuses and penalties are responsive to just the right number of degrees of freedom. Too many options and resolution takes too long. Too few and there isn't enough to interest a player.
The number one problem with Classic Battletech is that resolution of the results of your choices takes too long. That's what people mean by saying "it's a computer game".
Rolling dice is not fun. Rolling dice is a means to an end. The end is figuring out the effects of your choices, so you can move on and make more choices.
If rolling dice was fun, then Snakes and Ladders would be fun, but I reckon most of us outgrew that when we turned 5.
/ rant off
I think I will disagree in part with that. It's not that RNG elements in a game design are *bad*, it's that it may not be to your taste in a game.
Your preference may be for most elements of a game to be under your control and therefore a set of systems to be learned and optimized. This is certainly a satisfying way to play games. An example might be Magic, where there are a great many elements and interacting systems providing a large amount of complexity that have extraordinary possibilities for powerful card combinations in a deck resulting in a strong meta-game community.
But RNG driven gameplay is not objectively bad. It appeals to players who enjoy a large amount of chaos in gameplay systems or the feeling of occasionally winning against really good players. Hearthstone is an example of this. It is driven by greater randomness, sometimes to the point that high-tier players have abandoned the game because they want greater reliability in determining their rank. But it is still a massively popular game, likely because people like to win sometimes even if they are not well studied or brilliant at the game.
I can understand the boringness of dice rolling and agree that too much of it can be a pain point in playing the game, slowing down the action. But this is a matter of the flow of the game, keeping the action interesting and the player engaged, rather than the overall viability of the system. That said, a lot of people do get a lot of fun out of rolling. So I suppose I'd say I agree with you but think you might be making your case against RNGs a bit too broad.
I think you missed my point. RNG is not bad. RNG takes time, and taking a lot of time is bad. I'm 100% ok with playing a game where a choice I make increases the odds of a favourable outcome, rather than assuring it.
But the work of adjudicating RNG is boring. The percentage of time spent making choices vs adjudicating the results of those choices is the problem. That's why MegaMek works in ways that CBT does not.
I love a little bit of dice rolling to spice things up. I am happy for RNG to occur in the background. It's the time proportions that are off.
The time taken for dice rolling is largely a result of player proficiency. Memorizing the hit location tables goes a long way to reducing time. One of my favorite modifications back in college was to take out an LRM-10, and put in 10 Small Lasers. Griffins were beasts with that particular one, but my Eridani T-Bolt was probably the best version.
Memorizing the to hit tables isn't exactly "expert"...
To each their own, I suppose. Rote memorization is not an uncommon skill.So you have two games.
Another 100% agreement, here. Throwing dice is fun when it has meaning, when it can effect non-incremental change in the gamestate: The AC/20 roll that might just core out a medium 'Mech? Fun. Rolling the sixth of ten Medium Laser rolls for a Komodo? Less fun.This is why a while back I suggested that for post time-skip that 'Mechs be limited in the number of weapons they can fire a turn.
It's also one of the reasons that TACs are such a popular optional rule, because it means that something might happen during the first half of a game. Without that rule, it becomes a book-keeping contest for the vast majority of the game - "Please mark three damage off your left arm, five from your right torso, and five from your left leg. Your turn" - until enough damage accrues and finally you might actually blow something up inside their armor.
It's also one of the reasons that TACs are such a popular optional rule,
It's a standard rule, not an optional one.
More accessible to a 15 year old? Obviously the first, since it requires zero investment beyond the rules, which can be found for free online. Clicky-tech models are expensive, hence why we never went back to that.
Citation needed.
The game never failed, it's just that the market moved on, because the market always moves on.
So you're saying I can't unload these Pogs and Beanie Babies for huge sums of money?
Citation needed.I think the lack of continued production of click-tech speaks for itself. Or are you saying someone is still making and selling that stuff?
I think the lack of continued production of click-tech speaks for itself. Or are you saying someone is still making and selling that stuff?
Then maybe you and I simply have different experiences. I'm from a much more financially constrained background, and am inclined to believe that more people are so constrained than are not.
I suspect Paizo may disagree with you there...
I might get a touch personal here, and I apologize in advance, but this is honestly how I feel.
As a child who was on the fringe end of the 1980s geek era, I always perceived an unspoken, but strongly held, attitude among geek culture of that era: That difficult, convoluted rules, storylines, and/or foreign languages were gatekeepers, warding the 'undesirable' casuals while allowing in the ones that we wanted.
Like watching your anime dubbed? Philistine, get out of my house!
Wish that there weren't four different X-Man comics, an X-Force comic, an X-Caliber comic, a Wolverine comic, all of which you HAD to have read for at least ten years (along with several different limited runs of short storylines) to actually UNDERSTAND what was going on? You don't deserve to read these comics, wannabe!
Don't understand how THAC0 works? Please, moron, remove yourself from my D&D game.
While I was (obviously) able to get past the gatekeeper easily, the attitude never felt right to me, and I wasn't able to put a word to it until close to two decades later:
Toxic.
Battletech, for all its positives that I still love, still has much of that toxicity bound up in its rules design, and (if I'm being absolutely honest) oozing from the players who insist that the rules are just fine and if a newbie can't hack it then he should play something easier.
It's a game, gentlemen. A game has value in direct proportion to the number of people that enjoy playing it. To think otherwise, and get smug because SOME people can't hack it and you're not one of THOSE people, is to succumb to that toxicity.
And before you start strawmanning my argument,
Yes, a game obviously has a bottom level for how far it can be simplified.
But if a person wants to play the game because he likes giant robots and bellies up to your table, he should be able to play it with you. The rules shouldn't be preschool level, but they SHOULD be easy enough that anyone with an interest can grasp them and that they're exciting to play.
Battletech, as it stands right now, fails on both counts.
I've got a very similar observation.
I've been a BattleTech fan long enough to see it go from a fun "beer and pretzels" kind of game (although I was underage and too square to dare drink beer) that was the alternative to the Advanced Squad Leader type boardgames and RPGs that were only popular with the "neckbeards"... to being that exact kind of game. A hypothetical 14 year old me today would look at BattleTech the same way as 14 year old me looked at ASL and Rolemaster in the 80s. BattleTech is today worthy of all the same satire that Hackmaster gave (gives? is that game still around?) Rolemaster.
Edit: I also miss more durable hover vehicles.
I think assuming that those of us who think the rules are just fine means we ooze a toxic attitude toward new players is conflating two very different issues. And yes, the way you phrased that does seem a bit "personal".
TacOps is there for you. It knows how you feel.
Well. It doesn't have to be something that a person is actively trying to do. Highly complex systems automatically puts a fairly high barrier on the entry, and its very common that people forget their own passage in learning. Its why I actively have to think from the position that I don't have all my built up memorization and knowledge of the Battletech over the years, because if I don't I come off very much as an elitist even though I'd like more people playing Battletech.
Crimson Dawn has an interesting point about amount of work driven by rules, but I have to admit I like a lot of that "work".
10 shot gauss rifles! Old star league tech!
The old AMS could potentially swat an entire flight of srms... or you could roll snake eyes. That said, standardizing the ammo consumption was good. The dice based ammo rules were odd and inconsistent with everything else.
To each their own, I suppose. Rote memorization is not an uncommon skill.
Imagine if you had a resolution system that was powered by a rowing machine, the kind you find in a gym. You decide who you want to shoot at, and with what, then you get down on the floor and power through 20 reps. In the 80s all games require rowing for action resolution, and people put up with it because there are no other options. Now 20 years later, there are other options. A small but significant portion of the potential playerbase sticks with the game, because they happen to like rowing and giant robot combat, but the rest of us really don't understand it, and drift away.I was going to add something similar to this. Battletech to me comes from the Silver Age of Gaming. The Bronze Age consists of the original era of gaming, nothing really even mainstream in the gaming circles. Silver Age is when you start seeing the first of the more popular games D&D, Battletech, Warzone, Warhammers, Magic, etc... These games were functional but unrefined they often handled mechanical needs of the game system through sheer brute force. It was fine because at the time there just wasn't a lot of other choices out there. We are now in a Golden age of gaming. We are spoiled for choice, games aren't just mainstream in our little hobby but more mainstream overall. Games have been forced to evolve to get the most elegant solutions to mechanic issues, because it's not uncommon for people to have dozens if not hundreds of games.
I learned to play the tabletop game a little over a decade ago. I showed up at a game not knowing anything about how the rules worked, but all the more experienced players walked me through everything. By the end of the night, I didn't know what all the dice rolling was for, but I did know that running my Shadowhawk up to a Crab and punching him in the face was fun.
Like watching your anime dubbed? Philistine, get out of my house!
Wish that there weren't four different X-Man comics, an X-Force comic, an X-Caliber comic, a Wolverine comic, all of which you HAD to have read for at least ten years (along with several different limited runs of short storylines) to actually UNDERSTAND what was going on? You don't deserve to read these comics, wannabe!
Don't understand how THAC0 works? Please, moron, remove yourself from my D&D game.
While I was (obviously) able to get past the gatekeeper easily, the attitude never felt right to me, and I wasn't able to put a word to it until close to two decades later:
Toxic.
And, you know what? I'm a better person in other areas of life for it. That's the one thing I think people are forgetting. I'm really good at arithmetic because of this game and others, like Magic. This game, constantly having to quickly run numbers, is great at working parts of the mind.So my wife just now was playing Zelda: Breath of the Wild, and looking for Stealthfin Trout in a certain place that the map says they're at - the south side of an island. She'd found them ONCE before, over two months ago, but was having no luck now. I say, "Look on the north side of the island. That's where you found them last time." She looks and sure enough, a small pod of them.
I feel you, but that also exists in almost any hobby, and even worse yet when you need to go to some special store to get parts, supplies, advice etc.But things have changed quite a bit in the last ten or fifteen years. I'm not sure when it happened either, but since geek went mainstream most everything focused on being easier and more fun.
I started calling it the "geekism" about a dozen years ago (ok maybe 20) when twice in the same week I experienced it at two very different store.
The above story is just a representation of how even if I love a game (and I can still play 3e D&D but I still will not DM it) if the rules are clunky to me then it can stop me from wanting to play that game even if so much of it is high quality.That is exactly how I feel about 3e D&D. "All the options and splatbooks!" my friends cry. "The stacks of modifiers and endless bookkeeping!" I cry in return.
Who is asking you to memorize tables? That's why they give you the reference card in the starter set.
What's the point of that story? Some people have an easy time memorizing things. Other people do not. By placing memorization as the key skill in playing a game, and subtly deriding other people for NOT having that skill, you fall victim to that patronizing, toxic mentality: "What's that? You can't memorize dozens of things? Well, go play another game, scrub."
And I've seen the local folks in our games grow from 7-8 usual types to sometimes having 20+ players show up.
I think a lot of it is in the way you teach it and how well you stimulate the players' imaginations.
Who is asking you to memorize tables? That's why they give you the reference card in the starter set.Reference cards really are a crutch in game design, their sole purpose is to hold the information that your players are supposed to memorize after playing a few times. They are necessary, but only begrudgingly so. If experienced players still need to look at them even occasionally you've got a real problem.
Battletech is what it is, and that really is unlikely to change. But I know that I have seen a lot of people come through Bootcamp at conventions, start to go play Grinder, and end up playing there all weekend, and then come back the next year and the next year and the next.
And I've seen the local folks in our games grow from 7-8 usual types to sometimes having 20+ players show up.
I think a lot of it is in the way you teach it and how well you stimulate the players' imaginations.
You want games that are faster play? They are out there.
Battletech is what Battletech is. And I think there are players out there for it who will enjoy it for what it is.
Reference cards really are a crutch in game design, their sole purpose is to hold the information that your players are supposed to memorize after playing a few times. They are necessary, but only begrudgingly so. If experienced players still need to look at them even occasionally you've got a real problem.
Sorry, I was feeling somewhat morose because no one showed up at the local game store for a wargame the owner and I were trying to get promoted there. Wasn't Battletech - in fact, last year his distributor sent him some Alpha Strike boxes for free that he then gave to me because I was the only person at his store who has anything to do with the game.
But still, the mood influenced me more than it should have for my last post.
What do i miss about older rules?
My youth... 😂
Older rules means younger me!! 🤣
If you think that Battletech isn't a game where you need to outhink your opponents, you have been playing a very different game than I have.You do, but the opportunities to do so are much later in the game, and fewer the X-wing.
What do i miss about older rules?
My youth... 😂
Older rules means younger me!! 🤣
You do, but the opportunities to do so are much later in the game, and fewer the X-wing.:toofunny:
:toofunny:
As I said before, the game now has a large player base than it had back in the "good old" simply days. If you wish to claim otherwise, please show your evidence rather than simply repeating that you don't like the new stuff.
I've played X-Wing and several other Star Wars minis games. The game is selling due to brand recognition, not because people love the rules: take away the Star Wars logo and it'd be a game that would be shoved into a tiny corner of the game store if they even carried it. It is not fundamentally a superior game to Battletech, it is merely a different game. Battletech would not in any way shape or form be better off if it tried to change to have gameplay more like X-Wing. An attempt to suddenly change Battletech to make it be some other game that it's not would be bad for business.
As I said before, the game now has a large player base than it had back in the "good old" simply days. If you wish to claim otherwise, please show your evidence rather than simply repeating that you don't like the new stuff.
Since the subject was, "What do you miss..." and not, "What is needed to make Battletech a more appealing modern game..." mine is old AMS. I miss the ability to make a missile volley end entirely.
I've played X-Wing and several other Star Wars minis games. The game is selling due to brand recognition, not because people love the rules: take away the Star Wars logo and it'd be a game that would be shoved into a tiny corner of the game store if they even carried it. It is not fundamentally a superior game to Battletech, it is merely a different game. Battletech would not in any way shape or form be better off if it tried to change to have gameplay more like X-Wing. An attempt to suddenly change Battletech to make it be some other game that it's not would be bad for business.
As I said before, the game now has a large player base than it had back in the "good old" simply days. If you wish to claim otherwise, please show your evidence rather than simply repeating that you don't like the new stuff.
I've played X-Wing and several other Star Wars minis games. The game is selling due to brand recognition, not because people love the rules: take away the Star Wars logo and it'd be a game that would be shoved into a tiny corner of the game store if they even carried it. It is not fundamentally a superior game to Battletech, it is merely a different game. Battletech would not in any way shape or form be better off if it tried to change to have gameplay more like X-Wing. An attempt to suddenly change Battletech to make it be some other game that it's not would be bad for business.
As I said before, the game now has a large player base than it had back in the "good old" simply days. If you wish to claim otherwise, please show your evidence rather than simply repeating that you don't like the new stuff.
I miss the Targeting computer rules from Battletechnology. It made mechs with special T&T systems worth taking, Ltke the Lancelot and the Clint.
Are there any of those rules that aren't replicated by Quirks?I'm more of the opinion that the quirks simply don't go far enough. For example, why should I go through all the trouble of trying to find a replacement for my Star League era Lancelot's KBC Starsight 3, when I could simply "downgrade" to a Garret D2j and get exactly the same benefits for a much lower price and greater availability? Answer, I shouldn't, because aside from price, there is absolutely no functional difference between the two. Both provide the Anti-Air quirks, and thats it.
I always like the L1-L3 system and the Tactical Handbook for flavor.
I don't miss the random ammo roll, though.
Although now the Uller-C looks absurd. ;D
Also see Koshi A. ::)
conversely, look at the Kimodo KIM-2. It has 2 AMS, but in the old rules, only enough ammo for 2 missile volleys. That is 3 tons of not so great. Newer rules it makes sense.
That said it was designed to fight elemental, which only have two SRM salvos, so it could kinda make sense. If BA could fire both at once?????
I'm glad that the KIM got lucky and got future-proofed since I have a soft spot for that little mech.
Just went back to BMR and C:RoW and noticed a change to AMS that I do like. Under the old rules, AMS checks were made BEFORE the missile attack's To Hit roll was resolved. So you could use most of your AMS ammo on a salvo that would have never actually hit!
That said it was designed to fight elemental, which only have two SRM salvos, so it could kinda make sense. If BA could fire both at once?????
I'm glad that the KIM got lucky and got future-proofed since I have a soft spot for that little mech.
Not only future proofed, but lovely variants like the large laser, c3 slave, and c3 master versions.
I figured on the mech sheet I would include arrows that determine adjacency and the Head would only be connected outgoing So It would only take damage from a direct hit. At the minimum pilot damage would only apply on a direct hit. But yeah, my idea was things like LB-X, and even basic AC to give them a little bump, would be high primary/ low "cluster" value while Missiles would be more balanced. Some rough examples
AC-2 : 4
AC-5 : 7
AC-10 : 10/1C
AC-20 : 20/2C
LBX2 : 1/1C
LBX5 : 3/1C
LBX10 : 5/2C
LBX20 : 10/4C
LRM5 : 1/1C
LRM10 : 2/2C
LRM15 : 3/3C
LRM20 : 4/4C
Each type retains a unique damage profile, the damage actually applies like a proper shotgun hit now in the case of the LBX, and you eliminate the cluster roll plus any other cluster location rolls.
I will admit I never really saw the point of putting a master on something so light and fragile.
The slave unit one is more reasonable since it wants to get in close anyways but it's not exactly my first choice for a spotter mech.
I've been playing BT since the late 1980's, am an Agent, and I still don't have the tables memorized.
It's so you can use a C3 network with lighter 'Mechs. Otherwise you'd have to use something much heavier, and slower, to create a C3 network. Your lighter 'Mechs may not be able to provide enough firepower to support the heavy unit. And given who invented C3, having a Jenner or Bishamon spotting for three Panthers would be amazing. (I may have to try that.)
I'll use reference tables every time. I tossed trusting 'memorization' a long time ago. Player using tables isn't a problem. Telling new players they are expected to memorize tables is a great way to chase away new players. I'd never suggest this in hearing distance of potential new players, ever.
I'll use reference tables every time. I tossed trusting 'memorization' a long time ago. Player using tables isn't a problem. Telling new players they are expected to memorize tables is a great way to chase away new players. I'd never suggest this in hearing distance of potential new players, ever.Yeah one of the things I would love to see is more of the information put where it matters instead of tables. I never understood why on a hex maps the MP cost to enter a hex wasn't printed on the hex.
A single book to cover it all.
A single book to cover it all.
A single book to cover it all.
Yup. I liked the rules compendium approach. Still don't understand why we can't have the mech construction rules in the base rulebook.
Also, 99% of people use software for mech design, not on the page.
I really doubt that figure. Maybe 99% of folks who post in the fan designs section use software, but not the general buying public.
You think there's people out there who design stuff by hand?
And you think there's a lot of them?
Huh? I mean, isn't it obvious?I knew about the various online 'Mech designers before I even knew Tech Manual was a thing.
I doubt my experience is atypical.
Huh? I mean, isn't it obvious?
I have yet to find a real person (not just on these boards) who uses pen and paper to create a mech. They all have used software, going back 20+ years (Yes, I remember using software for it and printing on a dot matrix printer back in the late 90s).I still will whip up tonnages by hand while referencing the construction tables. The design software is less about design and more about refinement and printing a nice-looking sheet, for me.
That or they own the record sheets products and copy those.
Note: I am talking about battlemechs and vehicles.
. Tech Manual shouldn't exist in this day and age.
Makes no money? Last I checked, the hard copies all sold out...
There is no requirement for unit creation rules being a print book. PDF it per unit type. Or don’t do it at all. It makes no money. HMP has also proven there’s no money in the for-profit route of doing a program.
And gee, splitting the IP causes problems? That’s news to me, I never knew.
'Mech design by hand is such an arduous thing that references so many different tables and decisions that can't be made until you've made multiple other decisions that I at the very least have absolutely no fun doing it by hand. Maybe if engine sizes could be easily figured by hand instead of consulting a table with literally 70 entries it'd be different, but the formula for them is not particularly easy or evident by looking.
If the Tech Manual (or, ideally, every construction option in Introductory, Tournament Legal [when do we just get to call that "Standard" instead of pretending we care about Tournaments?], and Advanced) could be reduced to a paperback book of approximately 100 pages then I'd be all for it.
As is, it's an incomplete relic that's more important for completing the spine picture for the Total Warfare series than it is a book in its own right.
Put another way, it runs smack into the brick wall of "IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS HARD" that the rest of standard BattleTech does.
I feel that I am in the vast minority in this, but I greatly prefer the old partial cover rules. It's hard enough to land a hit in BattleTech as it is. Landing one only to waste time with another roll that negates it is frustrating at best.
I tried having the entire C-bill section redacted from the TechManual PDF reprint some years back. Randall politely refused.
I would stop buying product over that. I tend to play MechWarrior with BattleTech and if you enjoy playing that way C-bills become vitally important. Honestly drives me nuts they have such trouble posting cbills on mechs. I do not understand why they have trouble in 2018 doing things that FASA did in the 80's
It wasn't because c-bills weren't considered useful; quite the opposite. It's tied into (one of) the same reasons why they're not included anymore: the system of calculating unit costs is so nonsensical that no one wants to deal with it. It creates all sorts of absurdities. The hope was to rewrite it and thus fix it, but that never happened.
It wasn't because c-bills weren't considered useful; quite the opposite. It's tied into (one of) the same reasons why they're not included anymore: the system of calculating unit costs is so nonsensical that no one wants to deal with it. It creates all sorts of absurdities. The hope was to rewrite it and thus fix it, but that never happened.