What Do You Miss From Older Rule-sets?

[CrossfirePilot]

What do i miss about older rules?
My youth... 😂
Older rules means younger me!! 🤣

Maybe thats why i really miss my 1985 plymouth horizon, my 80386, and 80s hair metal...

[Nicoli]

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.

[JadeHellbringer]

What do i miss about older rules?
My youth... 😂
Older rules means younger me!! 🤣

Shut it down folks, we have a winner.  ;D

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

You do, but the opportunities to do so are much later in the game, and fewer the X-wing.

:toofunny:

[onionmancer]

:toofunny:

If that’s your response, I don’t know what kind of qualitative analysis would convince you. Have you tried X-Wing? What choices do you think are made by players in BT? Which of those decisions are possible only with the last 20 years of accrued rules cruft? It’s telling  BT was more popular in older sets when it was simpler.

Really i see three decisions made by players in BT: a math analysis to figure out how they can have better to-hits than their opposition, which is mostly a function of reading your map, the game of anticipating movements with imitative, which doesn’t involve a lot of guesswork when you move one at a time (the hidden  decide and declare of xwing is a lot more interesting to me), and gambling chances to hit vs. heat. Those decisions are buried in a lot more time to resolve in BT and come quickly and steadily in XW. And with character cards and abilities and a streamlined push your luck mechanic yoi get  a lot of excitement with less fiddliness.

My gripe with Alpha Strike is that the resolution time is greatly reduced  but you still don’t have much to decide on. I hope for an AS 2.0 that looks more like XW.

Empirically, we see that XW is blowing BT out of the water. If you want to see the IP continue it behooves everyone to understand why and to adapt. If BT limits itself to an audience of grognards it will keep slowly bleeding out.  A modern fun game could capture big chunks of MWO and HBS players easily.  But it requires capital, risk appetite, and the willingness to alienate part of your existing player base in order to find new markets.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Citation needed], double dipped with significant irony for demanding cited refutation in the same breath.

[Bedwyr]

My dudes. Be excellent to each other.

- Moderator.

[RoundTop]

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.

For a quick comparison, many years ago (the early 00s), Wizkids released Crimson Skies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Skies#WizKids_collectible_miniatures_game) It was clix based, but the movement system was very similar to X-wing (secret orders of movement cards, speeds, angles of attack).

It flopped. Hard.  Now it came out in the height of clix based game, but it had cool models, and a pretty quick system of play, even a cool universe to play in. But it just didn't take off.  So there is something to say for X-Wing having at least part of its success due to the brand. Without it, it wouldn't have taken off into the success it has been.  Whether its continued success is due to the brand or the mechanics of the system is a much more debated topic.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I told myself to stop bothering with this thread days ago.  It's time I actually did so.

[Azakael]

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.

[ColBosch]

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 don't miss the random ammo roll, though.

[onionmancer]

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.

Without direct access to sales figures i could point to reduced shelf space, the lack of miniatures being sold at retail, fewer hosted events and participants in. Those vents. Perhaps the best proxy that we do have access to is that there is insufficient demand to support a timely reprint of the boxed set.  What metric do you find most significant?

[ActionButler]

Let's try this again...

The sales figures of other companies that produce other games have nothing to do with old Battletech rules that you miss. 

Companies that produce other games have nothing to do with old Battletech rules that you miss.

Other games have nothing to do with old Battletech rules you miss. 

Stick to the topic at-hand, otherwise we will start handing out warnings and seriously examine what this thread accomplishes if nobody is capable of sticking to the question originally posed.

[Crimson Dawn]

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 wish I could believe that but I live in the Cleveland Ohio area and there are a good number of game stores in this area and so far I have only found one that sells Battletech and when talking to the employee (may have been the owner not sure) he thought it was a cool game but was very unsure of its future considering how it was selling.

This one store has a huge selection of all sorts of games so I am no longer surprised that they had Batletech in it but since it is the only store I have seen it in for many years now I am very unsure that the game is more popular than ever.  It certainly does not feel like it.

[Requiemking]

I miss the Targeting computer rules from Battletechnology. It made mechs with special T&T systems worth taking, Ltke the Lancelot and the Clint.

[grimlock1]

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?

[Requiemking]

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.

[holyspook]

I always like the L1-L3 system and the Tactical Handbook for flavor.

[ColBosch]

I always like the L1-L3 system and the Tactical Handbook for flavor.

Yeah, I like the level system as well, if only to knock out some of the implied snobbery of "Introductory" vs. "Standard" vs. "Advanced."

[JadeHellbringer]

I don't miss the random ammo roll, though.

Man, no kidding. Good news, I shot down two missiles from an SRM-4 salvo! Bad news, I used up half the ammo bin on my Penetrator to do it!

Although now the Uller-C looks absurd.  ;D

[Fat Guy]

Although now the Uller-C looks absurd.  ;D

Also see Koshi A.   ::)

[RoundTop]

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.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Playing HBS's BattleTech got me realizing "hey, force balancing is done by tonnage!"

It's been a looong time since I played a tabletop game balanced by tonnage.  Granted LosTech and ClanTech destroyed that as a mechanism, but while it lasted IMO it was a better force balancing mechanism than CV/BV1/BV2.

Of course AT1 also had its own old-school force balancing in the form of counting Heat Sinks, but TBH I literally never played a game that way so no reason to wax nostalgic about that lost quirk.

[Iceweb]

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.

[RoundTop]

 

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.

[grimlock1]

 

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!

[Iceweb]

Not only future proofed, but lovely variants like the large laser, c3 slave, and c3 master versions.

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. 

[Papabees]

This is genius.

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.

[mbear]

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.

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.)

As for what I miss from older rule-sets? Not much. I think I said it earlier, but I miss non-glossy paper in the books. The regular paper let me write down notes more easily, but that's not a huge thing. I'm going to think about it some more, but I miss rulebooks being rulebooks instead of combined fiction/rulebooks. I think the fiction is nice, but it should be in its own book. Just my 2 cbills.