BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => General BattleTech Discussion => Topic started by: House Davie Merc on 15 March 2024, 13:42:24
-
It's been right around 18 years since Total Warfare came out and the whole current
Core Rulebooks series started.
My copies a First Edition and has so much errata that I'd like to just start over with the
newest editions available for each book. Honestly I've been waiting to see if an entirely
new series is on the horizon.
The more I think about it and discuss these books with other players I've discovered
that I'm not alone. Many seem to have various issues with the overall setup and they have
been looking forward to something better.
A lot don't like how some things were forced together in one book while other things were
separated.
For instance-from recent conversations a huge number of players still play Aerospace as
if it were a separate entity and don't want it as part of the first book past AGOAC.
I can't count the number of new players that have AGOAC that don't want to take that next
step into TW because of what's packed in there.
I would like to see a simpler Core Rulebook system with more bolt on levels to make
it more accessible for new players. I would also like to see related material gathered
in more singular locations instead of as spread out with the potential exception being
a separate book for optional rules.
We can't all get exactly what we want of course, but is it time for something new?
-
they will be re-written, yes. the when and the how are still up in the air but the plan is to not use TW in perpetuity
-
Total Warfare has been the "standard" rulebook for literally half of BattleTech's existence. It is a remarkable work, but it has its flaws and is very much a product of the time when BattleTech was at the nadir of its popularity and public knowledge. I look forward to whatever comes next.
-
to put it in perspective
1987-2006 19 years: The BattleMech Manual ('87), BattleTech Compendium ('90), BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare ('94), BattleTech Master Rules ('98), BattleTech Master Rules, Revised ('01)
2006-2024 18 years: Total Warfare
-
I'm going to take a third option not presented -- my intellect knows that the books need a refresh both visually and to bring the books up to sync with other publications, but I'm the kind of guy whose eye reflexively twitches whenever I hear the word "re-write", just because I think "here we go again, get my asbestos raincoat as the inevitable flame/edition wars happen..."
-
The very fact that Battletech Manual exist and that it is common to reccomend it to a new player because it is easier to read tells you that Total Warfare has long out lived it's prime.
Also remember the goal of that book was for all the Tournement level rules to be in one book. That has not been the case in a very very long time now.
-
I think they are going to rewrite everything by the next year.
-
I think they are going to rewrite everything by the next year.
the level of optimism here is flattering to xotl but probably insane
-
the level of optimism here is flattering to xotl but probably insane
Yeah, t's almost certainly a multi-year project.
-
Total Warfare has been the "standard" rulebook for literally half of BattleTech's existence. It is a remarkable work, but it has its flaws and is very much a product of the time when BattleTech was at the nadir of its popularity and public knowledge. I look forward to whatever comes next.
This is pretty close to how I feel about it.
Recently I've been gaming with and helping out some new players.
They want to go on to that next level in Battletech , but TW doesn't seem like
a great fit for them. It's to much at once for them and having to rely on other
books for rules is a huge turn off.
They want basic ground warfare units such as vehicles,infantry, and artillery added in
a more easy to understand way. A few complete standard infantry platoon sheets in the
core book to use infantry now could get rid of the need to go to another book
just to start using infantry.
A basic artillery section would mean not needing yet another book for basic ground warfare.
I'm honestly not sure myself what to include but after trying to help out some new players
it's become REALLY obvious that something new should be considered.
-
All of Areospace and by Extention LAMs need to be completely redone or in the case of LAMs undone . Areospace support rules and even conventional aircraft play needs to be completely revamped. As long as Artillary has no chance of shooting down aircraft before a bombing run that destroys a dropship happens the rules are broken. Save for house rules that have Anti Air Arrow IV having a 2 mapboard long range shot to take out an incomming bombing unit and or Artillary in Flack Mode one mapboard away before the bombing run the rules are broken. The best a grounded dropship can do is mutual assurred destruction on bombing assets. The only cannon way to prevent a bombing run is fighter cap intercept. Most other aspects of the ground game is fine as is.
-
Most other aspects of the ground game is fine as is.
A huge part of the problem that I'm referring to is not actually the rules themselves.
Much of the problem is how the rules are organized and what books they are in.
Those tournament level ground game rules aren't in one place but spread out
and currently more difficult to locate then they should be.
I'm not going to say the name on this forum , but of the new players that I've met in the last
year at least 8 out of 10 left "that other popular game" and are converts to Battletech.
Having to have multiple books to use what should be basic ground combat is something they came to
Battletech to get AWAY from. Having the rules spread out like they are is an issue.
-
A huge part of the problem that I'm referring to is not actually the rules themselves.
Much of the problem is how the rules are organized and what books they are in.
Those tournament level ground game rules aren't in one place but spread out
and currently more difficult to locate then they should be.
I'm not going to say the name on this forum , but of the new players that I've met in the last
year at least 8 out of 10 left "that other popular game" and are converts to Battletech.
Having to have multiple books to use what should be basic ground combat is something they came to
Battletech to get AWAY from. Having the rules spread out like they are is an issue.
That is, however, what some are suggesting e.g. Mech rules in the core book, infantry and/or vehicles in a supplementary book or books, air/space in yet another. Fine for those who are only doing Mechs, but not so much for others. Lets not get into how convoluted that will get when you have infantry trying to disembark from an airborne fixed wing aircraft (or how about airships...) and combat dropping Mechs, or infantry with field guns firing at aircraft. Or the potential for heading across multiple volumes when you start throwing in TacOps options such as wind/darkness/gravity. As you can probably guess I prefer to have all core units and associated rules and interactions in a single volume that you can flip back and forth through instead of needing several books laid out. From a developmental standpoint, having all those points in the same volume reduces potential for editing problems as multiple volumes may be released or updated at different times under different project managers (like those references in TechManual first printing that didn't really lead anywhere).
Some of this needs to come to a point of scrapping of terms like 'tournament level rules' which can lead to confusion as there really isn't a tournament scene or setup. Which is another discussion, and generally a potent one which doesn't need to be hashed out again here. And getting a firm distinction between tech and rules level which has this crossover which again can be confusing. Primitive - Basic - Modern - Experimental for the former (tech) which can change based on equipment and era; Introductory - Standard - Advanced for the latter (rules) which do not change.
-
That is, however, what some are suggesting e.g. Mech rules in the core book, infantry and/or vehicles in a supplementary book or books, air/space in yet another. Fine for those who are only doing Mechs, but not so much for others. Lets not get into how convoluted that will get when you have infantry trying to disembark from an airborne fixed wing aircraft (or how about airships...) and combat dropping Mechs, or infantry with field guns firing at aircraft. Or the potential for heading across multiple volumes when you start throwing in TacOps options such as wind/darkness/gravity. As you can probably guess I prefer to have all core units and associated rules and interactions in a single volume that you can flip back and forth through instead of needing several books laid out. From a developmental standpoint, having all those points in the same volume reduces potential for editing problems as multiple volumes may be released or updated at different times under different project managers (like those references in TechManual first printing that didn't really lead anywhere).
Some of this needs to come to a point of scrapping of terms like 'tournament level rules' which can lead to confusion as there really isn't a tournament scene or setup. Which is another discussion, and generally a potent one which doesn't need to be hashed out again here. And getting a firm distinction between tech and rules level which has this crossover which again can be confusing. Primitive - Basic - Modern - Experimental for the former (tech) which can change based on equipment and era; Introductory - Standard - Advanced for the latter (rules) which do not change.
These are all excellent points. I'm still pondering if I'd prefer to see the BMM become the de facto "Total Warfare" with non-'Mech units as an additional volume, or if I'd rather CGL twilights BMM and Total Warfare together in favor of a new one-book solution.
As for the tech levels/rules levels thing, I totally agree. I think "rules level" is a mostly obsolete concept and can be dropped from public view. Instead, tie tech to the Eras in which it appears, like how units are tied to Eras on the Master Unit List. If tournaments are meant to be a thing (and right now they're really not), then any restricted equipment should appear in a separate Tourney rules presentation, preferably something online that can be accessed anywhere and updated as the game evolves. With the advent of Battlefield Support, abandoning the "advanced" moniker makes even more sense. Artillery can now be easily used without having to memorize a bunch of special case rules, and the old rules can moved into the future equivalent of Tactical Operations as optional - not called out as advanced, mind, but simply optional.
-
In place of the total warfare + operations books, id like battlemech operations, aerospace operations, Conventional operations, and then strategic operations.
For the current books, I only ever use the humble bundle pdf for total warfare cause i can search it. Finding anything in the paper copy I have is too hard... Just the weight of all the books to run ilclan units is a non-starter. I only carry the battlemech manual and clan invasion book (for elementals) for table games
-
In place of the total warfare + operations books, id like battlemech operations, aerospace operations, Conventional operations, and then strategic operations.
For the current books, I only ever use the humble bundle pdf for total warfare cause i can search it. Finding anything in the paper copy I have is too hard... Just the weight of all the books to run ilclan units is a non-starter. I only carry the battlemech manual and clan invasion book (for elementals) for table games
Off-topic, but Amazon's 10-inch Fire HD tablet can read PDFs out of the box now (it didn't always) and is very reasonably priced for a simple tablet. Were I still playing regularly, I'd load up all the relevant books right on that so I could more-easily search at the table. If you're not into the Amazon thing, there are good options out there now.
-
the level of optimism here is flattering to xotl but probably insane
I meant "start to rewrite" :cheesy:
I think anyway that if we have yet the Battletech Manual, next year we could see the manual for the new Aerotech or perhaps the manual for the vehicles.
Later this year we should see the Mech Commander book for campaigns.
-
A huge part of the problem that I'm referring to is not actually the rules themselves.
Much of the problem is how the rules are organized and what books they are in.
Those tournament level ground game rules aren't in one place but spread out
and currently more difficult to locate then they should be.
I'm not going to say the name on this forum , but of the new players that I've met in the last
year at least 8 out of 10 left "that other popular game" and are converts to Battletech.
Having to have multiple books to use what should be basic ground combat is something they came to
Battletech to get AWAY from. Having the rules spread out like they are is an issue.
I agree. The layout is frustrating.
Although Infantry and Aerospace Rules do need some work.
-
Probably in the minority, but I would like to see a less colour-intenstive layout (at least as an option) for the PDF version, at least. This is a problem endemic generally for all wargames rules books - Paizo have often not been any better, printing an adventure path[1] wastes a lot of ink even in grey scale because of the apparently universal daft idea to print coloured backgrounds on everything, particularly. Nevermind printing, reading PDFs on a regular, non-colour kindle can be a pain, and if I play somewhere other than the house (which has, granted, not happened in years) I either still use BMR or copy stuff into word documents, because there's way too much background colour and wasted space in Total War (or even BMM) for me to ever consider even printing bits of it. Hell, a straight-up kindle version bundled with the PDF was be better in this day and age. BMM is definitely better in this regard, but I recall at the time I bought Total War, it was particularly egregious.
Frankly, the greyscale layout used in the TROs would be a huge improvement and I feel even that is sometimes excessive.
Colour absolutely has its practical place in stuff like tables or heading and such (and its omission is, I hazard, a probably nonfactor in terms of printing costs these days), but toning down the saturation - at least as an option - would definitely be favourite from a utility aspect; I'm a great believer that rulesbooks should serve their practical function first and art a very distant third or forth place. I am not interested in coffee-table books, personally, and absolutely not for a game I actually play.
Again, I know I'm probably in the minority, but...
[1]Because buying hardcopies is nowadays just a straight-up non option. Last time I even looked at it, Pazio was having a 50% sale and it was cheaper to buy the PDFs at full price than the hardcopy at 50% solely due to shipping.
-
These are all excellent points. I'm still pondering if I'd prefer to see the BMM become the de facto "Total Warfare" with non-'Mech units as an additional volume, or if I'd rather CGL twilights BMM and Total Warfare together in favor of a new one-book solution.
As for the tech levels/rules levels thing, I totally agree. I think "rules level" is a mostly obsolete concept and can be dropped from public view. Instead, tie tech to the Eras in which it appears, like how units are tied to Eras on the Master Unit List. If tournaments are meant to be a thing (and right now they're really not), then any restricted equipment should appear in a separate Tourney rules presentation, preferably something online that can be accessed anywhere and updated as the game evolves. With the advent of Battlefield Support, abandoning the "advanced" moniker makes even more sense. Artillery can now be easily used without having to memorize a bunch of special case rules, and the old rules can moved into the future equivalent of Tactical Operations as optional - not called out as advanced, mind, but simply optional.
BMM needs to go away. With the TW replacement being orginized well like BMM. CGL would be making a mistake investing in plastic vechical minis and making it even more expensive to get the rules. We should have never been in a place were BMM and TW exist. When BMM was done all of TW should have been done in that vain. No reason to make it more expenive to learn to play other types of units when it hasn't been that way for Battletechs history.
-
I would be more willing to consider and respond to counterpoints to my musings if they weren't written as absolutes. Just FYI.
-
I think it would be neat if they looked over record sheets, and took all the best ideas, then incorporated them into their company standard. Flechs Sheets has some neat additions that make them better than what you get in the starter boxes. Also it would be nice if they worked out Quirks. If you want them to be in the game (just overall, as a part of the game) then they should be included on the 'Mechs sheet, hopefully with the full rule for the Quirk on there. If people don't want to use them, that's fine, but as it is now, people who would want to use them probably mostly don't ever use them. As part of an overall rules rewrite/reformat.
-
I think the greatest friction/concern about the current core rulebook is the discussion of consolidation vs segmentation of the books (ie should the core book be a massive tome or separated into separate books). But what about a middle ground where we have the entirety of ground combat rules (which I think is the core of the game) in a single volume and then the much less-played aerospace and battlespace rules in a separate book. From my experience the ground combat manual would serve about 80% of the playerbase, with the remaining 20% able to buy the expansion aerospace/battlespace book for the full-fat experience in only two books. This would also allow TPTB that release the revamped ground rules while they figure out what to do with the quagmire that is aerospace/battlespace.
-
I think the greatest friction/concern about the current core rulebook is the discussion of consolidation vs segmentation of the books (ie should the core book be a massive tome or separated into separate books). But what about a middle ground where we have the entirety of ground combat rules (which I think is the core of the game) in a single volume and then the much less-played aerospace and battlespace rules in a separate book. From my experience the ground combat manual would serve about 80% of the playerbase, with the remaining 20% able to buy the expansion aerospace/battlespace book for the full-fat experience in only two books. This would also allow TPTB that release the revamped ground rules while they figure out what to do with the quagmire that is aerospace/battlespace.
The current attitude among the devs seems to be that any aerospace game rules will need a major rewrite, if not rebuilt from scratch. I don't think it's even on the table right now. I doubt we'll see any movement on the aerospace front - aside from the greatly simplified Battlefield Support rules - for years to come. Unless CGL decides to surprise us, of course.
-
I think the greatest friction/concern about the current core rulebook is the discussion of consolidation vs segmentation of the books (ie should the core book be a massive tome or separated into separate books). But what about a middle ground where we have the entirety of ground combat rules (which I think is the core of the game) in a single volume and then the much less-played aerospace and battlespace rules in a separate book. From my experience the ground combat manual would serve about 80% of the playerbase, with the remaining 20% able to buy the expansion aerospace/battlespace book for the full-fat experience in only two books. This would also allow TPTB that release the revamped ground rules while they figure out what to do with the quagmire that is aerospace/battlespace.
Your "middle ground" is pretty close to what I've been thinking as well as most of the long time experienced players I know
that prefer Aerotech to be separate but still usable with ground warfare if wanted.
Many of the newer players that I've met want the same thing because many are coming to Battletech from another gaming
system in which they were tired of having to buy extra books/items for everything.
I've actually been wanting something new as a replacement for at least a dozen years myself but the influx of new
players has really brought home the need to make that next step past AGOAC smoother.
-
I agree about all the color. It is too much. It's okay on the tables and diagrams but it does make it more difficult to read and especially print.
As for 1 book vs multiple; there does need to be multiple books. There's no getting around that but too many is a problem. It's a problem now. If you want to use a LAM you need 3 books for the rules. Construction adds a 4th. The number of rule books should be kept to a minimum. Just going with play and construction would reduce than number in half. The number of rule books should be at a minimum.
The easiest would probably be by Introductory, Standard, and Advanced. The problem is Introductory isn't really supported in later eras.
Whatever their plans, I hope the rules are clear concise, and spread out as little as possible.
-
1987-2006 19 years: The BattleMech Manual ('87), BattleTech Compendium ('90), BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare ('94), BattleTech Master Rules ('98), BattleTech Master Rules, Revised ('01)
Note, first book is BattleTech Manual
The very fact that Battletech Manual exist and that it is common to reccomend it to a new player because it is easier to read tells you that Total Warfare has long out lived it's prime.
Note, the book is BattleMech Manual.
(big winks)
As for content, I want a rewrite of the BTC. No fluff, no fiction, just the rules. All the rules. BattleTech, including artillery, combat vehicle, infantry, and LAM rules. AeroTech, again, with all the rules. And construction rules for everything. Baselined to either 3025 or, more usefully, 3050 with additional era supplements. The idea that the "current time" for the game is the latest era available and an expectation that absolutely everything published will be showing up on the same battlefield is overwhelming chaos.
But that's not going to happen.
If BMM is a model of what well have going forward, I expect a comprehensive ground combat book with all of the other rules for ground combat systems is needed. Then a new edition of AeroTech. All baselined to one era and all construction rules included. And then era books for the era updates.
Something else unlikely to happen. Stop printing on glossies. (This is one thing I despise AD&D2e for introducing to game publishing.) Game books are technical manuals. I need to be able to mark them up in pencil because notes will both be needed and will likely change. If I want an art book, I'll buy an art book.
-
Is it time to consider a reformatting/rewriting of the Core
Yes. Already in development.
-
Yes. Already in development.
I'm really glad to hear that. I imagine that CGL is aware of the deficiencies and layout problems present in the core rulebooks. BMM I think goes quite a way towards addressing that. My big hope is that we won't see information so widely split up as we have in the past.
-
The thing I'm most excited to see is getting all the new rules together. There's, what, three versions of battlefield support? MBB, Tukayyid, mercs KS (currently only available in preview but coming soon)? Then knowing exactly what is and isn't standard/advanced/experimental in 3150 is difficult.
-
As for content, I want a rewrite of the BTC. No fluff, no fiction, just the rules. All the rules. BattleTech, including artillery, combat vehicle, infantry, and LAM rules. AeroTech, again, with all the rules. And construction rules for everything. Baselined to either 3025 or, more usefully, 3050 with additional era supplements. The idea that the "current time" for the game is the latest era available and an expectation that absolutely everything published will be showing up on the same battlefield is overwhelming chaos.
If BMM is a model of what well have going forward, I expect a comprehensive ground combat book with all of the other rules for ground combat systems is needed. Then a new edition of AeroTech. All baselined to one era and all construction rules included. And then era books for the era updates.
The problem with baselining for a specific time period is that time marches on. We see that with Total Warfare. It's baselined for a specific time period but the current time period is almost a hundred years later. I can see an intro that was time specific to introduce new players to the universe. It can be changed out with new printings/editions but the whole thing shouldn't be stuck in one time period.
Also one of the best things about Battletech is that anything and everything can pop up on the battlefield. That shouldn't be made harder to do.
Something else unlikely to happen. Stop printing on glossies. (This is one thing I despise AD&D2e for introducing to game publishing.) Game books are technical manuals. I need to be able to mark them up in pencil because notes will both be needed and will likely change. If I want an art book, I'll buy an art book.
Agreed!
-
The move away from glossy paper would be interesting. On the one hand it would achieve a couple of things: easier to read without glare, easier to mark and make notes, and potentially decreased production costs. However, on the other we have modern presentation of rulebooks as they have been for the past 25 years, and likely costs that are not as expensive as they used to be.
Several comic book fans have argued for a return to newsprint away from glossy paper to reduce the costs of modern comic books; yet, publishers continue to use glossy paper. I imagine CGL is making a similar calculus.
-
The move away from glossy paper would be interesting. On the one hand it would achieve a couple of things: easier to read without glare, easier to mark and make notes, and potentially decreased production costs. However, on the other we have modern presentation of rulebooks as they have been for the past 25 years, and likely costs that are not as expensive as they used to be.
Several comic book fans have argued for a return to newsprint away from glossy paper to reduce the costs of modern comic books; yet, publishers continue to use glossy paper. I imagine CGL is making a similar calculus.
It may be that the difference in costs between the paper types isn't enough in the case of comic books, but the difference in costs between changing suppliers IS.
for the Comics companies.
But that also means the difference in pricing might not be that great because the demand's lower for 'newsprint' quality paper, making it less profitable, therefore less produced, less produced means less volume means per unit pricing goes up....but the difference may be fractional at the level of a small to mid-size publisher, while the price of securing a new supplier, with all the attendant risks?
might well be not worth it, particularly as a good percentage of 'pulp' production has moved overseas since the late 1990s.
There are other suppliers to deal with as well-bookbinders because almost nobody is willing to put newsprint behind hardbacks, and sofcover books aren't prestigious, which might sound like good news, but only if the softcover version is significantly less expensive than hardbacks.
which there's no guarantee it would be. The soft-cover is more likely to CAP what a distributor can charge, and if it's a low enough cap, then the product becomes unprofitable.
Lots of 'if' and that doesn't even get into quality assurance prices. part of what makes 'shiny' paper shiny, also prevetns the ink from bleeding between pages or smudging over time, (or worse, leaving 'ink trace' on a reader/user's fingers.)
Pulp paper (coarse pulp) tends to also be more sensitive to skin oils.
yeah. there's a reason Comics collectors wear gloves, and it's not MERELY to look pretentious.
IOW it may be a business reason that prevents moving from the cosmetically more expensive, to the cosmetically cheaper media form.
-
On the topic of paper stock, it's more complicated than you think. The cost is less about the treatments the paper undergoes and more about what is available in bulk. For some time now, glossy paper has been less expensive than matte. I don't know why this is, but it's been a known issue in the self-publishing scene for as long as I've been involved.
-
Makes me feel like that episode of The Simpsons when Jasper gets stuck in the Kiwk-E-Mart freezer:
Cheap gloss paper... What a time to be alive.
-
Yes. Already in development.
When we could have some news about that? Some details? Some ideas to talk about? :grin: :grin: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
The problem with baselining for a specific time period is that time marches on. We see that with Total Warfare. It's baselined for a specific time period but the current time period is almost a hundred years later. I can see an intro that was time specific to introduce new players to the universe. It can be changed out with new printings/editions but the whole thing shouldn't be stuck in one time period.
This is exactly why it should be done, otherwise your base book gets obsoleted with each new era. It allows expansion via supplements rather than new editions (looking at you, Shadowrun.)
-
to put it in perspective
1987-2006 19 years: The BattleMech Manual ('87), BattleTech Compendium ('90), BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare ('94), BattleTech Master Rules ('98), BattleTech Master Rules, Revised ('01)
2006-2024 18 years: Total Warfare
Holy crap. :shocked: :shocked:
Hadn't realized it had been that long. Just seems like yesterday when the Jihad books were released... (man, I'm getting old...)
But to the main point, I would also chime in and agree that TW needs a major update. And frankly, a slimming down of the number of core rulebooks (we're now up to what, 8 rulebooks? 10 if you count both RPGs). Personally, I'd keep the BattleMech Manual as the primary rulebook seeing as how the majority of games seem to be 'Mech only. But I would do a ground unit rulebook with all of the ground rules from TW and TO for players that want to expand to other unit options. Then an Aero rulebook with all of the aero rules from TW, TO, & SO. (And I'd fold IO Alternate Eras into both of those where appropriate.) A Construction Manual with all unit types. Then a Campaign book for the various flavors of campaign play. (Not sure where I'd put the abstract strategic level play at though.) That cuts it down to say, 5 books in total?
-
This is exactly why it should be done, otherwise your base book gets obsoleted with each new era. It allows expansion via supplements rather than new editions (looking at you, Shadowrun.)
The base rules don't become obsoleted with a new era unless that new era expands the base. A rule book based on era would be obsoleted every time "new" old tech item was introduced or has an errata. Newer eras shouldn't change the base rules, only higher rule levels.
The question would be what are the base rules? I'm pretty sure that'd be Into Tech. I can't remember when the last time something was added to it and it's available from the end of the Age of War to now. That's why I think rule books should be based on tech/rules level. A player can use an introtech Mech from 2500 to now. A higher tech one can't.
And rule books should be updated every now and then to include items from sourcebooks. Sourcebooks aren't always available and keeping things condensed helps reduce the number of books that need to be flipped through. Having the rule book tied to a specific era would make that more difficult. Besides, a player doesn't really need universe information to play. They just need the rules.
-
Total Warfare desperately needs to be redone. Whether it's a stand-alone or expansion to the BMM...
keep fiction but reduce to one page per chapter. Make sure it's topical.
delete industrial mechs, WiGE, support-sized vees. Probably keep protomechs, but I wouldn't cry to see them punted among the other non-core unit types.
Massive edit and organization pass. The book is a PITA without a find function, and still irritating with one.
-
Hadn't realized it had been that long. Just seems like yesterday when the Jihad books were released... (man, I'm getting old...)
Me too! It seems yesterday I opened my firts two boxes. I bought together Aerotech and Battletech. One month later I bought Citytech. Great times.
The Jihad is the editorial moment that I lost the grip with the storyline and I left active playing for years.
(Not sure where I'd put the abstract strategic level play at though.)?
IMHO, Strategic Battleforce should be merged with some ideas of the "linked scenarios" chapter of Campaign Operations, removing the big problems that are there in CO. Perhaps They should create an "abstract" campaign system (one purely without maps), that today is badly mixed in CO, and develop the Chaos System that seems well written. I don't know what they are going to do in the Mech Commander Handbook about this matter.
-
The base rules don't become obsoleted with a new era unless that new era expands the base. A rule book based on era would be obsoleted every time "new" old tech item was introduced or has an errata. Newer eras shouldn't change the base rules, only higher rule levels.
This right here. If you're talking about reformatting the rules so that its easier to read, better organized, or anything in that vein, then thats fine and would make sense so the main book is easier to puruse and find what you need.
Personally I like having a lot of the rules in one place, instead of having to buy several books for the different rules on the different units (unless their individual prices are also lowered so its not as expensive to get all the rules you need, but I don't trust that's going to be well managed so it's something I rather not risk). That being said, having the base BMM rules, and then Supplements for All other Vehicle combat, for Aerospace, for Clans, for certain era's of weaponry, etc, is not inherently a BAD idea, just a one that is risky of being mismanaged OR exploited.
Moving the "time period" of the core rule books, however, I would disagree with. IntroTech rules (3025 Era) are the easiest rules to get into, and should always be the base and forefront in terms of basic rule books. You shouldn't move the "time period" of the main rules forward, because then you'll have the more intricate options of the "current era" and might fall victim to the infamous "codex creep" ala 40K, and many people shifted over to BT to avoid such sillyness.
So my suggestion would be one of two in such a case:
(1) Keep it the way it is, where you have rules for multiple eras in the same book but just have the tech and eras separated. All the rules, all the eras, all in one place.
(2) Make the base introtech Era Rules (3025), and just have the individual supplements for the different Eras that you can buy separately (personally not a fan of this one, again, because of the risk of it becoming more expensive to get into the hobby.
The question would be what are the base rules? I'm pretty sure that'd be Into Tech. I can't remember when the last time something was added to it and it's available from the end of the Age of War to now. That's why I think rule books should be based on tech/rules level. A player can use an introtech Mech from 2500 to now. A higher tech one can't.
And rule books should be updated every now and then to include items from sourcebooks. Sourcebooks aren't always available and keeping things condensed helps reduce the number of books that need to be flipped through. Having the rule book tied to a specific era would make that more difficult. Besides, a player doesn't really need universe information to play. They just need the rules.
Rifle also has a point here too, however I'd add a caveat; make sure the new items and or rules are SEPARATED so people know where the updates are and came from, so they don't get mixed in with previous rules updates.
My suggestion would be to separate by ERA first, then by Tech Level within that ERA.
-
As someone who played 40k for abit and figured out how wasteful book spenditure every 4 years, i jumped from that ship. Decade later come back to bt 30 years later and practically same rule set, awesome. Now read this and hiss like a cat. Better just be organization rewrite. If complete over haul then your just going to scare away the new former 40k players and alienate the regular players. BT is the way it is for a reason.
-
There used to be a tweak of the rules every 3-5 years with a new set of core rules. Someone recently pointed out that the changes in TW constitute at least one of those tweaks if not two or three. Changes to the rules have always been part of the game and that will continue going forward
-
There used to be a tweak of the rules every 3-5 years with a new set of core rules. Someone recently pointed out that the changes in TW constitute at least one of those tweaks if not two or three. Changes to the rules have always been part of the game and that will continue going forward
To be fair, the tweaks were either a) someone didn't like they and FASA had both licensed some image, 2) the timeline advanced and stuff had to be added or rejiggered for the new hotness, or :angry:) something really didn't work right.
-
yeah the BMR, which was the last rule book before TW came out, was really more just adding the field manual tech into the core rule book.
-
There are three pages of rules tweaks at the end of bmr.
Compendium has stars around the headers where the rules were altered. There are several.
-
yeah the BMR, which was the last rule book before TW came out, was really more just adding the field manual tech into the core rule book.
There used to be a tweak of the rules every 3-5 years with a new set of core rules. Someone recently pointed out that the changes in TW constitute at least one of those tweaks if not two or three. Changes to the rules have always been part of the game and that will continue going forward
Speaking from my limited perspective, BMR(r) was better organized and 'tighter' than TW or the rest of the TW hardback series. The difference was even more significant when you consider what was cut from TW for "length reasons" that was integral to BMR(r), and what was added that is not, and was not, something players would use outside of very narrow and specific campaigns.
To be blunt; how often are you actually going to USE Airships?
I favor to believe somewhat less often than a player's campaign or pick up game is going to incorporate minefields or field artillery.
There are three pages of rules tweaks at the end of bmr.
Compendium has stars around the headers where the rules were altered. There are several.
and even more on the BMR(r), BMR, and Compendium:Rules of Warfare.
The point here, is that TW's first and most pressing need, is REORGANIZATION to make it less of a chore to look anything up (and less reliant on PDF search function to be useful or reliable).
Let me lay it out for you from way-back-in-the-day...
Before Total warfare I could hand someone a copy of BMR(r) who's never played the game in their life, and within an hour or so of answering a few simple questions in front of a group in Ye Olde Game Store, I could have a table going, and people would be having fun.
I couldn't do this with Total Warfare. With Total Warfare, handing it to an EXPERIENCED player for the first time is an exercise in confusion and searching.
Information is worthless if you can't implement it, or if it's so difficult that "Let's go watch Sportsball on the telly" becomes a viable option.
Are there rules tweaks I'd love to see? You Betcha. But first, fix the layout and organization so that the book is useful without needing a PDF copy on your laptop with the 'search' function open.
A Core Rulebook should be organized logically, so that when you hand it to someone who's barely heard of the game and never played it, they don't drop it in disgust to go do literally anything else. Your ideal "Playtester" for this, isn't an experienced Battletech player or even an experienced RPG player-your ideal tester for layout, is someone's girlfriend or boyfriend who isn't a gamer, but is keen on participating with their significant other.
You know, someone who's going to get frustrated or bored if it's overcomplicated to find the answer to a rules question.
THAT is your target, because if THAT person can use the book without much effort, or with only a minimum of questions? then it's going to be greased lightning for experienced players and a genuine asset.
In short, cousin dumbass shouldn't have to look through three chapters and two short stories to find understand how to use any given bit of gear in the setting. It should be compact, clear, and above all other things, simple.
-
The big reason to do multiple volumes would be to keep the cost down. I'm not normally in a position to drop 30+ dollars on a book, let alone 40 or 60. If I can get a book for 20-25, I could slowly piece the rules together as I can afford.
It was one of the reasons I was excited about the idea of a plethora of starter level box sets. I could slowly collect minis with record sheets and some maps and other little odds and ends that way. The core box is a once-a-year at best type of purchase. A core rulebook of TW caliber and size is also largely out of the question.
-
For the starter box analogy, they did kinda start to do this. AGOAC has intro tech, Clan Invasion has the tech update and rules for elementals. In the past, the box set that added vehicles and infantry was city tech, so while 'Mercenaries' is kinda a side step, before we knew what was in it I just assumed it would have the full tank and infantry rules. Thus with AGOAC, CI, and Mercs rules books youd have all the mech, BA, vee, and inf rules.
However, from the bits and bobs I have seen for the mercenary box set, you need to buy total warfare with all its issues to play with the 4 vees in the new main Mercenaries box set. (without using the BSP rules, which serve a different function). If the full vee rules ARE in mercenaries, those can hold us over. If not, lots of people will be directed to total warfare, and its layout isnt great if you are trying to play 'out of the box set' games.
Like, because of all the new tech that got expanded on post Total Warfare's release, there is no resolution to a vehicle with a Fuel Cell taking a Fuel Tank crit. TW only talks about ICE and Fusion, and lists the engine types specifically by name, not all the other engine types. Fusion gets immobilized, ICE explodes, but the other types of engines are unlisted. Batteries/Fuel Cell/Solar? I think there are more engines types added then this too, but fuel cell vees are the big one in Ilclan, and total warfare is missing tons of Ilclan equipment and interactions. Tac Ops and Int Ops are both needed to play with the Rec Guide mechs and tanks that are otherwise standard tech for the 'current' era.
-
And rule books should be updated every now and then to include items from sourcebooks. Sourcebooks aren't always available and keeping things condensed helps reduce the number of books that need to be flipped through. Having the rule book tied to a specific era would make that more difficult. Besides, a player doesn't really need universe information to play. They just need the rules.
Kind of like how Rocket Launchers were introduced late 3060s, but could have been around all through the Succession Wars on Vehicles?
This would be a good reason to introduce Tech Card Packs, if you ask me. You have your Core Rulebook with basic/intro tech items. Then you can add tech card packs for other eras for the different items that might appear in other eras to add to it. And, if something comes along that could have been in a prior era, you don't need a new book. You just add a tech card and show what eras it's valid in.
Let's face it, when you look at the list of advanced weapon and equipment and the rules associated with them, they don't take up a lot of space. The rules for a Gauss Rifle simply include the fact that the ammo doesn't explode when hit with a crit, but the Gauss gun does, and for how much. LB-X Autocannons have an alternate munition to work with that imparts a to-hit bonus modifier and rolls for damage on the cluster chart and applies all that damage in individual points rolled on the hit location table.
And, card packs can be relatively cheep to purchase, let alone make.
-
I find it ironic that a lot of people are advocating for the original breakdown of BattleTech when it first got started:
BattleTech -> BattleMech Combat along with some things like smoke and terrain modification
CityTech -> Other general ground combat introducing Vehicles and Infantry and buildings.
AeroTech -> Fighter and Space Ship combat, along with rules for AirMech transformable hybrid designs.
Coming full circle does not bother me one bit.
-
Let me ask a question regarding organization.
Which would be better?
Total Warfare, 2 Tactical Operations, 1 Tech Manual, 1 Interstellar Operations, and 1 Strategic Operations (6 books)
OR
1 Battlemech Manual, 1 Combined Arms Manual, 1 Aerospace Manual, 1 Fleet Manual (4 books).
Because for standard Tabletop Battletech play (i.e. not Alpha Strike, BattleForce, Campaign, or RPG), that's what we're looking at.
-
As someone who played 40k for abit and figured out how wasteful book spenditure every 4 years, i jumped from that ship. Decade later come back to bt 30 years later and practically same rule set, awesome. Now read this and hiss like a cat. Better just be organization rewrite. If complete over haul then your just going to scare away the new former 40k players and alienate the regular players. BT is the way it is for a reason.
Since nobody else really addressed this: don't worry, BattleTech's ground combat rules will not be changing in any substantial way. There might be a rewrite of the aerospace rules, but per the devs that hasn't even started and is well down the road.
-
The problem with breaking the ground combat rules up like people are advocating is that on their own the rules for things like tanks aren't that long, even if you grouped them all together I don't think the rules would be all that long unless they where supposed to be a separate game, and I don't think people are really into that, after all you'd be paying twice for the same content.
-
Let me ask a question regarding organization.
Which would be better?
Total Warfare, 2 Tactical Operations, 1 Tech Manual, 1 Interstellar Operations, and 1 Strategic Operations (6 books)
OR
1 Battlemech Manual, 1 Combined Arms Manual, 1 Aerospace Manual, 1 Fleet Manual (4 books).
Because for standard Tabletop Battletech play (i.e. not Alpha Strike, BattleForce, Campaign, or RPG), that's what we're looking at.
I do really like that breakdown, 4 books that are easy to understand what is in it. The one change I would make is that I would tie the combined arms one into the nameing scheme of the packs and call it "Battlefield Support Manual" and include rules for Airstrikes on the ground. Let Aerospace Manual cover Air-to-Air and full Aerospace construction, but I personally feel that having two books cover absoltely everything you need for the ground game is better than splitting that one thing off into a third book.
-
There used to be a tweak of the rules every 3-5 years with a new set of core rules. Someone recently pointed out that the changes in TW constitute at least one of those tweaks if not two or three. Changes to the rules have always been part of the game and that will continue going forward
That's not changes to the rules though, that's TWEAKING. That's things like the Battle value, piloting/gunnery multipliers, how certain vehicle types are balanced, optional rules, clarification on certain rules in specific cases, etc.
When you say "Changes to the rules" what comes to mind is the main rules of the game, the ranges and stats of weapons and mechs, turn orders, heat, how the record sheets are structured, etc. And THAT is what people who play this game enjoy; no CHANGES to the rules, but small and necessary TWEAKS to outlying specific issues.Let me ask a question regarding organization.
Which would be better?
Total Warfare, 2 Tactical Operations, 1 Tech Manual, 1 Interstellar Operations, and 1 Strategic Operations (6 books)
OR
1 Battlemech Manual, 1 Combined Arms Manual, 1 Aerospace Manual, 1 Fleet Manual (4 books).
Because for standard Tabletop Battletech play (i.e. not Alpha Strike, BattleForce, Campaign, or RPG), that's what we're looking at.
With the caveatt that they each hold construction rules and calculations for BV2 (Battlemech construction for BMM, Vehicle construction and types for Combined Arms, ASF/VTOL construction for Aerospace Manual, etc) AND all weapon profiles of course....
Definitely the 4 books.
Would have to figure out if LAM's go into Battlemech Manual or Aerospace Manual though.
-
Let me ask a question regarding organization.
Which would be better?
Total Warfare, 2 Tactical Operations, 1 Tech Manual, 1 Interstellar Operations, and 1 Strategic Operations (6 books)
OR
1 Battlemech Manual, 1 Combined Arms Manual, 1 Aerospace Manual, 1 Fleet Manual (4 books).
Because for standard Tabletop Battletech play (i.e. not Alpha Strike, BattleForce, Campaign, or RPG), that's what we're looking at.
Techmanual should be compiled with your tournament rules, and just don't include the advanced options you can't use in a Tournament. Those can go in the next book up.
Basically, the BMR(r) should be the model for your central core book, because it lets players play with all the of the SYSTEMS in the game without being burdened by exceptions like quirks, or weird shit players won't use like Airships.
SINGLE rulesets. Only one scatter method or diagram for indirect fire, for example-anyone who wants a simulationist version can buy the optional book and find players who'll accept doing that much extra math. One tweak I'd recommend for TOURNAMENT rules, is that air-dropped ordnance be balanced against ARTILLERY IN THE SAME RULESET, as in cutting out the weird ass situation where one ton of air drop munitions does less blast damage than a fraction of 200 kilos of artillery shell.
(if you can streamline a long tom round that much, you can do even better with a dropped bomb that has five times the mass fraction and occupies a lot more space.)
You don't put things players aren't likely to see a whole lot in the Tournament book. So LAMs go in the next book, (or a later book) same with Warships, mobile structures, Blimps (what are we, Steampunk? come on...) and so on. Your tournament book should be basic enough you can hand it to a newbie and they can use and comprehend it. Suggested: Sixth Grade Reading Level, because that makes it easy to teach.
Second book should include the harder to calculate stuff, like Infantry construction, some of the variations on scatter, mobile structures and support vees.
Book 3 is your strategic warfare book and focuses on Warships and strategic scale assets. This is a redress of Battlespace. Include weirder stuff like large wet-naval and Alpha Strike rules here. Book 3 should let players plan out and carry out Planetary Assaults. and invasions.
You know the kind of battles that can't be won by a single lone heavy equipment operator in a man-shaped giant exoskeleton, but actually hinge on logistics, strategy, and all that stuff that can't be solved in a skirmish.
Three books, not four. Going from Skirmish to small battle to Large battle.
A hypothetical 'Book four' would be a campaign builder for outright WARS. Think "Risk, but with Battlemechs" or similar vein, Starcraft on the table top, maybe, but influenced by, and influencing, the use of the prior three volumes. (aka the rules logically and consistently progress from the tournament level to the battlefield, from the Battlefield to the War Zone.)
Basically Book One should have enough about your BV system to let players build up a Battalion. Book Two should include enough campaign rules to build a regiment or Regimental Combat Team, book Three should be a guide to arming a periphery state or province, and hypothetical book 4 should be sufficient to play out the clash of nations across a few years.
Then for your Traveller/completionists out there, a "Fire Fusion and steel" equivalent that goes in-depth on other eras, *Primitive tech, how to advance tech, how to change the price of it based on volume and resources.
Yes, that's five books but they're five books where if you only wanna play at Battalion or lower? you only need ONE book the others progress it in terms of SCALE and Campaign DETAIL.
but you can hand out the first book at ye olde gaming store, and with a pad of paper and some pencils, you can have a game going even if nobody has a tech readout, or nobody has the right one.
-
I do really like that breakdown, 4 books that are easy to understand what is in it. The one change I would make is that I would tie the combined arms one into the nameing scheme of the packs and call it "Battlefield Support Manual" and include rules for Airstrikes on the ground. Let Aerospace Manual cover Air-to-Air and full Aerospace construction, but I personally feel that having two books cover absoltely everything you need for the ground game is better than splitting that one thing off into a third book.
I don't think it should be "Battlefield Support Manual" because it's going to be delivering the rules for full up Vehicles, Infantry, and Protomechs, and "Battlefield Support" involves the quick and dirty rules of Artillery, Aerospace attacks, Vehicles, and Infantry.
With the caveatt that they each hold construction rules and calculations for BV2 (Battlemech construction for BMM, Vehicle construction and types for Combined Arms, ASF/VTOL construction for Aerospace Manual, etc) AND all weapon profiles of course....
Definitely the 4 books.
Would have to figure out if LAM's go into Battlemech Manual or Aerospace Manual though.
That would be part of the system, yes. The biggest would be the Combined Arms Manual, because we're looking at 5 different Construction systems (4 if we somehow combine Support and Combat Vehicles).
Of course, gameplay doesn't actually NEED the Tech Manual construction rules, as those are things that address systems away from the table itself.
LAMs are a troubling piece. All things considered, they should be in The Battlemech Manual, but only address the Mech and AirMech Modes.
Techmanual should be compiled with your tournament rules, and just don't include the advanced options you can't use in a Tournament. Those can go in the next book up.
First off, why? In most tournament cases, you can't even USE custom builds.
Second, do you know how big a book that would be?
Total Warfare is 291 pages before the Index. Even taking out the fluff (54 pages), we're still looking at 237 pages before the Index and Tables for Total Warfare alone. Aerospace is another 19 pages for movement and 18 pages for combat, for 37 pages that could be potentially left out, so down to 200. Leaving out painting would save us another 19, so we're down to 181 pages of rules, 3 pages of Index, and 10 pages of tables.
Tech Manual has 311 pages before its index. Taking out fluff (50 pages) leave us with 261 pages. If we leave out the support units like IndustrialMechs and Support Vehicles, we can save another 12 and 14 pages respectively. We can probably leave out Aerospace, too, if we're leaving out their rules, so that's another 20 pages. That's a final total of 215 pages for the rules of construction, cost and BV included, 4 pages of Index (which could mix a little with Total Warfare's, but not by much), 17 pages of Record Sheets, and 14 more pages of tables outside of the 215.
So, that's a grand "tournament total" of 427 pages, and that's not including the table of contents and other legal pages that precedes everything else. That's bigger than the old Tactical Operations or Interstellar Operations books before they were split.
There's a reason that the BMR wasn't duplicated when they did Total Warfare. Battletech has simply gotten too big, and construction rules aren't needed for a tournament atmosphere.
-
LAMs are a troubling piece. All things considered, they should be in The Battlemech Manual, but only address the Mech and AirMech Modes.
I'll have to disagree. Either you keep all rules together in one book, or keep the rules together in BOTH books. Splitting them up becomes a headache.
Even with your idea, you still have to have SOME of the Aerospace rules or rules for flying into-off of the battlefield and construction rules for LAMs (including internal structure in ASF mode and all that.)
The only exception then I'd say is having a 5th book for "Non-Standard" vehicles or something like that, for units that actually don't fit into just ONE category.
-
Yes. Already in development.
Expanding on this.
I've mentioned this upcoming core rulebook realignment in multiple interviews and formats over the past year or so because it's become my new pet rock project--but I certainly don't blame the OP for not catching any of that, with so much BT info around these days. Most recently I discussed it in the interview Ray and I did with Sarna (https://www.sarna.net/news/battletech-in-2024-an-interview-with-line-developer-ray-arrastia-assistant-line-developer-aaron-cahall/) (where good lord, I apparently could not stop running my mouth, sorry again, Sean!).
Here's the relevant portion:
Whoever’s next will have their dream products that they get to make. But for me, the thing coming up is the new Total Warfare—and we’re not gonna call it that, but I’ve shorthanded it that way. The realignment of the core books is something that Keith Hann is gonna lead. We [begin] them on the MechCommander’s Handbook, but to realign those core books and do for Classic BattleTech what Alpha Strike has with Commander’s Edition…Doesn’t mean we’re going to do one book, but that there’s going to be people who look at the BattleMech Manual as this great tabletop reference, the book you bring to games.
We can bring order to chaos. We can create a core line that makes sense; that’s fewer books, that still has the same content for the most part, but makes sense. A single book that Total Warfare once was when there was no BattleMech Manual, when there were not as many other core books. That project excites me because, you know, I still love Classic. I’m so happy to see Alpha Strike take off too. It’s been around for a quarter of BattleTech‘s existence, I like to remind people. Oh, the new Alpha Strike thing? It’s been around ten years—that’s a quarter of BattleTech‘s history, right? It just wasn’t doing anything for a long time because it took miniatures to unlock the full power of Alpha Strike and let it be what it is now.
But Classic is not dead, it’s not going away. I ride for it, and I think there is a way to make the core rulebook line more accessible, more engaging, to bring the layout stuff that we’ve learned from BattleMech Manual and other rulebooks into Total Warfare (because it was laid out almost 20 years ago).
To do that for the Classic players out there would really be great. I’ll be playing BattleTech probably the rest of my life. That’s a book I could see using for a very long time. So to get the chance to help make it is a dream.
The current "core" rulebook line's issues are ones of organization and marketing. We cannot have nine "core" rulebooks. Go count your spine art, that's what we're up to now from splitting TO and IO. (And if you think that those splits don't really count, remember that they're separate SKUs and separate things for store owners and distributors to try to make heads or tails of and have to stock.)
But no, it's not a new "edition" of BattleTech. There will be rules tweaks, as some others upthread have described. And I get that for some long-enfranchised folks, some of those tweaks are tantamount to editioning. I respect that, but objectively--they're tweaks. I also get that there are folks who would go far the other way, and want to nuke Classic BT and build CBT 2.0 from the ground up. I respect that too, but there have been pitches like that to management over the years, none have landed, and if they weren't going to rebuild during the lean times of 2014-2018, they're not going to do it now.
On organization, we can talk for a million years about where each of us would draw the lines and move the deckchairs--and sorry, we're not soliciting those opinions at this time from the public. I will say, those lines are finer than you might think. For instance, Keith is working on MechCommander's Handbook right now, what will become a new-core book eventually. And the famous p. 70 of Campaign Ops, the CBT-version of the SPAs, will be sliced out of CO and moved to MCH. But a lot of CO probably will not continue on into the new-core. We simply don't feel any obligation to keep all of this very large stack of rules in print for all eternity. That may lead to what I've called an Archive status of certain rules--they're not being deleted or crossed-out, but they're not being actively rewritten either. They're just not in print, though they'll always be available in PDF form (ideally at a very friendly price, too). Before anyone gets too worried about that concept, understand that we'd be talking about extreme corner-cases or things that don't have an obvious home in the new-core. I'm not trying to dump all of the full vehicle rules into Archive status, they do have a place.
I think we also need to be much more careful about what we're defining as "core." In the same way that fiction is trying to move away from a spine / not-spine binary, I'd like to see us have very few true new-core books, but lots of game product that modify or add onto that core experience. The "core" books now kind of do this--TechManual is only so useful if you don't plan to ever design your own 'Mech--but because they're all labeled and marketed as "core," it warps what a casual customer or store owner might believe is truly essential to the most common BattleTech experiences. For an older example, answer me this: do BattleForce / BattleForce 2 count as "core" products of their time? My opinion--I think it's a common one--is that, no, they're not core products, but they do have value and offer something. The problem is, their successor was baked into a "core" book and I think really didn't need to be.
As far as marketing, it just goes back to what we're calling a core book. BMM has proven so popular--and we certainly have the sales numbers to prove it--because its goal was to be the book that 90+ percent of people need for 90+ percent of games. It was a success exactly because it didn't try to be all things to all people. It had a purpose in mind, and thus had some guardrails as to what it was and was not going to be. That's what we need.
Because truthfully, when I say "new-core," that might even be overstating it. I've seen other posters on this thread float their breakdowns, up to a "book four," "book five."
You know how many books I'd like to see in the new core lineup?
One.
Just one.
With a set of supplements, clear in their purpose, easy to understand and market, and useful to build onto that book to take your game in the direction(s) you want it to go.
-
Thanks, Cubby. I appreciate the transparency.
-
One Core Book to rule them all...
-
I'll have to disagree. Either you keep all rules together in one book, or keep the rules together in BOTH books. Splitting them up becomes a headache.
Even with your idea, you still have to have SOME of the Aerospace rules or rules for flying into-off of the battlefield...
Not really. That's the idea behind Total Warfare. How well has that turned out?
There are rules for reinforcements now. That handles for Flying on to the field. Flying off the field means they have exited the game like any other unit unless the game already is including an Altitude interface. Real simple.
... and construction rules for LAMs (including internal structure in ASF mode and all that.)
95% of construction rules for LAMs are for Battlemechs. What is different are the limits on mass and materials, and the requirements for Jump Jets and Conversion equipment. That's it.
The only exception then I'd say is having a 5th book for "Non-Standard" vehicles or something like that, for units that actually don't fit into just ONE category.
If I'm going to have a 5th book, it would purely be for the updated Tech Manual that has everything missing from Alternate Eras and Advanced Aerospace.
-
Hmm,
I'm trying to figure out a way to split up the books based on "how deep you want to go" for a game.
For Example:
When the game came out, you had Battletech, Citytech, Aerotech, Battle Force, & Succession Wars
The new BMM, which I still don't own, was a really great idea from what I know.
It basically qualifies as "Battletech/Advanced".
In that it gives you all the rules for mechs & terrain & some new future weapons. At least that is what I think it has.
I'm thinking, Total Warfare is a great book, but, if you took TW, TM, TO, & SO, you could probably come up with 3 replacement books that are both More & Less inclusive but create definitive breaks in how you play the game.
For instance, the idea of putting Tanks, Infantry, Buildings, & Asphalt (Citytech Stuff) along with a lot of the Tac Ops stuff for "Advanced Movement/Weather" into a single book along with construction rules for Vees, Infantry, BA, Protos, Support Vees, & Buildings/Forts, etc etc. seems like a good way to have companion to the BMM that you could call something like "Advanced Ground Warfare".
Meanwhile, I'm a huge fan of putting ANYTHING & EVERYTHING that has to do w/ Aerospace into a single book.
From the Boomerang Support Flyer to the Leviathan-III Battleship & everything in between.
I don't need Strafing Runs to be in w/ my ground combat frankly, I'm fine w/ that all being in with my Black Navy Deep Space stuff.
I feel like Battleforce, Succession Wars, & "Campaign Tracking" rules, like Maintenance Costs & other Logistics could in theory all be in 1 book even if they aren't completely similar.
-
First off, why? In most tournament cases, you can't even USE custom builds.
Second, do you know how big a book that would be?
Total Warfare is 291 pages before the Index. Even taking out the fluff (54 pages), we're still looking at 237 pages before the Index and Tables for Total Warfare alone. Aerospace is another 19 pages for movement and 18 pages for combat, for 37 pages that could be potentially left out, so down to 200. Leaving out painting would save us another 19, so we're down to 181 pages of rules, 3 pages of Index, and 10 pages of tables.
Tech Manual has 311 pages before its index. Taking out fluff (50 pages) leave us with 261 pages. If we leave out the support units like IndustrialMechs and Support Vehicles, we can save another 12 and 14 pages respectively. We can probably leave out Aerospace, too, if we're leaving out their rules, so that's another 20 pages. That's a final total of 215 pages for the rules of construction, cost and BV included, 4 pages of Index (which could mix a little with Total Warfare's, but not by much), 17 pages of Record Sheets, and 14 more pages of tables outside of the 215.
So, that's a grand "tournament total" of 427 pages, and that's not including the table of contents and other legal pages that precedes everything else. That's bigger than the old Tactical Operations or Interstellar Operations books before they were split.
There's a reason that the BMR wasn't duplicated when they did Total Warfare. Battletech has simply gotten too big, and construction rules aren't needed for a tournament atmosphere.
Teh reason is because of accessibility. You don't need MOST of what's in those two books for your centerline, baseline, "this is the rules everyone from campaign to tourney needs to know".
Imagine you're in a gamestore environment, and you have to sell the game to players who've never even HEARD of Battletech. Imagine you have limited shelf-space, meaning you can't stock the literally dozens of TRO's that have ever been in print, and imagine your target market has limited, but decently substantial, disposable income and time.
Now, which do you think, is going to sell better; A game you can't play without another book, or a core book that addresses most of the basic rules of the game that can lead to interested players buying the supplementals.
MOST of what was added to TW was unnecessary-they only needed the baseline (This is how you build a 'mech, Tank, or Aerofighter, this is a list of the most common tech and parts, this is how you do initiative, this is how you do movement, this is how you resolve firing phases and physical attacks, this is how indirect fire works.)
Total Warfare stacked on a bunch of things players almost never use, or see, along with a lot of disorder and cross-referencing that makes for a situation where you have whole pages worth of text to explain something that should only take a paragraph.
Lots of Bloat in that page count. your first volume should be written in simple, clear, unambiguous language and it should cover the basics of every function to set up a game using ONLY THAT BOOK, (Plus some hex maps, a notebook, and some dice and pencils).
Why? because your tournaments should cover only BASELINE rules (with specific event changes if you're selling the supplement this year).
aka the book EVERYBODY HAS.
A lot of the disorder in the TW series came from porting material with only a lick of editing from supplementals and unofficial sources, mixed with injecting things nobody has used, or will use (Airships? really?) outside of very narrowly specific events in specific campaign products.
The advanced (read: Rarely Used) rules can go into a follow-on book or supplement. In the case of things like Big Wet-naval ships or Warships, that supplement would be the upscaling, because I'm sorry, but your tank scale units aren't even going to be directly fighting the USS Missouri on a water map.
-
Teh reason is because of accessibility. You don't need MOST of what's in those two books for your centerline, baseline, "this is the rules everyone from campaign to tourney needs to know".
All that, and you didn't answer the questions I asked, you went off on a completely different topic.
Why do you need the Tech Manual included? In most tournament cases, you cannot even USE custom builds.
Second, do you know how big a book combining the equivalent of Total Warfare and Tech Manual would be? It wouldn't be as small as the Alpha Strike Commander's Edition or Battlemech Manual.
Nothing you said addressed constructing custom units. It was all about the new player experience out of the box. Unit construction tends to be complex, and I while I do point it out as an advantage of the game, I usually encourage people to use what is considered "canon" designs till they get a feel for the game and what they like to use because construction is a HUGE rabbit hole to fall in to.
-
All that, and you didn't answer the questions I asked, you went off on a completely different topic.
Why do you need the Tech Manual included? In most tournament cases, you cannot even USE custom builds.
Second, do you know how big a book combining the equivalent of Total Warfare and Tech Manual would be? It wouldn't be as small as the Alpha Strike Commander's Edition or Battlemech Manual.
Nothing you said addressed constructing custom units. It was all about the new player experience out of the box. Unit construction tends to be complex, and I while I do point it out as an advantage of the game, I usually encourage people to use what is considered "canon" designs till they get a feel for the game and what they like to use because construction is a HUGE rabbit hole to fall in to.
You're focusing about 'Custom units', and missing the point. Basic Generation Rules, Basic Combat Rules, basically the BASICS to play the whole game.
Does that make customizing possible? sure. Tournament play is usually boiled down to the most baseline ruleset, even if you're confiining to no custom builds, the most basic ruleset includes basic generation, because not all your books are going to be bought for a tournament, but, if the tourney rules are the basic book rules, you'll sell more books, to a broader audience, and RETAIN IT BETTER.
The 'base book' is almost always the basis of evry game tournament in almost every tabletop game out there. TW was bloated heavily with stuff NOBODY IS LIKELY TO SEE, nevermind USE...and it's the tournament book right now. (when was the last time you took an Airship into a tourney? like, on purpose?)
-
there's a cap on what can be combined. the entire point of splitting TO and IO was to keep books to a reasonable size. so it's less of philosophical issue and more of clown car capacity issue.
-
You're focusing about 'Custom units', and missing the point. Basic Generation Rules, Basic Combat Rules, basically the BASICS to play the whole game.
That's because that is all The Tech Manual is. It is not needed to use the Record Sheets that come in AGAoC, Clan Invasion, the ones that can be downloaded for free from the Downloads page, the ones that can be purchased as part of whole packs, or those that can be printed from design programs like MML or SSW.
The one exception is what is now the last page or two of the Errata: Force BV calculation which talks about the relationship with TAG, C3, and Skill modifications. That part should be included, for sure. It's effectively free right now, anyway, though.
Does that make customizing possible? sure. Tournament play is usually boiled down to the most baseline ruleset, even if you're confiining to no custom builds, the most basic ruleset includes basic generation, because not all your books are going to be bought for a tournament, but, if the tourney rules are the basic book rules, you'll sell more books, to a broader audience, and RETAIN IT BETTER.
The 'base book' is almost always the basis of evry game tournament in almost every tabletop game out there. TW was bloated heavily with stuff NOBODY IS LIKELY TO SEE, nevermind USE...and it's the tournament book right now. (when was the last time you took an Airship into a tourney? like, on purpose?)
And you're proposing to put even more in to it that people will not use in a tournament because the intricacies of individual unit generation are not used in tournaments or basic play, either. As I've already laid out, the ASF sections are outnumbered by the Tech Manual's construction rules by a factor of 5 or more.
The only thing I haven't used from TW is Void, Interface, and Altitude Map Movement and Combat, along with Fragmentation Missiles and Flechette Ammo. Never saw the use for the latter, and the Simplified Radar Map is better for the former. I've used Vehicles, Protomechs, Infantry, and Battle Armor besides the Mechs.
So if you want the basics of PLAY, the Tech Manual is NOT needed, aside from what has been already mentioned for Force Generation.
-
Intro rules are the easiest to get into but they shouldn't be tied to a specific time period. Tying the intro rules to 3025 make it feel like you have to start playing in 3025. Intro rules should be playable in as many eras as possible. That includes the current era.
You can play Battletech without knowing a thing about the universe. To play the universe though it helps to have rules.
To be blunt; how often are you actually going to USE Airships?
I favor to believe somewhat less often than a player's campaign or pick up game is going to incorporate minefields or field artillery.
I would use them more if they used vehicle rules but they use aerospace. :(
The point here, is that TW's first and most pressing need, is REORGANIZATION to make it less of a chore to look anything up (and less reliant on PDF search function to be useful or reliable).
So agree.
That's because that is all The Tech Manual is. It is not needed to use the Record Sheets that come in AGAoC, Clan Invasion, the ones that can be downloaded for free from the Downloads page, the ones that can be purchased as part of whole packs, or those that can be printed from design programs like MML or SSW.
Not everyone gets into Battletech through a boxed set. Nor do they automatically look online or in programs for blank record sheets that should be in the main rule book. Blank record sheets should be in the main book. There should also be a blank mapsheet in the book. You can play Battletech without minis. You can't play without RS and MS. Having to look elsewhere for items required to play is as bad or worse than having to flip through multiple books just to find all the rules. Players shouldn't have to that.
-
Not everyone gets into Battletech through a boxed set. Nor do they automatically look online or in programs for blank record sheets that should be in the main rule book. Blank record sheets should be in the main book. There should also be a blank mapsheet in the book. You can play Battletech without minis. You can't play without RS and MS. Having to look elsewhere for items required to play is as bad or worse than having to flip through multiple books just to find all the rules. Players shouldn't have to that.
I'll second this. A map in the back, a simple modernized copy of the map that came with battletech. Blank record sheet near the back.
-
Not everyone gets into Battletech through a boxed set. Nor do they automatically look online or in programs for blank record sheets that should be in the main rule book. Blank record sheets should be in the main book. There should also be a blank mapsheet in the book. You can play Battletech without minis. You can't play without RS and MS. Having to look elsewhere for items required to play is as bad or worse than having to flip through multiple books just to find all the rules. Players shouldn't have to that.
Way to miss context. Again.
The quote you were responding to was talking about a new person starting with what's on the wall. This is not 1980 or 1990 where finding pre-prepared Record Sheets for free is any real difficulty. Even if you're stuck with a phone (which a few in my group are), you can get PDFs off of several websites which can be transmitted to a local printer.
And "finding all the rules" for Battletech in one book is pretty much impossible without carrying a massive tomb that will crack your back. As it is, they've had to split up books precisely because they were getting too big for the binding they had access to. And that's beside the point when you don't NEED The Tech Manual to play the game.
-
And "finding all the rules" for Battletech in one book is pretty much impossible without carrying a massive tomb that will crack your back. As it is, they've had to split up books precisely because they were getting too big for the binding they had access to. And that's beside the point when you don't NEED The Tech Manual to play the game.
Let me tell you, man, carrying around Total Warfare, Campaign Operations (for SPAs), BattleMech manual (for quirks), TacOps (for advanced combat options), and printed out sheets from StratOps is not fun for my campaign
Why the printed sheets from StratOps? Because the two volume version I have doesn't have the repair rules in it. Those were moved to CampOps after I bought the first version. That was about as infuriating as buying the two volume version of TacOps only to find they didn't update the index or much of the body text with updated page numbers. Talk about dropping the ball.
-
Not really. That's the idea behind Total Warfare. How well has that turned out?
There are rules for reinforcements now. That handles for Flying on to the field. Flying off the field means they have exited the game like any other unit unless the game already is including an Altitude interface. Real simple.
95% of construction rules for LAMs are for Battlemechs. What is different are the limits on mass and materials, and the requirements for Jump Jets and Conversion equipment. That's it.
If I'm going to have a 5th book, it would purely be for the updated Tech Manual that has everything missing from Alternate Eras and Advanced Aerospace.
You know what, I take back what I said. You do have a point there friend. If you want to fly with the LAM ASF, then those rules being in Aerospace actually is a good simplification. You'd still have AirMech and Battlemech modes in the BMM, and flying transformation is either entering or exiting the field.
Ok, I like it! :laugh:
The current "core" rulebook line's issues are ones of organization and marketing. We cannot have nine "core" rulebooks. Go count your spine art, that's what we're up to now from splitting TO and IO. (And if you think that those splits don't really count, remember that they're separate SKUs and separate things for store owners and distributors to try to make heads or tails of and have to stock.)
Fair fair. As long as its reorganization of things into a few or one "core" with smaller supplements, that's reasonable.
But no, it's not a new "edition" of BattleTech. There will be rules tweaks, as some others upthread have described. And I get that for some long-enfranchised folks, some of those tweaks are tantamount to editioning. I respect that, but objectively--they're tweaks.
I suppose that all depends on what's being tweaked and how far. For example, If it's something like tweaking the AC/2's optional Rapid Fire rules so you can clear jams, then something like that's small and sensible tweak. So far, they've done well. We'll wait and see what they come up with.
(PleasedearGodletitbetweakstoLAMrulestobelessjank)
I also get that there are folks who would go far the other way, and want to nuke Classic BT and build CBT 2.0 from the ground up. I respect that too, but there have been pitches like that to management over the years, none have landed, and if they weren't going to rebuild during the lean times of 2014-2018, they're not going to do it now.
Good, that sillyness should always be shot down without hesitation. Management is being sensible here.
Classic BT should remain as it is; its the reason people are flocking to it and have remained with it for so long. The minute a CBT 2.0 with ground up rules rebuilding is approved, it's the beginning of a long and winding death for the franchise, and the beginning of Codex Creep that will NEVER stop.
Yes I am paranoid about that, and yes I have good reason for it. >.> <.<
-
The nice thing is that we do have BattleTech 2.0, it's called Alpha Strike, and it's being marketed as an optional fast-play rules set instead of a replacement.
-
The nice thing is that we do have BattleTech 2.0, it's called Alpha Strike, and it's being marketed as an optional fast-play rules set instead of a replacement.
I was just in the middle of editing my post for this very reason, but you beat me to it!
Solid Agree.
-
Let me tell you, man, carrying around Total Warfare, Campaign Operations (for SPAs), BattleMech manual (for quirks), TacOps (for advanced combat options), and printed out sheets from StratOps is not fun for my campaign
And that's not even ALL the rules. If you have Total Warfare, the Tech Manual, both Tactical Operations, both Interstellar Operations, both Strategic Operations, Alpha Strike Commander's Edition, Campaign Operations, Mechwarrior: Destiny, and A Time of War and its Companion, you'll have all the rules you could need except for research.
That's 13 books, not including TROs/Record Sheet compilations. But you would only need 1, maybe 2 for a tournament game, and that's Total Warfare, with MAYBE TacOps: Advanced Rules.
The BattleMech Manual is a mixture of Total Warfare, Tactical Operations, and Campaign Operations (where the Design Quirks first come in to play). It's all you need (plus a bit more) for a tournament game and you're only play Battlemechs.
You know what, I take back what I said. You do have a point there friend. If you want to fly with the LAM ASF, then those rules being in Aerospace actually is a good simplification. You'd still have AirMech and Battlemech modes in the BMM, and flying transformation is either entering or exiting the field.
Ok, I like it! :laugh:
:smilie_happy_thumbup:
Classic BT should remain as it is; its the reason people are flocking to it and have remained with it for so long. The minute a CBT 2.0 with ground up rules rebuilding is approved, it's the beginning of a long and winding death for the franchise, and the beginning of Codex Creep that will NEVER stop.
Technically, we're in like version 3.11.01 right now, I think. BattleDroids being v1 and the Compendium through BMR being version 2. A lot of people say there have been no changes to CBT since then, and that's mostly true for Battlemechs, but everything else has seen notable changes with the original release of Total Warfare.
And Alpha Strike is NOT Classic Battletech (CBT) any more than Mechwarrior: Dark Age (MechClix) was. It's a separate game all on its own.
-
So here's what I'd like to see in a new version of "Total Warfare:"
- Short introduction, including where players can find "advanced" and optional rules or a lore overview
- Basic unit types: BattleMechs, combat vehicles (wheeled, tracked, VTOL, water, WiGE), ProtoMechs, battle armor, infantry
- Variant unit types: IndustrialMechs, support vehicles (wheeled, track, VTOL, WiGE), Superheavy 'Mechs, multi-modal 'Mechs (LAMs, QuadVees) but not multiple-hex units
- All current weapons aside from artillery, WMDs, capital/sub-capital weapons, and the like
- Terrain and buildings, anything seen on a current mapsheet
- Battlefield Support to cover artillery, aerospace, and simplified vehicles/infantry
- Quirks and SPAs
- DropShips as battlefield strongpoints (because it looks like the models may enter general release)
- Basic scenario creation
- 'Mech, combat vehicle, and ProtoMech design rules
So this is your one-stop source for actually playing BattleTech. My criteria for unit inclusion is the motive type: if it walks, drives, or uses MP (not Thrust), then it's in here. Anything that uses Thrust - aerospace fighters, LAMs in fighter mode, DropShips in flight, conventional aircraft and dirigibles, and all other space vehicles - goes into the future "AeroTech" and/or "BattleSpace" games. Multiple-hex units (large watercraft and mobile structures) require special attention, so I'd put them in a companion volume.
Speaking of that companion volume, here's what I'd put in a new "Tactical Operations:"
- Multi-hex units (large naval support vehicles, mobile structures)
- Radar map aerospace rules and basic interception rules
- Rules for WMDs, construction info for subcapital weapons (for large naval, etc.)
- Construction rules for support vehicles, battle armor, infantry, mobile structures, and large naval units
- More terrain types, if there are any leftover
- Advanced combat rules (alternate weapon firing modes, ECCM, etc.)
- Force creation and special unit abilities
- Pick one set of campaign rules and include it; only support this rules set in the future!
The idea is that the basic rulebook should cover 99% of standard gameplay and 90% of unit construction, with the companion covering the remaining 1%/10% respectively. Support vehicle construction could be in the basic game, but stuff like BAR and custom-sized engines requires a decent level of player knowledge and word count. The radar map rules would not really be an aerospace rules set, more of an expansion of the play space, and could use Alpha Strike cards. I'm also putting force creation here, because I want to keep "faction purity" as strictly optional. Special unit abilities can be found, but are also prone to abuse if there's an imbalance in the players' skill levels. The same goes for quirks and SPAs.
Unlike the core rulebooks, I believe that anything else should be their own games. A "BattleSpace" rules set should stand on its own. Same with planetary invasions or grand-level strategy (which is actually already under development, woo). So in my plan, we've gone from eight-ish core books to just two, eliminating everything that's not a) playing BattleTech and b) making units that are used in BattleTech.
-
So here's what I'd like to see in a new version of "Total Warfare:"
- Short introduction, including where players can find "advanced" and optional rules or a lore overview
- Basic unit types: BattleMechs, combat vehicles (wheeled, tracked, VTOL, water, WiGE), ProtoMechs, battle armor, infantry
- Variant unit types: IndustrialMechs, support vehicles (wheeled, track, VTOL, WiGE), Superheavy 'Mechs, multi-modal 'Mechs (LAMs, QuadVees) but not multiple-hex units
- All current weapons aside from artillery, WMDs, capital/sub-capital weapons, and the like
- Terrain and buildings, anything seen on a current mapsheet
- Battlefield Support to cover artillery, aerospace, and simplified vehicles/infantry
- Quirks and SPAs
- DropShips as battlefield strongpoints (because it looks like the models may enter general release)
- Basic scenario creation
- 'Mech, combat vehicle, and ProtoMech design rules
Too big.
Unit Construction is what would make it too big by far. It's not even in the BMM, even though it pretty much has everything in from TacOps: Advanced Equipment (but not Interstellar Operations which adds 2 more sub-types of units and a whole host of equipment, much of which is "extinct"). Not to mention, unit construction (not to be confused with Force Construction) is not needed to play the game.
Mech Quirks run about 14 pages on their own, including the MUL in it, with the BMM. Campaign Operations Quirks run about 10 pages without a MUL. Campaign Operations SPAs run 13 pages, not including the ones in the latest sourcebooks (like Tamar Rising or Dominions Divided), or the Command Abilities.
Quirks and SPAs will need to be set up to be incorporated BV. This is not a bad thing, though, in my opinion, just a necessary step which will take up even more space in both unit (Quirks) and force (SPAs) creation.
-
As I said later in that post, I could move Quirks and SPAs to the companion (and, on further thought, probably would). I assure you, I can fit the construction rules - with examples - in the page count freed up by cutting the fiction and aerospace stuff. Remember, I'd only be including 'Mechs, combat vehicles, and ProtoMechs. I wouldn't have to go into the same detail on equipment as in the current TechManual; there's a lot of fluff in there, too.
-
As I said later in that post, I could move Quirks and SPAs to the companion (and, on further thought, probably would). I assure you, I can fit the construction rules - with examples - in the page count freed up by cutting the fiction and aerospace stuff. Remember, I'd only be including 'Mechs, combat vehicles, and ProtoMechs. I wouldn't have to go into the same detail on equipment as in the current TechManual; there's a lot of fluff in there, too.
I understand. However, what you would free up from all that would be taken up by all the construction and game rules of all the equipment in TacOps and Interstellar Ops, if they don't take up even more than what you pulled out. There is a LOT of stuff in there.
-
I understand. However, what you would free up from all that would be taken up by all the construction and game rules of all the equipment in TacOps and Interstellar Ops, if they don't take up even more than what you pulled out. There is a LOT of stuff in there.
I am confident that it can be done.
-
I am confident that it can be done.
Considering they couldn't put it all in one book for one unit type (i.e. The Battlemech Manual), you are confident they can be do it effectively for 6 and their sub-types (or sub-sub-types in most cases), and alternate versions for 5 (i.e. Battlefield Support units)?
Even the BMR(r) didn't do that. It left a lot for the Tactical Handbook and Maximum Tech to handle. And the ruleset has gotten much bigger since then.
You MIGHT be able to handle the rest if you left unit construction out, but that's still pretty much Total Warfare + TacOps + Interstellar Ops Game Rules in terms of capacity.
-
That's an incredibly disingenuous question. The BattleMech Manual is literally half the length of Total Warfare.
-
That's an incredibly disingenuous question. The BattleMech Manual is literally half the length of Total Warfare.
It's not a disingenuous question because the BMM still doesn't have all your asking for the central unit type of Battletech, even as small as it is. It's lacking Construction rules. It's lacking rules for the Tripod and Quad-Vee. It's lacking all the equipment from Interstellar Ops that isn't classified as extinct. I'm not even considering if LAMs or Super-Heavies are being brought in to the question. Then you want to multiply that burden by a factor of 3 (there's a lot of overlap, but a lot that is not) when adding in these 5 other unit types (Ground Vehicles, Air Vehicles, PBI, Battle Armor, and Protomechs) and their equipment that Battlemechs don't install, as well as all the tables they require, and we haven't even gotten to the Record Sheets (which the BMM is missing all 3).
I mean, you can try it right now if you have PDFs of the BMM (for reference and base rules), Total Warfare, Tech Manual, TacOps: AU&E, Interstellar Ops: Alternate Eras by copying and pasting in to a Word file or Google Sheet (don't forget to put it in to columns). Don't forget all Errata updates, and how you want any new changes to the other unit types that need to be addressed, too. That's only about, what, 800-1000 pages to parse through, if not more?
-
Again, I am confident that I can fit what I suggested in 300 pages.
-
Again, I am confident that I can fit what I suggested in 300 pages.
And how much will that cost? Piazo can do core books like that due to econamy of scale - they sell a lot of them. They had to dial splatbook size back years ago to keep cost under control. BT core range can afford maybe one book that size, expansions would have to be smaller
Assuming I understand what the market is doing, which is dubious.
-
And how much will that cost? Piazo can do core books like that due to econamy of scale - they sell a lot of them. They had to dial splatbook size back years ago to keep cost under control. BT core range can afford maybe one book that size, expansions would have to be smaller
Assuming I understand what the market is doing, which is dubious.
Total Warfare has had something like nine or ten printings. While I am not claiming to know CGL's marketing research, I do feel safe in assuming a similarly-sized book will do just fine, especially if it means players won't have to buy a second book just to build the most-common units.
-
... I thought TW was smaller than 300 for some reason.
-
... I thought TW was smaller than 300 for some reason.
312, not including the covers. It's a chufty lad.
-
The BattleMech Manual is a mixture of Total Warfare, Tactical Operations, and Campaign Operations (where the Design Quirks first come in to play). It's all you need (plus a bit more) for a tournament game and you're only play Battlemechs.
Yes, the quirks are in Campaign Operations, but the list of 'mechs and their official quirks is in the BMM. So the information isn't even redundant if you have to double check.
-
Some of this needs to come to a point of scrapping of terms like 'tournament level rules' which can lead to confusion as there really isn't a tournament scene or setup. Which is another discussion, and generally a potent one which doesn't need to be hashed out again here. And getting a firm distinction between tech and rules level which has this crossover which again can be confusing. Primitive - Basic - Modern - Experimental for the former (tech) which can change based on equipment and era; Introductory - Standard - Advanced for the latter (rules) which do not change.
It's funny. This has been the nomenclature for 18 years, and still I hear players at the local game stores and conventions referring to "Level 1", "Level 2", and "Level 3" rules from the BMR and BMR(R) eras.
,.
-
So here's what I'd like to see in a new version of "Total Warfare:"
- Short introduction, including where players can find "advanced" and optional rules or a lore overview
- Basic unit types: BattleMechs, combat vehicles (wheeled, tracked, VTOL, water, WiGE), ProtoMechs, battle armor, infantry
- Variant unit types: IndustrialMechs, support vehicles (wheeled, track, VTOL, WiGE), Superheavy 'Mechs, multi-modal 'Mechs (LAMs, QuadVees) but not multiple-hex units
- All current weapons aside from artillery, WMDs, capital/sub-capital weapons, and the like
- Terrain and buildings, anything seen on a current mapsheet
- Battlefield Support to cover artillery, aerospace, and simplified vehicles/infantry
- Quirks and SPAs
- DropShips as battlefield strongpoints (because it looks like the models may enter general release)
- Basic scenario creation
- 'Mech, combat vehicle, and ProtoMech design rules
I like most of this but, as mentioned by others, I'd suggest pulling all of the Design Rules out into a different supplement. Given the breadth of units available in universe, Design Rules really are an adjunct rather than core rule base (even if they've been part of the core rules from Day 1).
And I wrestle with the usefulness of Quirks and SPAs in the "Basic" book. As specialist ability rules, I think they should probably go into a different supplement where formation bonuses are also discussed.
-
Way to miss context. Again.
The quote you were responding to was talking about a new person starting with what's on the wall. This is not 1980 or 1990 where finding pre-prepared Record Sheets for free is any real difficulty. Even if you're stuck with a phone (which a few in my group are), you can get PDFs off of several websites which can be transmitted to a local printer.
And "finding all the rules" for Battletech in one book is pretty much impossible without carrying a massive tomb that will crack your back. As it is, they've had to split up books precisely because they were getting too big for the binding they had access to. And that's beside the point when you don't NEED The Tech Manual to play the game.
Not everyone has internet to find free record sheets. Mine has been off an on all week. Mostly off. And there are places without cell coverage. There's a couple of them near me. But even if the internet and cell coverage was 100%, and there are printers nearby - There aren't here. - players shouldn't have to go hunting for a required part of the game. It's worse than having to hunt through multiple sections in multiple books just to find out what one item does. That's one of the problems with the core books. That players have to go hunting for information. And right now TW requires TM or an internet connection to play the game. That is wrong. Everything one needs to play the basic game should be in the basic rule book. That's basic rules, a blank map sheet, and blank record sheets. You can't play without those things.
And yes, there will be multiple rule books as one would be too big. However, the number of rule books should be kept to a minimum.
-
Not everyone has internet to find free record sheets. Mine has been off an on all week. Mostly off. And there are places without cell coverage. There's a couple of them near me. But even if the internet and cell coverage was 100%, and there are printers nearby - There aren't here. - players shouldn't have to go hunting for a required part of the game. It's worse than having to hunt through multiple sections in multiple books just to find out what one item does. That's one of the problems with the core books. That players have to go hunting for information. And right now TW requires TM or an internet connection to play the game. That is wrong. Everything one needs to play the basic game should be in the basic rule book. That's basic rules, a blank map sheet, and blank record sheets. You can't play without those things.
I haven't played with blank record sheets since the internet was a thing. Back in those days I went to local convenience store and made copies for a dime. Both of which are now impossible.
From there, blank records sheets are meaningless without something to put in to it. And if the group is sticklers about having precise Record Sheets, how would they set that up?
That's why the box works better than just a book.
-
Not everyone has internet to find free record sheets. Mine has been off an on all week. Mostly off. And there are places without cell coverage. There's a couple of them near me. But even if the internet and cell coverage was 100%, and there are printers nearby - There aren't here. - players shouldn't have to go hunting for a required part of the game. It's worse than having to hunt through multiple sections in multiple books just to find out what one item does. That's one of the problems with the core books. That players have to go hunting for information. And right now TW requires TM or an internet connection to play the game. That is wrong. Everything one needs to play the basic game should be in the basic rule book. That's basic rules, a blank map sheet, and blank record sheets. You can't play without those things.
And yes, there will be multiple rule books as one would be too big. However, the number of rule books should be kept to a minimum.
That...sounds like the box set. Which is literally just the basic rules. TW is not, and never was basic rules. It was the collected ruleset for all of the standard Tournament legal rules.
-
I haven't played with blank record sheets since the internet was a thing. Back in those days I went to local convenience store and made copies for a dime. Both of which are now impossible.
From there, blank records sheets are meaningless without something to put in to it. And if the group is sticklers about having precise Record Sheets, how would they set that up?
That's why the box works better than just a book.
Finding a copier isn't always easy, neither is finding a printer. One can use a blank piece of paper to make a record sheet though.
Pre-printed record sheets have never been a requirement to play. They make things easier but aren't a requirement.
I never said the box didn't work better, just that they weren't the only way to play the game.
That...sounds like the box set. Which is literally just the basic rules. TW is not, and never was basic rules. It was the collected ruleset for all of the standard Tournament legal rules.
Missed the point. The rule book used to include record sheets because you need them to play. TW doesn't have them. Players have to go elsewhere to get them. That's a problem.
-
The quote you were responding to was talking about a new person starting with what's on the wall. This is not 1980 or 1990 where finding pre-prepared Record Sheets for free is any real difficulty. Even if you're stuck with a phone (which a few in my group are), you can get PDFs off of several websites which can be transmitted to a local printer.
Have you been to the countryside in the midwest? I live here. And, boy, would you be surprised by how behind the times things can be.
-
I'll have to disagree. Either you keep all rules together in one book, or keep the rules together in BOTH books. Splitting them up becomes a headache.
Even with your idea, you still have to have SOME of the Aerospace rules or rules for flying into-off of the battlefield and construction rules for LAMs (including internal structure in ASF mode and all that.)
The only exception then I'd say is having a 5th book for "Non-Standard" vehicles or something like that, for units that actually don't fit into just ONE category.
This, LAMs are not actually 'Mechs, despite the name.
-
That...sounds like the box set. Which is literally just the basic rules. TW is not, and never was basic rules. It was the collected ruleset for all of the standard Tournament legal rules.
It's been pointed out that tournaments haven't been a real thing for Catalyst in a long while. Considering that, do we really want to focus on that aspect?
What's the goal for this set of books now? Is it to expand the game from the box sets? Is it to open up new eras with advanced tech?
In a lot of aspects, a lot of that is tied to the lore just as much as raw rules. Maybe we should revisit the Level 1, 2, and 3 style of compartmentalization.
And, I'll have to check, but the Box set doesn't come with BLANK record sheets last I recall. Certainly no construction rules for BattleMechs. But, since I've given Core Boxes to people and haven't kept one for myself a while ago, my memory is a little foggy on that one. Assuming I'm remembering rightly, you don't even have a means to 'upgrade' the existing designs, let alone come up with new ones or try to emulate Mechs that come in those funky lance/star packs.
But, that's my experience with the current era of BattleTech, looking at the products that I can find on the shelves. So, working from there, what do you want this rulebook series to do? If it's to expand on the contents of the Box Set, then, do we really need for the core rules to be reprinted? And, if you decide that they should, imagine that some people might pick up the rule book to get a glimpse of the game rules without having to commit to picking up a box.
As an example: Adeptus Titanicus's recent reprint just a couple years ago had the Core Rule book sold separately from the box. I bought it and a Warhound Titan box. I got the rule book because I wanted to understand the game before I committed to something as expensive as the basic game box, which was a steal for what it contained, but too much if I didn't like what I found. The rulebook worked to run a full game, and it came in a box of its own, containing the cards and weapons options to run pairs of each of the common titan classes. To my pleasant surprise that [edit:] Warhound Titan[/] box came with enough parts to make a pair, so I had the basics for simple game, right there. I actually liked the rules enough to commit to the core box of Titanicus when I could afford it.
You will find that people unfamiliar with BattleTech the Board Game will probably do something like me. If someone can look at the rules without having to commit to having the whole game when they're not sure they want the whole game, let alone minis and materials that won't get used if it's decide the game isn't their cup-o-tea, that core book should be able to represent the whole game without the accoutrements of the Box Set.
If the Core Rule Book is going to be a reprint of the core rules, then one of the design considerations should be that you can buy the book, and a lance or star pack, and be able to run a game with just that.
-
Well, since there was so much effort in dividing up the eras in some of the books, how about greater era specific rules breakup? With a clan vs. IS for when they overlap. I liked the level 1, 2 and 3 as well as introductory, standard and advanced and even 3025, 3050 and clan, but we really do have what amounts to a second 3050 era.
In that era you had as the IS a LB10x but not all the other LB techs. Ultra5 and a few others were the same. Now we have a single plasma weapon for both the IS and clan, light and heavy PPCs with no ER versions, I have no idea how to evolve the snub nose and the idea that my twisted mind sees if light AC 10 and 20 follow the same equation the first two examples do makes me shiver. In any case, with that in mind we have more than 3 divisions now, and the mechs that are out there can (a bit) more readily shine with the time periods reflecting what was available. Shoot, you can even have designs that "optimize" outdated tech like the munchkin designs (like the 75 ton 4/6 zombie mech with ml and DHS as a quick example), but put it with the ilkhan era tech and see how it fares (kind of fun).
I do like the idea of initially focusing on making a core book that focuses on playing the game - no stories in the book but as DL if they must be there. If possible have vehicles and infantry all together in that book and let us PLAY. I know too many people that will only play with units pre-jihad/advanced as getting to know the rules for after that is just too frustrating, they work hard enough. I like a lot of clear rules existing, but I like being able to play with others even more.
-
Finding a copier isn't always easy, neither is finding a printer. One can use a blank piece of paper to make a record sheet though.
And takes a lot times longer to set up a Record Sheet by hand than finding a copier or printer. It's far easier to to find a copier or printer now than it was 30 years ago, too, as the latter isn't considered geek equipment, and the former can be found at most office stores (OfficeMax, FedEx Office, etc) and more than happy to print a PDF from an email.
Pre-printed record sheets have never been a requirement to play. They make things easier but aren't a requirement.
They aren't a requirement of the game, but often are of players that you would play with, as I stated and you promptly ignored.
I never said the box didn't work better, just that they weren't the only way to play the game.
But it was, and is, better with the box. The box comes with a couple maps, record sheets. Since it is a superior way to play, why focus on what is considered the "tournament rules" instead of what is considered the "starter rules" which come in boxes?
Missed the point. The rule book used to include record sheets because you need them to play. TW doesn't have them. Players have to go elsewhere to get them. That's a problem.
The compendium did because it also had construction rules. The rulebook in the boxes didn't because they were separate pages. Total Warfare doesn't have construction rules, so no need for the Record Sheet to be included.
Have you been to the countryside in the midwest? I live here. And, boy, would you be surprised by how behind the times things can be.
Not as much as you think. I grew up in a mining town that was half an hour past nowhere in Arizona.
I'd be more surprised that you had access to Battletech at all than a lack of copier or printer.
It's been pointed out that tournaments haven't been a real thing for Catalyst in a long while. Considering that, do we really want to focus on that aspect?
Someone hasn't been paying attention, because quite a few Battletech tournaments have been played at conventions over the last year. My campaign group lost a week of play because half the group when to LVO in January.
Not to mention, tournament standards do make it easier and quicker for random people to meet up and start playing than without. Much as I hate the attitude of a tournament scene, I do respect this aspect of it.
What's the goal for this set of books now? Is it to expand the game from the box sets? Is it to open up new eras with advanced tech?
That is a proper question, though. It is always good to have set expectations when one is sitting down to write a document.
And, I'll have to check, but the Box set doesn't come with BLANK record sheets last I recall. Certainly no construction rules for BattleMechs. But, since I've given Core Boxes to people and haven't kept one for myself a while ago, my memory is a little foggy on that one. Assuming I'm remembering rightly, you don't even have a means to 'upgrade' the existing designs, let alone come up with new ones or try to emulate Mechs that come in those funky lance/star packs.
Page 50 of A Game of Armored Combat rulebook comes with basic construction rules for Battlemechs.
I can't confirm the blank Record Sheet or not because the Record Sheets might be buried somewhere. I don't use them because I prefer to print them out off of Solaris SkunkWerks or MegaMekLab since they include the helpful charts on the side.
If the Core Rule Book is going to be a reprint of the core rules, then one of the design considerations should be that you can buy the book, and a lance or star pack, and be able to run a game with just that.
Why go with Titanicus as an example? It's a tiny game and it doesn't have the unit options that Battletech has. Why not 40K? Oh, wait, I need to buy 2 books in order to properly run a force there because it doesn't have all the unit stats and rules in the main rulebook unless they go through a whole change that tosses everything out like with 8th Edition (even that loses out on unit specific rules). Even from there, there are no rules for creating your own unit from the ground up in Warhammer like there is in Battletech.
From there, where would they fit the Record Sheets in a ForcePack box? How many should they include per model? 2 like the Alpha Strike cards?
-
I haven't played with blank record sheets since the internet was a thing. Back in those days I went to local convenience store and made copies for a dime. Both of which are now impossible.
From there, blank records sheets are meaningless without something to put in to it. And if the group is sticklers about having precise Record Sheets, how would they set that up?
That's why the box works better than just a book.
Indeed the last time I saw blank record sheets was about two decades ago, and some groups just refused to allow them.
-
I wonder if it might be better to put the TW rules into more distinct tiers and focusing on Ground Operations (indeed I'd like it to be titled Battletech: Ground Operations Guide B:GOG), which each have their own chapters.
You have level 1 'basic/fast play' rules without tracking heat, ammo, or crits. Basically the pamphlet of how to read the record sheet and map (forests are cover, rough costs more, elevation changes what you can see) that helps you learn movement, hit locations, GATOR, the cluster table (including Artemis/Apollo), and some basic tactics. I'd even say no piloting checks, physicals, or indirect fire. This basically already exists as the box set rules because its really handy.
That can be covered reasonably quick along with easy to visualize diagrams, including a visual representation showing the front/side battlemech hit locations and numbers, plus a flowchart of turn order and unit activation.
Then you have level 2 'tournament/standard/limited' which introduces heat and critical rolls as well as more advanced (LB, Pulse, Gauss) weapons, physicals (all of them and modified slightly), indirect fires, piloting checks (from 20+ and critical damage), specialty ammo (all of them, so minefields included), equipment (like ECM, Stealth, TacComps, or C3/Nova) and some environmental effects (smoke, fire, terrain/building destruction) but not everything.
This would be benchmark, most of the advanced rules are really just a +/- 1-4 so having them all just listed out in one set of charts by modifier (for all weapon types) would be helpful.
Then you have level 3 'unlimited/extended' which makes all optional TacOps rules valid based on a scenario checklist. So it would have a section for advanced (and very niche) infantry, vehicle, and mech operations, plus abstract battlefield support, (air and artillery strikes, minefields, etc...), and the scenarios in which they would be most appropriate.
Closing Ground Operations you'd have Scenario Design which would not only have BV calculation (including the pilot chart, C3 mod, TAG/SG, etc...) but you'd have basic building (CF) and map sheet modifiers (wind, weather) as well as advanced environmental effects (water/vacuum breach, swarms of bugs, exploding objects, etc...) It would have a very standard template for the GM to neatly balance forces and conditions based on the intended mission.
Quirks and Special Pilot Abilities would be saved for a later Alpha Strike Commander's book. They kinda clutter everything up and need more playtesting IMO.
-
And, I'll have to check, but the Box set doesn't come with BLANK record sheets last I recall. Certainly no construction rules for BattleMechs. But, since I've given Core Boxes to people and haven't kept one for myself a while ago, my memory is a little foggy on that one. Assuming I'm remembering rightly, you don't even have a means to 'upgrade' the existing designs, let alone come up with new ones or try to emulate Mechs that come in those funky lance/star packs.
I just checked. The Box Set (AGoAC) does include construction rules and a blank RS at the back of the RS booklet.
-
What are the basic steps in a Battletech turn?
1. Initiative. (establishes movement order)
2. Movement.
3. attacks (except DFA) where weapons are fired and damage is marked off.
4. Heat is added up and marked on the chart.
Why is heat important? because it's part of the bloody game. If you don't want to track it, there are games that don't require you to.
The entirety of those four things I just listed can be adequately described and applied in about two pages of 8 1/2x 11 at about a ten point font.
not including small illustrations, which will push you up to between three and four pages.
Weapons descriptions, what do you need to know?
1. Short/Medium/long range
2. Damage
3. Heat
4. Ammo Count. (If applicable)
5. Mass and Crit space (for 'mechs)/Mass for vees and fighters.
6. Conditional rules.
In the pre-generated/pre-printed record sheets, there's adequate space for those, either printed in, or you write it in the blank spaces, usually in the corner. In the book, this is something that, with a short description text, should be able to fit. This, too, can fit into the same page. (cluster rules falls under conditional, same for pulse bonuses or to-hit penalties, or special features like heat generation) Conditional rules would also include indirect fire and scatter.
Armor Types/ what are they?
1. Material.
2. Mass
3. Crits
4. Special modifiers
Same for most of your other construction materials, Special modifiers (bonus vs. ballistic/penalty vs. ballistic)
IOW you shouldn't have to hunt through a separate page, never mind chapter, to find the answers to the questions above.
Weapons Entries: Organize them by one of two ways: by type (Energy/Ballistic/Missile/Physical) or alphabetically. I'd recommend by type because that's logical to me, but others may have a different take.
The main book could be a LOT thinner than it is, even with the added dice-rolling and extra crit locations they gave vehicles, which in turn, should also be better organized. Modifiers like sideslip/skidding should be described by unit TYPE (since people make a point of sideslip being different between Hover and VTOL, the specific sideslip should be in the unit type description under 'movement, not in a separated entry buried halfway through the book with exceptions).
Boil. it. down. but don't erase core mechanics for 'simplicity' because that's not simplifying at all, it's writing a new game. Your core book should be able to handle the BASIC MECHANICS of the game, the mechanics that are intended to be the most commonly used.
Also, I'd agree that the old L1/L2/L3 segregation for rules levels was easier to explain that hunting through charts of Era Specific Mechanics. Starslab is Starslab is Starslab, whether it's on this year's newest Clanner Omnimech, or a 3025 Wasp.
-
Show it.
Provide all Movement rules on a 2 page PDF, including the modification chart, rules for Skidding, Sideslipping, and examples, for Infantry, Battlemechs, Combat Vehicle (all 5), and Protomech.
Don't forget to leave enough margin space for binding on one side and easy tags for sections on the other.
Also, DFA is under Attacks, just like Charging, Punching, and Shooting.
-
if you make the font small enough you can get the whole book on page
-
**Mod Notice**
I’m going to go ahead and encourage everyone to chill out and end the swiping at one another. Nobody is winning an argument with their personal opinions about a theoretical rulebook reorganization.
-
**Mod Notice**
I’m going to go ahead and encourage everyone to chill out and end the swiping at one another. Nobody is winning an argument with their personal opinions about a theoretical rulebook reorganization.
Alright, I know what comes next, so I'm out.
-
From the Perspective of someone who's just returned after leaving when the move to Dark Age/Click-tech happened...
I went looking to see what the current rulebook to buy was, and honestly had a hard time. I've been taking my old Master Rules to the shop when I play, because I needed equipment rules that weren't in the current intro box rules booklet.
It seemed really unclear whether I should buy the 18 year old book, or the newer one that was only battlemechs, so I haven't bought either yet. If I had googled things and seen a recent printing of the Master Rules, I would have thought 'yup, that's it,' and ordered it in a heartbeat.
Now, I'm only remembering how to play, and I have all my old books.
For a brand new player, I can only assume its a significant barrier to entry.
Now, for the positive: I love that the game is back. The presentation is excellent, it's great to have readily available good plastic sculpts (at barnes and noble!), the Ilclan storyline/era is a huge step up from Dark Age, the new pilot cards are a really fun edition to game, even the new paints seem better than when last I played. Been having lots of fun painting up Kell Hounds and Clan Wolf minis and playing people locally. Very excited about the state of the game.
-
Yeah, with my suggestions, I'm really trying to think of new and returning players. I suspect that the best title for a new BattleTech core rulebook would simply be "BattleTech: Core Rulebook."
-
You know how in some ABCDEF ratings A is best, and sometimes F is best?
That's a technical writing disaster. That could do with fixing.
-
I just checked. The Box Set (AGoAC) does include construction rules and a blank RS at the back of the RS booklet.
Well, there you go! Thanks.
And, if the box set can do it, why not the core rule book?
-
if you make the font small enough you can get the whole book on page
:grin:
They did that with the little Constitution of the United State of America documents. I used to be able to read that without a magnifying lens. Barely. Not much anymore. But, they could do it.
-
And, if the box set can do it, why not the core rule book?
Because its Introtech, and only deals with one single unit.
To repeat myself:
Second, do you know how big a book that would be?
Total Warfare is 291 pages before the Index. Even taking out the fluff (54 pages), we're still looking at 237 pages before the Index and Tables for Total Warfare alone. Aerospace is another 19 pages for movement and 18 pages for combat, for 37 pages that could be potentially left out, so down to 200. Leaving out painting would save us another 19, so we're down to 181 pages of rules, 3 pages of Index, and 10 pages of tables.
Tech Manual has 311 pages before its index. Taking out fluff (50 pages) leave us with 261 pages. If we leave out the support units like IndustrialMechs and Support Vehicles, we can save another 12 and 14 pages respectively. We can probably leave out Aerospace, too, if we're leaving out their rules, so that's another 20 pages. That's a final total of 215 pages for the rules of construction, cost and BV included, 4 pages of Index (which could mix a little with Total Warfare's, but not by much), 17 pages of Record Sheets, and 14 more pages of tables outside of the 215.
So, that's a grand "tournament total" of 427 pages, and that's not including the table of contents and other legal pages that precedes everything else. That's bigger than the old Tactical Operations or Interstellar Operations books before they were split.
There's a reason that the BMR wasn't duplicated when they did Total Warfare. Battletech has simply gotten too big, and construction rules aren't needed for a tournament atmosphere.
-
Put the basic construction rules in the core book; a handful of pages copy-pasted from what was in BMRr, leaving out all the complicated and/or marginal stuff, and not going into BV calcs
Techmanual needs to be its own book at this point. It also needs an update, basically incorporating all the alternate era stuff from when it was first printed and optional gear from tacops.
edit - but rip out most of the descriptive text. Will all due respect to Cray and the excellent job he did, that was still a low-value use of space.
-
Put the basic construction rules in the core book; a handful of pages copy-pasted from what was in BMRr, leaving out all the complicated and/or marginal stuff, and not going into BV calcs
If it was kept to Introductory levels, it would work.
Where the problem lies is what is in Total Warfare is not Standard and goes far beyond what the BMRr did. BMRr didn't have Infantry unit construction in it, much less Battle Armor.
And leaving out BV calculations now kind of defeats the purpose of having the construction rules in it since it is quite pervasive and included on any pre-made Record Sheet provided over the last 2 decades.
-
If it was kept to Introductory levels, it would work.
Where the problem lies is what is in Total Warfare is not Standard and goes far beyond what the BMRr did. BMRr didn't have Infantry unit construction in it, much less Battle Armor.
And leaving out BV calculations now kind of defeats the purpose of having the construction rules in it since it is quite pervasive and included on any pre-made Record Sheet provided over the last 2 decades.
That's what the construction book is for.
Most people just need stats for one of the standard infantry platoons; they don't need or want to get into the deep end of infantry construction. If they do, they get the splatbook.
BV calcs devour pages and frankly, I've never seen anyone do them right by hand. There's a dozen programs on the web for that, and if you want to know how it works or do it yourself? Get the splatbook.
want to build a proto, or BA? Get the splatbook. Quadvee, LAM, tripod, superheavy, industrial, primitive? Splatbook.
Wanting to know how to swap an ac/5 for two heat sinks and a PPC, or SHS for DHS is what most people want to do, and pretty much all a beginner needs to know. I'm proposing TW2 has only the most basic of construction for a reason, and it isn't even to sell splatbooks.
-
Wanting to know how to swap an ac/5 for two heat sinks and a PPC is what most people want to do, and pretty much all a beginner needs to know.
That does not actually require actual construction rules, some campaign type weapon swap rules would be enough.
-
That does not actually require actual construction rules, some campaign type weapon swap rules would be enough.
Or every mech being an omnimech (one can dream in the ilClan era). That said yeah the engine and all that other stuff should remain in the Techmanual (or on MML/SSW). Weapons and internal payload really are the easy part.
-
*snip*
Okay, I understand what you're trying to say, but you're using the word "splatbook" incorrectly. A splatbook focuses on one specific faction or group for players of that faction. The name comes from the old World of Darkness line, which had tons of these. BattleTech's modern equivalents are the forthcoming Force Manuals. A book of construction rules is a core supplement - not a splatbook - because it's meant to appeal to every player. TechManual is very much not a splatbook.
I think it's very important for construction rules to be in the core rulebook. New players aren't always going to have access to Technical Readouts and Record Sheet volumes. Imagine if the D&D Player's Handbook didn't include rules to make characters, and instead told players to go visit a website to purchase some! Even "journeyman" players, who graduated from the AGoAC, Clan Invasion, and Mercenaries boxed sets, are going to expect an expanded design system. In strict marketing terms, it's a value add. TechManual made more sense when BattleTech was - bluntly - mostly selling to already-established customers, but the reach of the brand is far beyond its nadir in 2006.
Now, the reason I think the construction rules for at least 'Mechs and combat vehicles (and preferably ProtoMechs) should be included is that they all pull from the same table of equipment and have roughly the same game rules (MP instead of Thrust, individual weapon ranges instead of range bands, etc.). Infantry and battle armor have their own specific lists of gear which can be very fiddly. Aerospace units wouldn't even be in my proposed book, but even so weapons work differently for them and they use their own set of game rules. (That's why I think there should be new AeroTech and BattleSpace-equivalent games, which would have their own appropriate design rules included.)
-
It seemed really unclear whether I should buy the 18 year old book, or the newer one that was only battlemechs, so I haven't bought either yet. If I had googled things and seen a recent printing of the Master Rules, I would have thought 'yup, that's it,' and ordered it in a heartbeat.
For a brand new player, I can only assume its a significant barrier to entry.
I clipped this response a little to bring out what I felt was most important.
For NEW and returning players the current core rule organization is difficult to understand and/or navigate.
The rules themselves aren't bad. The overall organization may need revamped.
I freely admit to being a poor communicator.
This poster stated the meaning of my opening posts probably better then I did.
We are in a true Golden Age for Battletech right now.
I've seen more new and returning players in the last 2 years then I've seen in the 2 previous decades COMBINED.
IMHO-our weakest link that needs IMMEDIATE attention is a well set up 1st step for rules past the AGOAC box set.
It needs to be better set up and it needs to be obviously presented as what people need for that first step
past the AGOAC box set.
People need to know EXACTLY what they need to get next after AGOAC and it needs to be set up better
to bring more people into the fold and keep them here.
-
Okay, I understand what you're trying to say, but you're using the word "splatbook" incorrectly. A splatbook focuses on one specific faction or group for players of that faction. The name comes from the old World of Darkness line, which had tons of these. BattleTech's modern equivalents are the forthcoming Force Manuals. A book of construction rules is a core supplement - not a splatbook - because it's meant to appeal to every player. TechManual is very much not a splatbook.
I think it's very important for construction rules to be in the core rulebook. New players aren't always going to have access to Technical Readouts and Record Sheet volumes. Imagine if the D&D Player's Handbook didn't include rules to make characters, and instead told players to go visit a website to purchase some! Even "journeyman" players, who graduated from the AGoAC, Clan Invasion, and Mercenaries boxed sets, are going to expect an expanded design system. In strict marketing terms, it's a value add. TechManual made more sense when BattleTech was - bluntly - mostly selling to already-established customers, but the reach of the brand is far beyond its nadir in 2006.
Now, the reason I think the construction rules for at least 'Mechs and combat vehicles (and preferably ProtoMechs) should be included is that they all pull from the same table of equipment and have roughly the same game rules (MP instead of Thrust, individual weapon ranges instead of range bands, etc.). Infantry and battle armor have their own specific lists of gear which can be very fiddly. Aerospace units wouldn't even be in my proposed book, but even so weapons work differently for them and they use their own set of game rules. (That's why I think there should be new AeroTech and BattleSpace-equivalent games, which would have their own appropriate design rules included.)
There are hundreds of free record sheets (and programs) available though that are easily downloaded from CGL however, just link the players to the site in the book. Unlike DnD these are pre-established designs that exist in setting with minis and stories tied to them, not your unique creations. Also DnD heavily pushes you to go and buy stuff from a WotC's site so its not something a new player in any game would be unfamiliar with (bg.battletech needs a big glowup though).
Remember Battletech is a Wargame, not an RPG (that's Destiny), in those you mostly play with what exists within the confines of a Scenario.
I agree that construction rules are important but I don't think they are core rulebook important (that is why there is a fan rules board and policy). There are plenty of long term (>10 years) players who have never built a mech (or protomech, a niche unit that is widely forgotten if not ignored by much of the fanbase) for this game, and just used already printed sheets. The TROs are IMO for fluff and making the record sheets available would not impact sales I imagine, probably better to expand the universe via fiction rather than make it more unwieldy with more bloaty units.
Again though, more widespread use of Omnitech (or equivalent) in the game present would be the easy choice. That said adding the weapon's table will make later construction guides either reprint or cite previous material. Which even experienced players hate! Because the setting and history is so vast you really need to focus down on certain aspects at a time. You won't need construction rules at the table so they shouldn't be included in the tabletop core book, they really need their own dedicated book.
Give me better Scenario Design in the core book! That's way, way more important to actually playing the game than how much anything weighs on the record sheet.
-
Wanting to know how to swap an ac/5 for two heat sinks and a PPC, or SHS for DHS is what most people want to do, and pretty much all a beginner needs to know. I'm proposing TW2 has only the most basic of construction for a reason, and it isn't even to sell splatbooks.
You keep saying "basic construction", but you seem to be implying "of Battlemechs" and not of all of the units the new "Total Warfare" will contain rules for without saying that. I took your "basic construction" to indicate of everything that the book would have rules for. And it should if it's going to contain construction rules at all. Unfortunately, those aren't basic the more units one adds in.
The thing is, that is what A Game of Armored Combat rulebook does as an introductory book. The next "Total Warfare" isn't going to occupy that same space any more than it does right now, if there will be one. I think that is something that a lot of people are making a mistake with their statements here.
I think it's very important for construction rules to be in the core rulebook. New players aren't always going to have access to Technical Readouts and Record Sheet volumes. Imagine if the D&D Player's Handbook didn't include rules to make characters, and instead told players to go visit a website to purchase some! Even "journeyman" players, who graduated from the AGoAC, Clan Invasion, and Mercenaries boxed sets, are going to expect an expanded design system. In strict marketing terms, it's a value add. TechManual made more sense when BattleTech was - bluntly - mostly selling to already-established customers, but the reach of the brand is far beyond its nadir in 2006.
You're about 10 years or more out of date, acting like this is the 90's. TROs? Record Sheet packs? Due to the efforts of several different groups, The Tech Manual is only necessary for a player to understand WHY they can or cannot do something in one of the several programs available for unit design.
Furthermore, if they have AGoAC, they already have basic 'Mech construction rules. The Tech Manual allows one to take that system in AGoAC and expand it to other units and systems.
The reason it was separated out becomes obvious when you look at how big the book is.
Let's look at how the Tech Manual is constructed, cutting out fluff:
Basics: 12 pages.
Battlemech: 16 pages.
Industrialmech: 12 pages.
Protomech: 10 pages.
Combat Vehicle: 16 pages.
Support Vehicle: 14 pages.
Conventional Infantry: 12 pages.
Battle Armor: 14 pages.
Aerospace: 20 pages.
Equipment descriptions and ratings: 74 pages.
C-Bill cost and availability: 28 pages.
Battle Value: 18 pages in book, or 23 pages in Errata.
Record Sheets: 17 pages.
End book Tables: 11 pages divided in Heavy Weapons (3 pages), Industrial (1 1/4 pages), Ammo (1 page), Battle Armor (2 1/4 pages), Conventional Infantry (3 1/2 pages in book, 8 pages in Errata), and Aerospace (1/2 page).
And while construction rules are useful, if not down-right important in the right sphere, they aren't needed to be brought to a game. Everything can (and should) be done before one shows up.
The advantage that The Tech Manual brings in being separate is that you don't have to bring that extra weight of those pages you won't be using at a game. As it is, for an average night I bring TacOps Advanced Rules and Total Warfare. I like using The Battlemech Manual when it comes to Mech stuff because it is better organized, as well as having that nice "Misconceptions" section at the end. If I bring any other book it's TacOps: AU&E and Interstellar Ops (don't have the lighter Alternate Eras yet) for equipment not found in BMM like tube Artillery and Cannons or Tripods.
The only time I brought The Tech Manual in to the store was when I was literally teaching a course on 'Mech construction.
-
A Lot of groups that do pick-up games don't allow customs, so for them the construction rules are really not needed at all. I do like that they are accessable, espeically for Campaign play or RPG play, but I personally don't think om as critical to a Core Book.
-
Bringing it over from the Adepticon Live thread as it fits more in here, but this snippit about making Total Warfare just about Battlemechs and replacing vehicles with BSP rules as baseline (https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxiXMpms5up6EUPQRcCL7-65a_gGph9tcL?si=hZtCc5VG4jadc3xg) is not something I agree with. As an avid lover of vehicles and the variations that are brought by each design, I would not wish to lose the crunchy factor of individual designs to the same generic-ness that pervades Alpha Strike.
And yes, I know there would have to be a supplement with fuller vehicle rules, I don't want to have to convince people to play full vehicle rules over BSP cause that's the "tournament" standard.
-
Bringing it over from the Adepticon Live thread as it fits more in here, but this snippit about making Total Warfare just about Battlemechs and replacing vehicles with BSP rules as baseline (https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxiXMpms5up6EUPQRcCL7-65a_gGph9tcL?si=hZtCc5VG4jadc3xg) is not something I agree with. As an avid lover of vehicles and the variations that are brought by each design, I would not wish to lose the crunchy factor of individual designs to the same generic-ness that pervades Alpha Strike.
And yes, I know there would have to be a supplement with fuller vehicle rules, I don't want to have to convince people to play full vehicle rules over BSP cause that's the "tournament" standard.
This game can't even get an official tournament standard points limit, I think basic (not construction or edge cases) vehicle rules are probably safe.
-
I would rather there be rules like force construction aids, SPAs, SCAs, Quirks, artillery, ECM/ECCM, and all the fun ground combat stuff in a single book *before* adding customization to it.
What makes AS:CE my game of choice over CBT is that it's more "holistic" in its look at warfare in the 25th-32nd centuries. It makes it easier to visualize what a force might look like - Force Construction, artillery, aerospace (enough, not the whole gamut), BSP, ground vees, ECM, special armors, drones, etc.
I consider all of that more necessary than understanding how many Crit Slots are necessary to put Ferro-fiborous Armor on my FLE-14. I am willing to go to another book for that.
-
This game can't even get an official tournament standard points limit, I think basic (not construction or edge cases) vehicle rules are probably safe.
One could hope so, but based on that I'm hoping there is some similar minds to keeping vehicles as they are at CGL, so as to not lose that key part of the game to supplements.
-
Bringing it over from the Adepticon Live thread as it fits more in here, but this snippit about making Total Warfare just about Battlemechs and replacing vehicles with BSP rules as baseline (https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxiXMpms5up6EUPQRcCL7-65a_gGph9tcL?si=hZtCc5VG4jadc3xg) is not something I agree with. As an avid lover of vehicles and the variations that are brought by each design, I would not wish to lose the crunchy factor of individual designs to the same generic-ness that pervades Alpha Strike.
And yes, I know there would have to be a supplement with fuller vehicle rules, I don't want to have to convince people to play full vehicle rules over BSP cause that's the "tournament" standard.
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.
-
Once upon a time, in the 90s, there was this approach:
- Battletech box: everything 'mech related
- Citytech box: everything about vehicles, infantry and buildings
- Aerotech: everything about the aerospace units
At this basic 3 boxes were added:
- Battleforce box: strategic/campaign game
- Battletroops box: infantry action at "grunt" detail
It was brilliant!
-
Bringing it over from the Adepticon Live thread as it fits more in here, but this snippit about making Total Warfare just about Battlemechs and replacing vehicles with BSP rules as baseline (https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxiXMpms5up6EUPQRcCL7-65a_gGph9tcL?si=hZtCc5VG4jadc3xg) is not something I agree with. As an avid lover of vehicles and the variations that are brought by each design, I would not wish to lose the crunchy factor of individual designs to the same generic-ness that pervades Alpha Strike.
And yes, I know there would have to be a supplement with fuller vehicle rules, I don't want to have to convince people to play full vehicle rules over BSP cause that's the "tournament" standard.
I am also a fan of combined arms, however I do know from experience that I am not the typical BT player. In my experience only a few players do combined arms, even fewer use any construction rules beyond a weapon swap. As such I can understand TPTB to reduce both aspects to a minimum in a future core book. Like giving new players a little taste of various aspects, which can then be expanded in various supplements.
-
The thing is however that Battlemech Manual does a good job of just covering Battlemechs and it is to this book that the vehicle BSPs should be added, not to a core Ground Forces book. BMM could also cover Power Armor (its not a very long section) and maybe Protos, all three of those unit types are pretty similar and interact reasonably well. It could do that instead of the weapons and equipment chapter. I think a more inclusive BMM could be the basis for the 'tournament play' rules.
We need a revised and better laid out Combined Arms book that covers Mechs (unless you want to leave that to BMM), Protos, Armored Infantry (if not included in a 3rd edition of BMM), Vehicles, and Infantry as well as Scenario Design with prospective goals and roles for each of those unit types.
Vehicles and Non-Armored Infantry are very different than Mech-adjacent things and are in fact adjacent to themselves. There are lots of types and each one is just a little different than the other with all kinds of strange interactions between them. Included in the Scenario Design could be many of the optional rules that can be scenario specific (Sprinting only being available in Extractions for instance, or taking cover in Escort missions, and taking aim in double blind S&D)
-
*deleted, please ignore*
-
As a relatively new player (I started in 2022), I can speak a little bit about the new player experience. Basically, the BMM is one of the best game rulebooks I have ever used, and TW is one of the worst. The BMM is kind of magical in that it works both as a solid way to learn the game, and as a great reference book. The individual rules are concise, well-organized, and easy to find during play. Alternate rules are called out, and the book has rules for almost everything you could find on a mech's reference sheet.
TW by contrast is miserable to use. The organization is haphazard, rules are hidden in paragraphs with unrelated rules, and it's all padded with cruft. I groan every time I have to reference it, which combined with the poor state of the actual rules for infantry and aerospace, has made me pretty loathe to incorporate them in my games. While I am impressed with the effort it took to compile everything in there, it's pretty peak early-2000s bloat and a nightmare to actually use in play.
Honestly, my preferred implementation to replacing TW is to just build upon the BMM. A "Combined Arms Manual" or something could cover vehicles, infantry (hopefully reworked), Battlefield Support, advanced terrain, etc. Aerospace (also probably reworked) could either be spun off into its own book or included in the Combined Arms Manual if there's the space for it. A new TW combining these two could be feasible, but I honestly think having it be an expansion on the excellent BMM would be better.
As for construction rules, I don't think they have any business being in a Total Warfare replacement. A core rulebook is primarily a reference for play, and bogging down your rulebook with 100+ pages that will never be looked at during play is a mistake. As has been noted, record sheets are incredibly easy to find online with a plethora of utilities, they're included in the box sets, and Catalyst sells them separately as well. Including construction rules on the off chance that players need to hand-recreate a Marauder from memory because they're playing Battletech in the woods seems a little silly to me.
-
Okay, now I'm out. I thought this would be a fun mental exercise, maybe involving discussions of page counts and debates over this rule vs. that rule, but I let myself get dragged into reactionary negativity. Life is too short to make myself miserable over this. Ta!
-
The process is so early that it might as well as not begun: at this point we're dealing with each eventual developer's general ideas of what should be done, rather than a coordinated effort that has begun where everyone has come together and something firm has been settled on (see this earlier post in this thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84363.msg1998228#msg1998228) for some important information along these lines). So most everything is tentative at this point, and you can be sure there's going to be a lot of discussion and debate about what to do. Nothing will be done lightly, and I intend to take notes on decisions made so that the reasoning for some of the changes can be communicated when feasible / desirable, as has been done for some of the previous editions.
The new line has to start with the core rulebook--the actual singular core, not a hypothetical "core" line (where "core" in the latter case today just means "rulebook of some sort"). What's the one book people will be using in the vast majority of play cases, once you get past the introductory box set? Whatever does and does not go in there shapes the rest of the planned releases, as everything not in the core book is ancillary to some degree (which is not automatically the same as saying deprecated or optional).
The big thing is that BT has grown past the point where one book can do everything. It's simply impossible, and people posting wistfully about the 80s or 90s might as well be posting about how people played BT during the McKinley administration. The game has come out with an extra 1,000 pages of rules since then, and people's expectations of how games should be packaged and played have radically shifted. Not everything need be included: over and above the fact that that's not possible, TW has made clear that even just to flip past what you don't need imposes a time tax that can prove immensely frustrating. "Where's that damn rule" is a real thing, especially when you're at the table and your opponents are watching and waiting for you to find it so you can get back to actual play. Considerations of what people actually use (and how much page space we have to play with) logically clash with the desire for completionism; it remains to be seen to what degree one will win out over the other. But one thing is for sure: there's only so much room to play with in a single book; an unwieldy, Hero System 5th edition-style, one-tome-to-rule-them-all sort of manual is out of the question.
Beyond what traditional rules go in, there's areas that we've traditionally ignored that I want to emphasise. I want the book to be a useful manual for setting up games, not just a book of unit/gear rules. We need robust, user-friendly generic scenario material--undated, non-faction, non-campaign pick-up play--so that people can do something besides "fight to the death" over and over and without the need to buy another book. That's going to require previous space, but I think it's far more important than a lot of stuff that's formerly been in core. The variety provided by these sort of rules will make BT a more viable long-term game, which helps people come back to the table again and again. We've never done it at all beyond the handful of scenarios in TW, preferring instead to focus on campaign play and historical recreations, even as we've gotten increasingly niche with our rules content and as other games have proven how desirable such basic core scenario material is. I want interesting, varied gameplay that can be agreed upon and quickly set up by perfect strangers with just a few dice rolls. We can and should learn from the rest of the industry when the lessons are applicable and do not compromise what BT is.
In terms of rules tweaks, there's always a few: there's never been an edition where this hasn't happened, and I have been compiling a list for the past decade with things I'd like to at least look at. You can be sure anything along these lines will be scrutinised to death. These will be minor tweaks for the most part, with maybe one or two "they changed partial cover"-level alterations that stand out and people talk about the most, but don't really fundamentally change the game: Classic BT will continue to be Classic BT. The game may be a dinosaur, but it's one with beautiful plumage, and I don't think any of the devs would have it any other way. Alpha Strike's greatest gift to BT (beyond its own inherent value) is that it has taken away the pressure to "streamline" things in Classic: we can offer both modern and old-school play without compromise.
While I'll nominally be heading this up, it's too important a process to be left to any individual: multiple people will be involved in the debate concerning scope, and many more in the checking and rechecking of decisions made and work done. No one person will get to run rampant and impose their singular view of what BT "needs" to be: it will be a consensus project (albeit amongst a relatively small group of experienced, trusted people).
-
I think the posts from Cubby and Xotl are quite heartening regarding the direction they want this to go. I look forward to seeing the final product based on their posts.
-
The MechCommander book looks like it will be the more in-depth scenario creator (or Force Creator, at least), but I won't be complaining about having a more robust scenario creator on TW2/BMM2 (which ever road they go down). What's in TW now is quite lack-luster. I don't think we've ever referred to it except for using Forced Withdrawal rules. As it is, our usual is a pull from Mechwarrior: Dark Age tournament scenario.
-
feverishly writes pitch for all 2d6 rolls to be replaced with the amount of time you can balance a soccer ball on your nose
-
The process is so early that it might as well as not begun: at this point we're dealing with each eventual developer's general ideas of what should be done, rather than a coordinated effort that has begun where everyone has come together and something firm has been settled on (see this earlier post in this thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84363.msg1998228#msg1998228) for some important information along these lines). So most everything is tentative at this point, and you can be sure there's going to be a lot of discussion and debate about what to do. Nothing will be done lightly, and I intend to take notes on decisions made so that the reasoning for some of the changes can be communicated when feasible / desirable, as has been done for some of the previous editions.
The new line has to start with the core rulebook--the actual singular core, not a hypothetical "core" line (where "core" in the latter case today just means "rulebook of some sort"). What's the one book people will be using in the vast majority of play cases, once you get past the introductory box set? Whatever does and does not go in there shapes the rest of the planned releases, as everything not in the core book is ancillary to some degree (which is not automatically the same as saying deprecated or optional).
The big thing is that BT has grown past the point where one book can do everything. It's simply impossible, and people posting wistfully about the 80s or 90s might as well be posting about how people played BT during the McKinley administration. The game has come out with an extra 1,000 pages of rules since then, and people's expectations of how games should be packaged and played have radically shifted. Not everything need be included: over and above the fact that that's not possible, TW has made clear that even just to flip past what you don't need imposes a time tax that can prove immensely frustrating. "Where's that damn rule" is a real thing, especially when you're at the table and your opponents are watching and waiting for you to find it so you can get back to actual play. Considerations of what people actually use (and how much page space we have to play with) logically clash with the desire for completionism; it remains to be seen to what degree one will win out over the other. But one thing is for sure: there's only so much room to play with in a single book; an unwieldy, Hero System 5th edition-style, one-tome-to-rule-them-all sort of manual is out of the question.
Beyond what traditional rules go in, there's areas that we've traditionally ignored that I want to emphasise. I want the book to be a useful manual for setting up games, not just a book of unit/gear rules. We need robust, user-friendly generic scenario material--undated, non-faction, non-campaign pick-up play--so that people can do something besides "fight to the death" over and over and without the need to buy another book. That's going to require previous space, but I think it's far more important than a lot of stuff that's formerly been in core. The variety provided by these sort of rules will make BT a more viable long-term game, which helps people come back to the table again and again. We've never done it at all beyond the handful of scenarios in TW, preferring instead to focus on campaign play and historical recreations, even as we've gotten increasingly niche with our rules content and as other games have proven how desirable such basic core scenario material is. I want interesting, varied gameplay that can be agreed upon and quickly set up by perfect strangers with just a few dice rolls. We can and should learn from the rest of the industry when the lessons are applicable and do not compromise what BT is.
In terms of rules tweaks, there's always a few: there's never been an edition where this hasn't happened, and I have been compiling a list for the past decade with things I'd like to at least look at. You can be sure anything along these lines will be scrutinised to death. These will be minor tweaks for the most part, with maybe one or two "they changed partial cover"-level alterations that stand out and people talk about the most, but don't really fundamentally change the game: Classic BT will continue to be Classic BT. The game may be a dinosaur, but it's one with beautiful plumage, and I don't think any of the devs would have it any other way. Alpha Strike's greatest gift to BT (beyond its own inherent value) is that it has taken away the pressure to "streamline" things in Classic: we can offer both modern and old-school play without compromise.
While I'll nominally be heading this up, it's too important a process to be left to any individual: multiple people will be involved in the debate concerning scope, and many more in the checking and rechecking of decisions made and work done. No one person will get to run rampant and impose their singular view of what BT "needs" to be: it will be a consensus project (albeit amongst a relatively small group of experienced, trusted people).
Ignore this, the questions i asked were stupid and pointless.
-
Xotl I wish you could come play in the MRC with us! Very well said, the lack of content on 'how am I supposed to play battletech' came up from at least 5 groups of people talking to me at Adepticon this past weekend asking me about getting into the battletech hobby after seeing I was such a Battletech enthusiast.
Maybe see you at nashcon?
-
But a lot of CO probably will not continue on into the new-core.
I hope so!
It is a book full of controversy and conflictual rules. It need to be polished so bad!
Really looking forward to the new manuals.
One day I will succeed in bringing my friends to an Aerotech table again...
-
I want the book to be a useful manual for setting up games, not just a book of unit/gear rules. We need robust, user-friendly generic scenario material--undated, non-faction, non-campaign pick-up play--so that people can do something besides "fight to the death" over and over and without the need to buy another book.
One of the best parts of your very interesting post.
-
and sorry, we're not soliciting those opinions at this time from the public.
Do you think that could possibly change in future? Even for an ipotetic selected portion of public?
-
So I'd start with the BattleMech Manual for a project like this, and then start removing stuff; Fire and smoke, artillery, and mines where all once tournament legal and then they decided they where too complicated/time consuming to keep at that level so they got moved to Level 3, and then continue on in that vein, so things like 4 legged 'Mechs go, and any enviroment that doesn't have interesting rules goes as well, so if it's just across the board penalties, to-hit or range, it goes. As does anything that requires a third player acting as ref.
And then you sit back and ask what you want to add, and how much space you have to add it in. Xotl mentions that he wants scenario's to be a part of this, so that not only means rules for them, but also likely rules for buildings, as well as some vehicles (you want trucks to haul the loot away in) and infantry and it sort of flows from there.
I's also like to say that the TW book line mucked up by using in-universe development status of equipment to determine it's rules level and not how play friendly it is, that should be fixed.
-
My unsolicited public opinion would be to start with the scenarios you want people to play. Maybe take the ones from the BattleTech Championship Circuit (BTCC) and expand on those. I would think you'd want at least 6 but probably not more than 12. You also want to plan on these scenarios taking 60-90 minutes at most.
Once you have those scenarios determined you can then decide what tech level you want to focus on. Keep the Intro->Standard->Advanced->Experimental levels if you want but change what category Tech falls into if doesn't work well in the scenarios. Separate the tech from the Era as others have suggested as that just complicates your Tech categories. You want players to be able to mostly memorize the rules for the units without having to search for a rule every game.
After organizing what tech is Intro and Standard that will fit into a (max) 90 minute scenario you add all the rules for that into the book, organized in a fashion that flows and is easy to read, like the BattleMech Manual. If none of the scenarios require destroying or occupying buildings, leave it out. If C3 and ECM take too long, leave it out. If it isn't required to learn how to play one of the "core" scenarios with the "core" units then it doesn't go in the "core" rulebook.
From the posts by Xotl & Cubby, and the way the Beginner Box, Game of Armored Combat, Clan Invasion, and (presumably) Mercenaries rules have been formatted it seems like this is already in the works.
-
Once you have those scenarios determined you can then decide what tech level you want to focus on. Keep the Intro->Standard->Advanced->Experimental levels if you want but change what category Tech falls into if doesn't work well in the scenarios. Separate the tech from the Era as others have suggested as that just complicates your Tech categories. You want players to be able to mostly memorize the rules for the units without having to search for a rule every game.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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)...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
<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.
-
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.