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

[Maingunnery]

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.

[AlphaMirage]

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.

[ColBosch]

*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.)

[House Davie Merc]

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.

[AlphaMirage]

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.

[Charistoph]

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.

[thedancingjoker]

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.

[Tinyozora]

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 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.

[thedancingjoker]

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 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.

[CarcosanDawn]

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.

[Tinyozora]

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.

[Charistoph]

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 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.

[Mostro Joe]

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!

[Maingunnery]

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 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.   

[AlphaMirage]

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)

[ColBosch]

*deleted, please ignore*

[fishfoode]

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.

[ColBosch]

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!

[Xotl]

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 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).

[NeonWolf]

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.

[Charistoph]

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.

[Sartris]

feverishly writes pitch for all 2d6 rolls to be replaced with the amount of time you can balance a soccer ball on your nose

[Cannonshop]

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 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.

[DevianID]

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?

[Mostro Joe]

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...

[Mostro Joe]

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.

[Mostro Joe]

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?

[SCC]

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.

[NeonWolf]

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.

[Charistoph]

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.