Yeah, I wrote it. "The answer to this depends on every person." Which you stated you were arguing against. With an attitude like that one must wonder if your day job is as an elected official.
That was the first sentence, not the second.
The answer to this depends on every person. Those who think they know the answer for everyone are wrong.
Second sentence bolded and italicized. Who's acting like a politician here?
Mate, I'm 45. I'm old enough I am perfectly capable of evaluating whether or not I like something without having to try it. For example, I know without having to try I wouldn't like 40K, Rapid Fire, World of Warcraft, Game of Thrones (any version), bungee-jumping, rugby or any form of alcohol you would choose to put in front of me, to pick a selection of random stuff.
Sorry, no. I'm pushing 50 and still run in to things I wouldn't have tried earlier because I thought I knew better, but I still give them a shake and found out differently. It's called the scientific method. I may be to old to volunteer for the Army, but I'm still young enough to learn from experience.
Because I want to play with my BattleMechs.
That's it.
But you said it was because they are the "kings of the battlefield", denoting that as the specific reason you play them and nothing else.
If I didn't want to play with giant stompy robot toys, I would not be on this board or a BattleTech fan at all.
Wanting to play with Tanks, Infantry, aircraft, and Protomechs doesn't mean I don't want to play with giant stompy robot toys, either. I usually pick said based on what type of support they will bring to said giant stompy robots. I've only played without 'Mechs twice.
Once I was playing the OpFor in a field of tank drones and drone towers while the other players raced through it to try and access some sunken Battlemech bunkers. It was part of a Christmas gift thing in which I was giving away Bull Shark prints, and since there were 2 kinds, this was to determine who got to pick first.
The second was just me wanting to explore the capacities of the units without support. They didn't as far as I liked, partly because of the terrain, and partly because of accurate fire.
Heck, running an Operation Revival campaign for a local group who are playing on the Clanner side means I'm going to have to do it again as not all militia forces had 'Mech units, or if they did, they were focused elsewhere.
My choice of mech purchases has always been 99% based on "do I think the model looks cool?" (The new plastic resculpts are, by and large Much Cooler, and so my selection of mechs has expanded to include mechs I would never have bought the metal sculpt of.) That is why I have not until the kickstarter bought any IS vehicles, because I didn't think the old art looked cool. I am unlikely to ever have a protomech, because I've never seen one I think looks cool. I only have a few Clan vehicles because I thought They Looked Cool (and most of 'em are lights), and only have about a pack of vehicles from the Mercs kickstarter because they have missile launchers that I thought were Cool Enough. (If I ever wanted to use infantry or BattleArmour, I'd be using old Space Marine (from Before It Was Epic) infantry.)
Funny. You say that as if other people also don't make their picks on the same standard.
I'll go further and say, I'm sorry, but I don't even take BattleTech particularly seriously. Frack, mate, everytime I play Clans I roll two D100 on a table of made-up adjective/noun and play them almost as a parody of the worse Jade Falcon steriotypes. (I mean, there's a whole thread called "Bleakbane Ruins BattleTech" in the fan rules section is you wanted to see how seriously I take it all.) I play it because occasionally, I want to play with cool-looking giant stompy robots.
The more I've played Battletech, the less serious I take it (outside of a certain biweekly campaign where decisions have long-lasting consequences). That's part of why I do bring tanks, Protomechs, and Infantry. They aren't the kings of the battlefield, and I have no problem bringing bishops, knights, and jesters to the field.
But I really am evidence that part of the fanbase is genuinely just here for the cool giant stompy-robots and everything else is secondary to that.
Okay, but then the question is if you're just here for the giant stompy war-crime robots, why are you bothering to commenting on a thread on Aerospace that's pushed well past the original question?
Does that make me a Filthy Casual?
That's a question trying to engage a strawman argument, as no one has made it.
I mean, prob'bly? I only get to play solo once, maybe twice a year these days? I don't really play "six-pack and boldy-go" as Full Thrust so elegantly described itself once, but BT is as close as it gets for "casual". I'm invested in the lore really only insofar as it informs the Techinical Readouts (which I love), but really not giving much of a frag about the characters or anything. Does that meet the criterion? You decide.
But, like, at least it makes me an informed filthy casual with 500-odd mechs and about a foot's worth of BT rulebooks. I am well aware of what is on offer and an engaged enough to read the main forums.
I don't see how the frequency in which you play with yourself determines your level of casualness. How often you get to play at all would more likely do it, and if the only time you get to play is solo, and that infrequently, then yeah, you probably are 'casual'.
But I don't think the level of one's casualness makes them a poor player, or one who shouldn't have an opinion. Poorly informed, or unable to have a good basis for decision-making, maybe. But I was the one warning against using the term "casual" too casually.
On the other hand, when I first started playing regularly 3 1/2 years ago (the first time in 3 decades I could find a stable group), I was mostly in it for the Battlemechs, mostly because that's the core of the game, but also learning those rules covers the basics for most everything else. Maybe if you had more opportunity to play, you'd have more interest in other unit types.
And, here getting back to topic, I bought both BattleSpace and Aerotech 2 played the latter once and decided, nope, too much like hard work, Full Thrust was still better and I didn't think BT's ships and fighters didn't look particularly cool, so I went back to FT (until I ended up writing my own sets of fighter and starship rules.
I bought BattleSpace and Aerotech 2nd Edition back in the 90s, and read through them. I never had a chance to try them (working full-time with 12-hour shifts doesn't leave a lot of time with meeting up with anyone), but I agree with you, it presented itself as a game system with a lot to track. Not as much as Starfleet Battles, mind you, but far more than the ground game ever did.
segueEven with Total Warfare, the interface with the ground game it presents is too dependent on large amounts of table space that most people will not want to work with. 90% of its rules in Total Warfare should be swapped with the Radar Map rules from Strategic Operations. It's an easier transition, and allows the "Advanced Aerospace" rules to actually feel... "advanced".
As it is, with our main LGS closing its doors and transitioning to a new shop, we have had less space to play, which means that experimenting whole hog with the space-side of the game just isn't in the cards because so few people actually have a collection of aerospace assets at all.
Recent Posts
