Register Register

Author Topic: Core Rulebook Splitting  (Read 8490 times)

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5204
  • Freshly Minted Line Developer
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #60 on: 06 August 2019, 17:17:29 »
It’s already there. Nothing is being cut. Nothing is being added.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech
Eater of Shit Sandwiches

Ogra_Chief

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 264
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #61 on: 06 August 2019, 17:20:28 »
Come on dude, you know why... it adds to the IP/universe. A bunch of rules which by now BT has an overabundance of (looking at you max/experimental tech) is not 'enough' to sell a product, it needs value. A short story is quick and relatively cheap way to do so as well as stirring the imagination of a new convert. Even better if the story relates to some recently explained boring overly worded ruleset.
BattleTech @CGL_BattleTech · Jul 17
Harmony Gold no longer has any say in our decisions, however, the original mechs have been redesigned enough to not cause problems.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #62 on: 06 August 2019, 17:22:30 »
Citing page count as an issue, then including non-rules is what does it for me.  Why would you add something that doesn't belong in the first place?

if it were a significant quantity as to alter decision-making (ie cutting the fiction would keep it as one volume), i could see the issue. since the split would likely be occurring anyway, it's separate from whether it belongs or not.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10180
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #63 on: 06 August 2019, 17:25:02 »
"Dude", if I knew why, I wouldn't be kvetching about it.  I still haven't read any of the fiction in any of the rule books I own (which is to say all of the current ones, less the split TacOps just announced).  It's simply not why I buy rule books.  I'm not the oldest school guy around, but I really have NO interest in clan stuff.  As I said, YMMV.

Sartris has a stronger point, and one I'm willing to concede, BUT keeping the fiction in there when page count is driving a split still doesn't seem right.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #64 on: 06 August 2019, 17:36:58 »
i can see where you're coming from in the case of total warfare - 48 pages of fiction (technically 56,  but the first two items aren't so much short stories as maps and the two-page thing on military structures of the various factions) - add to that the 20 page painting guide at the end, and that's a significant chunk of real estate that could be repurposed to either slim the volume by 22% or bring in some stuff cut from BMR.

dgorsman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 458
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #65 on: 06 August 2019, 17:40:24 »
There may be mechanical restrictions i.e. there cannot be an arbitrary number of pages.  In which cases adding fiction provides enough padding.
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society

Firesprocket

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2206
  • I like sausage
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #66 on: 06 August 2019, 17:44:08 »
A short story is quick and relatively cheap way to do so as well as stirring the imagination of a new convert.
I am, perhaps, in the minority here, but I'm willing to bet most players, regardless of whether they are new to this game or any game really care much about whether there is fiction tied into the their rule book.  If you want a single story about tech in a class room setting in a tech book, sure I get that.  A story about fluff about myomer bundles, I get it.  Stories about Maskirkova, check points, and guerillas in a rule book?  Yeah, I just don't care in those circumstances.

No offense to the authors of those pieces, in that setting, a rule book, is intended.  They are just pages to be eliminated.  These pieces, conversely aren't large, and it costs more money, I guess, to simply eliminate them on their own.  Honestly I'm in favor of simply not re-printing content that likely to seldom, if ever, be used.


Ogra_Chief

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 264
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #67 on: 06 August 2019, 17:53:18 »
i can see where you're coming from in the case of total warfare - 48 pages of fiction (technically 56,  but the first two items aren't so much short stories as maps and the two-page thing on military structures of the various factions) - add to that the 20 page painting guide at the end, and that's a significant chunk of real estate that could be repurposed to either slim the volume by 22% or bring in some stuff cut from BMR.

If you wanted to cut the painting guide, then their is the item that has no business in a rulebook, but that likely wouldn't be fair to the hobbyist.

What I wouldn't like to see is a straight wall of text, with little life or context. Even if it is a stripped down bare bones essential ruleset made for the experienced player. However, a PDF only product might be different. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, just arguing some feel differently.

Also, I never purchased a BT rulebook without some type of lore or story attached. One could argue photos and pictures are unnecessary add-ins. Yet, I could not imagine, not having them.
BattleTech @CGL_BattleTech · Jul 17
Harmony Gold no longer has any say in our decisions, however, the original mechs have been redesigned enough to not cause problems.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10180
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #68 on: 06 August 2019, 17:56:25 »
Firesprocket, I'm with you.  Fiction is a one and done thing, whereas the rules are a) the thing you're buying the book for, and b) the thing you're going to read (AND look up) again and again.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #69 on: 06 August 2019, 17:58:54 »
There may be mechanical restrictions i.e. there cannot be an arbitrary number of pages.  In which cases adding fiction provides enough padding.

if that's the case, and i had to choose between the fiction and bringing ~70 pages of rules in from TO/SO, i'd take the rules. i know TW is supposed to be "TL rules only" but I managed to avoid accidentally using the Special Case Rules in BMR in Level 2 play. now you have a cascading effect - that's 100 pages (ported rules + fiction) out of TO, which now can exist as a single volume.

that's obviously not the intent here. cost, development time, and opportunity cost (and strategic vision) means they're not going in that direction. i think they have other plans for the core rules line and the current printings are just gap-fillers until those plans can be enacted in the medium term.

If you wanted to cut the painting guide, then their is the item that has no business in a rulebook, but that likely wouldn't be fair to the hobbyist.

What I wouldn't like to see is a straight wall of text, with little life or context. Even if it is a stripped down bare bones essential ruleset made for the experienced player. However, a PDF only product might be different. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, just arguing some feel differently.

Also, I never purchased a BT rulebook without some type of lore or story attached. One could argue photos and pictures are unnecessary add-ins. Yet, I could not imagine, not having them.


like i said, i'm generally indifferent about this (at least insofar as if it's fiction or nothing i'd vote to keep the fiction). currently it's clear the fiction isn't going anywhere. i'm just looking at realties and potentialities

VensersRevenge

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Is this the real life...
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #70 on: 06 August 2019, 18:19:00 »
I completely disagree. The majority of the rules in Total Warfare simply do not come up. I don't play aerospace so all those rules are completely meaningless to me. But the fiction is interesting. I would never buy a book about a Marik militia (not Militia) signalman during the Jihad, but getting that look in a minor part of the setting in the rules shows how expansive the universe really is. Also Total Warfare fiction includes the only fictional appearance of the Linebacker I am aware of, and it is my favourite 'Mech.
...Is this just fantasy?
Playing in Saskatoon Saskatchewan
Message if you want to organize a game

Firesprocket

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2206
  • I like sausage
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #71 on: 06 August 2019, 18:38:35 »
I personally wouldn't mind the elimination of aerospace/battlespace stuff from TW.  But that presents more problems than solutions.  90% of what I use Tac Ops for atm is reminders of tech based stuff.  The next most used items are almost exclusively artillery rules.  I think, if I used LAMS, I'd have it for reference for turn modes.  Other than that very little of it is items I can think I use with any frequency outside of floating TAC rules.  There are items that I think should be in the main rule setting such as the option probe rules and ECCM.  But the later especially get be argued over whether it really speeds up or slows the game down.

kinwolf

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 184
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #72 on: 06 August 2019, 19:53:09 »
Maybe CGL should start putting rules in fiction books instead... O:-)


Ogra_Chief

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 264
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #74 on: 06 August 2019, 20:21:26 »
One-off rules on the back of Lance Packs.  8)
BattleTech @CGL_BattleTech · Jul 17
Harmony Gold no longer has any say in our decisions, however, the original mechs have been redesigned enough to not cause problems.

RifleMech

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 649
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #75 on: 07 August 2019, 07:08:54 »
BattleMech Manual does have quads.
P15 has the lateral shift movement for quads
P19 has standing up for quads
P25 no torso twist for quads...
Etc

Huh. Can't imagine how I missed them. Thanks. :)


this has been coming for a while now

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60405.msg1389013#msg1389013

Thing is we've had many different flavors  of ice cream along with all the toppings for more than 30 years. Why the sudden need to drop all the toppings?


Quote
the future hasn't been this bright in twenty-five years



vehicles are still there. it's not like they're hiding them in a new mexico warehouse that people can't get at.

I hope it is but if so, why the need for kickstarters? Why split the rule book? Why abandon other units? Why start splitting up rule books saying they're too big to publish?

Sure for those that know where to look but will new players know?


Abandonment isn't an issue here. One can still buy TO, SO, CO and IO as well as all the TROs and record sheets as PDFs. What CGL seems not interested to do, is burn money in feeding the older fans the same old rules, fluff and sheets once more.

What they are interested in, how I read it, is giving new players easy access to the core game and its more advance rules in the foreseeable future. And, being honest, I don't see any newbie finding out about and enjoying vees, aero and infantry all by themselves. The material is not at all easily accessible right now. But if a new player gets a grip on the 'Mech rules and then gets into contact with us older players, we are certainly capable to point them into the right direction.

Then why aren't they including the other units in TROs? And where can one buy the core rule books? The store I go to has been reduced their battletech selection drastically. And you don't keep publishing the same edition of the rule books. Not unless there's a great demand for it. You print newer editions with rule changes, updates, and errata in them. This not only gives older players the ability to buy updated rule books but it keeps the rule books in print so that new players can buy them.

Splitting the rule books up just make playing even more difficult since you'd need to find and buy another book. 

As for new players not finding out about and enjoying other units on their own, how can they if they're not included?  Other units have been a part of the game for more than 30 years and have appeared in nearly every TRO since TRO:3025. Why are they suddenly an obstruction to players being interested, playing, and enjoying the game?

TW is in print. This is a thread about reprinting TO. The idea of a vehicle/infantry/etc “BMM” is one we’ve had since day one, but why does anyone feel like any of that has been abandoned if we still have all the information still available?

Ursus Major is 100% right.

Because TROs are switching to Mech only and the only place one can find vehicles is in Record sheets. 


It’s already there. Nothing is being cut. Nothing is being added.

I would hope all the updates and errata would be added.

Ultimately I hope  Battletech is doing well and that splitting TO is just a temporary measure to keep things in print while all the Core Rule Books are revised to make them more user friendly and to lay out what the new Tournament Legal is.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #76 on: 07 August 2019, 08:10:16 »
Quote
I hope it is but if so, why the need for kickstarters?

yes, what business would want a million dollar cash infusion? i can't think of a single one.

the rest of it... well, the times are a changin. "we've always done it this way" is objectively one of the worst reasons to keep doing something

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5204
  • Freshly Minted Line Developer
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #77 on: 07 August 2019, 08:14:29 »
I’d hire you if I could.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech
Eater of Shit Sandwiches

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #78 on: 07 August 2019, 08:24:02 »
Your follow up Kickstarter can be for my salary. I’m sure it’ll be huge. Dozens of dollars!

Two Guns Blazing

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 281
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #79 on: 07 August 2019, 08:36:21 »
yes, what business would want a million dollar cash infusion? i can't think of a single one.

...going to be a two million dollar infusion, I reckon...

In regards to combat vehicles...I like having the option of vehicles in my games, but for me, they definitely take a back seat and to be perfectly honest, I'd be perfectly happy with their being only two vehicles in the entire game that generically represent the same type of vehicle for each different faction.

1 - A Tank that had a single "Heavy" weapon hard point and a single "Light" weapon hard point, both of which had maybe 2-3 choices of weapons that could be slotted in. Tracked, slow speed with moderate armour, and

2 - An APC/IFV that could carry troops around and had a single "Light" weapon hard point that could accept 2-3 choices of weapons. Tracked, moderate speed with light armour. 

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16719
  • Dang it!
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #80 on: 07 August 2019, 08:39:01 »
...going to be a two million dollar infusion, I reckon...

In regards to combat vehicles...I like having the option of vehicles in my games, but for me, they definitely take a back seat and to be perfectly honest, I'd be perfectly happy with their being only two vehicles in the entire game that generically represent the same type of vehicle for each different faction.

1 - A Tank that had a single "Heavy" weapon hard point and a single "Light" weapon hard point, both of which had maybe 2-3 choices of weapons that could be slotted in. Tracked, slow speed with moderate armour, and

2 - An APC/IFV that could carry troops around and had a single "Light" weapon hard point that could accept 2-3 choices of weapons. Tracked, moderate speed with light armour.
So far from, new TROs. There aren't any combat vehicles and other units being listed.  I'm curious how new players will find out and wonder why they were dropped from the TROs.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5204
  • Freshly Minted Line Developer
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #81 on: 07 August 2019, 09:39:05 »
Combat Vehicles (etc.) aren’t in the box sets or the BMM. We are thinking of new players.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech
Eater of Shit Sandwiches

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16610
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #82 on: 07 August 2019, 12:36:24 »
So far from, new TROs. There aren't any combat vehicles and other units being listed.  I'm curious how new players will find out and wonder why they were dropped from the TROs.

From the Firestarter entry-
"For additional anti-personnel work, the Firestarter has two Deprus RF Machine Guns mounted in either side of its torso which, combined with the flamers, can make short work of infantry units. The Firestarter carries one Magna Mk II Medium Laser in either arm for when it is forced to engage hard targets like vehicles and other BattleMechs."

So a mech is referenced as being good at killing infantry and deal with vehicles.

From the Gargoyle Prime entry-
"The Primary Gargoyle configuration is capable of engaging enemies at a variety of ranges. For long range encounters, the Gargoyle has two LB 5-X Autocannon that are capable of firing both solid rounds and cluster ammunition, making the 'Mech effective against aircraft and vehicles."

Mech config designed to deal with vehicles and aircraft.

So in various mech entries it tells the new player that we have infantry, vehicles and aircraft in the setting and a mech defeats them all.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #83 on: 07 August 2019, 16:18:31 »
i think the easiest thing to do would be to have a clear pointer in the back of some of the books

"psst. hey, kid. yeah you. you like tanks?"

winters_night

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #84 on: 08 August 2019, 03:04:26 »
I am, perhaps, in the minority here, but I'm willing to bet most players, regardless of whether they are new to this game or any game really care much about whether there is fiction tied into the their rule book.  If you want a single story about tech in a class room setting in a tech book, sure I get that.  A story about fluff about myomer bundles, I get it.  Stories about Maskirkova, check points, and guerillas in a rule book?  Yeah, I just don't care in those circumstances.

No offense to the authors of those pieces, in that setting, a rule book, is intended.  They are just pages to be eliminated.  These pieces, conversely aren't large, and it costs more money, I guess, to simply eliminate them on their own.  Honestly I'm in favor of simply not re-printing content that likely to seldom, if ever, be used.

It would be unwise to cut the fluff, the fluff is what attaches people to the game and makes them identify with it and seek out more.  The last Total Warfare was pretty good with it, having fluff pieces at the start of each chapter. That way the fluff did not interfere with the rules.

Perhaps as an older player you don't really care because your already attached but I seriously doubt your playing Battletech just to push faceless mechs around with no attachment to the backstory of the game.  But flipping through a codex or rulebook like Total warfare it'd be the fluff I read first than I'd start to look at the rules if the setting interests me.

I didn't play 40k to throw buckets of dice on the table, I played to use the legions of the Emperors Soldiers fighting against the teeming hordes seeking to bring down the empire.
I didn't play Warmachines because I thought focus was a neat mechanic, I played it because mages marching around steam driven robots in a magic meets steampunk universe sounded awesome.
I didn't play Infinity because links are neat, I played it because the Nomads broker information and have a weird religious, body mutation Bakunin subfaction in it.

etc etc.  Rulebook fluff is generally going to be the first exposure some people have to the fluff at all.
« Last Edit: 08 August 2019, 03:11:29 by winters_night »

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #85 on: 08 August 2019, 08:02:41 »
Your follow up Kickstarter can be for my salary. I’m sure it’ll be huge. Dozens of dollars cents!

Fixed that for you. ;)

But on the subject of splitting the rulebook, I seem to remember that printed books need to be organized in signatures of 4 or 16 pages. If your page counts aren't divisible by those numbers, you may want to revisit them.

And hopefully the forthcoming split version of Tactical Operations explains why my new PDF copy (product number E-CAT35003V) doesn't have the nice PDF bookmarks of the older version in it. (Chapter level bookmarks makes mbear sad.  :'()

It would be unwise to cut the fluff, the fluff is what attaches people to the game and makes them identify with it and seek out more.  The last Total Warfare was pretty good with it, having fluff pieces at the start of each chapter. That way the fluff did not interfere with the rules.

I particularly liked how the fluff related to the relevant section. The chapter on infantry was an epistolary from a trainee undergoing boot camp, for example, which really tied the fluff into the theme of the following rules.

Perhaps as an older player you don't really care because your already attached but I seriously doubt your playing Battletech just to push faceless mechs around with no attachment to the backstory of the game.  But flipping through a codex or rulebook like Total warfare it'd be the fluff I read first than I'd start to look at the rules if the setting interests me.

That is a very good point that I had overlooked. Thanks for pointing it out.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #86 on: 08 August 2019, 08:10:57 »
My mom would throw in $50

If it’s a four page divisor, it’s nothing a page or two of ads in the back cant fix

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #87 on: 08 August 2019, 08:15:57 »
In my opinion, Alpha Strike has pretty much replaced Battle Force. I don’t really see the value in continuing to re-print and manage Battle Force rules anymore. That’s just me though.
That’s a fair assessment. I included BF in the splits because I seem to remember official whispers that it was getting a rework for the new printing. My guess is it’s being turned into Voltron AS where it combines units into lances under something closer to AS rules

IMO they need to make it its own thing with different rules because there is little incentive to play it instead of straight alpha strike. Unless I missed something in the BF rules that makes it stand out on its own

This should probably be in a different thread, but aren't Alpha Strike's stats derived from BattleForce's stats? If so BattleForce 3 could use formation cards instead of unit cards and be as simple as "Add all the values on these four Alpha Strike cards, then divide by 4 to get your BattleForce Heavy Lance's values."

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • Hear me now and believe me later
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #88 on: 08 August 2019, 08:19:51 »
I had thought about that too. It would actually be similar to BF1, ironically

RifleMech

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 649
Re: Core Rulebook Splitting
« Reply #89 on: 09 August 2019, 08:13:12 »
yes, what business would want a million dollar cash infusion? i can't think of a single one.

the rest of it... well, the times are a changin. "we've always done it this way" is objectively one of the worst reasons to keep doing something

I can't either but with Kickstarters you have to provide that product. That doesn't always happen. I think it'd be better to produce a product and get money than get money and hope I can make a product.

As for the rest, changing things for the sake of changing things isn't always a good idea. You also shouldn't fix what isn't broken.


Combat Vehicles (etc.) aren’t in the box sets or the BMM. We are thinking of new players.

Were combat vehicles included in the older box sets?  ??? CityTechs had some cardboard counters but did any of the others? And did any ever have minis?

Also box sets aren't the only way into the game.


snip

So in various mech entries it tells the new player that we have infantry, vehicles and aircraft in the setting and a mech defeats them all.

Doesn't mean much if there's no infantry, vehicles and aircraft to shoot at.