Wrangler
01/24/17 06:18 PM
108.20.178.107
|
Howdy
I picked up the Open Beta of the BattleMech Manual.
It seems to be better design player rule book and it works for me.
Especially trying to get new players to learn the original tabletop game.
Question is. How you guys think?
The additional of the Quirks was nice, thou the negatives don't look like they cripple a mech.
Battlefield Support is intriguing. I want try play with someone who would like try using it.
When it hits the fan, make sure your locked, loaded, and ready to go!
|
Akalabeth
01/24/17 08:58 PM
64.251.81.66
|
From what I've heard it cuts out vehicles, infantry, aerospace, etcetera? Mechs only?
Is this meant to be a replacement for Total Warfare? Or does it represent a shift towards mech-only gameplay? Or what?
|
Akalabeth
01/24/17 10:38 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Picked it up since it's only 5 dollars. I don't even play the game anymore but thought what the hey.
Yeah, still no construction rules. I dunno, Battletech- to be fair is an OLD game. Look at how many pages of tables are in the back of the book. Because it's old, either like keep the core elements IN there (which includes construction) or if not, then streamline it a bit and take some crap out of there.
Seems like they try to streamline some things, make it more palpable for players like this GATOR thing for firing. But, kinda falls apart when you find out what the O stands for.
G = Gunnery, okay cool
A = Attack Modifier
T = Target Modifier
R = Range Modifier
O = Other. What?
So by "Other" you mean Actuator, Targeting Computer, Water, Woods, Heat, Time of Day, Weapon Modifiers etcetera.
I think some of their rules writing is still too wordy. They honestly need editors. A quick example I found is about Firing Arcs on page 24.
Quote:
Forward Arc
Weapons in the three forward torso locations, the legs, or the head of a ’Mech may fire only at targets in the forward arc. Arm mounted weapons may fire into the forward arc plus the appropriate side arc.
Leg-Mounted Weapons: Leg-mounted weapons may not fire through a hex that provides the firing ’Mech with partial cover, unless the partial cover is provided by water (see Combat in Water, p. 27). The firing arc is always forward for forward-mounted leg weapons, and is not affected by torso twisting.
You know what's an easier way to write that?
"All weapons may fire into the forward arc unless they are rear-mounted"
Did you notice that crap about leg-mounted weapons doesn't even address when the legs are submerged? It's basically half a rule. Partial cover rules should be in line of site not in firing arcs.
Quote:
LEFT SIDE ARC
Weapons in a ’Mech’s left arm may fire at targets in the left side arc and forward arc.
Which could instead be
"Only weapons mounted on a mech's Left Arm may fire into the left-side arc. They may fire into this arc in addition to firing into the forward arc."
Quote:
REAR ARC
Weapons mounted in any of a ’Mech’s three rear torso locations
may only fire into the rear arc. Weapons may also be rear-mounted
on a ’Mech’s head and legs (rear legs only for quad ’Mechs). All rearmounted
weapons are indicated by an (R) on a ’Mech’s record sheet,
and may only fire at targets in the rear firing arc.
Leg-Mounted Weapons: Rear-facing leg-mounted weapons
may not fire through a hex that provides the firing ’Mech with partial
cover, unless the partial cover is provided by water (see Combat in
Water, p. 27). The firing arc is always to the rear for rear-mounted leg
weapons, and is not affected by torso twisting.
Replace this with
"Only rear-mounted weapons may fire into the rear arc. These weapons are indicated by an (R) on the Record Sheet".
If one wants, they could also add Arm flipping in there. Arm flipping is on the same page but is equally lengthy. Why do the rules include information on Mech Construction when there are no mech construction rules in the manual?
Quote:
REVERSING (FLIPPING) ARMS
’Mechs whose record sheets do not come with hand and lower
arm actuators in both arms can flip their arms over and fire the
weapons in those arms backward. It must be both arms: ’Mechs with
only one applicable arm cannot reverse any of its arms (though if a
’Mech that can reverse its arms loses one during a game, it can still
reverse the remaining arm). ’Mechs that lose the required actuators
through damage cannot reverse their arms.
Reversing arms occurs during weapon attack declaration. Both
arms must be reversed (unless one is destroyed, as per above). A
’Mech cannot torso twist and reverse its arms in the same turn.
After flipping its arms, the ’Mech may fire any arm-mounted
weapon into the rear firing arc instead of the usual firing arcs for
those weapons. The exception to this rule occurs if weapons are split
between locations in the arm and torso; while the arms can still flip
to fire weapons that do not have a split location, split-location
weapons can only fire into the front arc.
During the End Phase, reversed arms automatically return to
the standard front arc.
Prone ’Mechs: Prone ’Mechs may not reverse their arms.
Can replace that with
"Mechs which are not built with Lower or Hand Actuators in either arm may reverse their arms to fire into the Rear Arc. The mech in question must not have suffered any damage to its Shoulder or Upper Arm actuators, may not mount any weapons which are split between the arm and side-torso, and must be standing. The decision to flip arms is made at the time of the attack declaration and will prevent the mech from performing any torso twists. Once flipped, the weapons mounted in each arm are treated as if they were Rear Mounted and may only fire into the Rear Arc. As with torso twists, the orientation of the arms will reset on subsequent turns."
Shorter, simpler and less ambigious. Notice in the rulebook, it says "After flipping its arms, the mech may fire any arm-mounted ewapon into the rear firing arc". Does that mean I can flip my arms and fire into my normal arcs instead? Hell no it doesn't. That's why I say what I wrote is less ambigious, because after you flip your arms your weapons are rear-mounted.
Catalyst rules writing never changes.
Edited by Akalabeth (01/24/17 10:57 PM)
|
ghostrider
01/25/17 08:23 AM
66.74.61.223
|
The last statement of lower or hand actuators should be having neither lower or hand actuators. Yes a bit picky but some will think it is either/or, not both.
One last thing, though I don't know if they address it, what about weapons sharing arm and torso slots? As they tend to lack those actuators, can they fire into the rear arc?
I would think no, but then I know some that would use this as a means to abuse something like the Naga arrows.
|
BelleSorciere
01/25/17 09:02 AM
71.35.158.99
|
The rules Akalabeth quoted said that weapons that share arm and torso slots can't be reversed.
|
Akalabeth
01/25/17 02:03 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Yeah the main point is that one of the major problems with rulebooks in the Catalyst-era is that they're simply too wordy. Look at the page count on these rulebooks compared to the old ones, most of the books are some odd 350 pages compared to less than 150 I think for some of the late-FASA era books, and of course the boxed set rulebooks are only about 75 pages or so. Mind you, the newer books included more rules for Aerofighters and Vehicles, but even this rulebook which is only mechs is still so long.
And I think part of that is this desire to over-explain things. The Firing Arc rules above include Construction rules (which aren't even in the book) and Line of Sight Rules (different category). They also repeat the same rules multiple times in multiple places which is nothing if not confusing. A game I recently played with my wife, great game, but Neuroshima Hex did exactly the same thing in the rulebook. Said a bunch of stuff, then in the next paragraph, said the same thing again. It's both annoying, because it wastes your time, and it's confusing because then people start comparing the rules and imagine discrepancies.
I kind of wonder if Catalyst aren't padding the rules just so that the words match the diagrams. For layout purposes rather than for explanatory purposes. Would have to look at diagram placement to figure it out.
ALSO - I wonder if htese "optional" rules shouldn't just be integrated into the base game. There are numerous places where they have a rule, you can either torso twist OR flip arms, not both. And then in the next paragraph they'll say "oh actually you can do this, just have to do this to do it". Same with prone mechs firing, and then prone mechs with one arm firing. The optional rule paragraph contradicts the writing of the first rule immediately after the player reads it.
NOW, if you're an advanced player- you would know the history of the rule and understand the origins of it. But if you're a new player, wouldn't you find that freaking confusing and contradictory?
|
ghostrider
01/25/17 09:23 PM
66.74.61.223
|
It may well be the didn't have enough to make the book worth buying with the little new content they had to put in there, so they had to pad it with basically worthless or repetitive crap.
I mean, would you spend 20 dollars on a 80 pages book? Or spend 20 dollars on a 160 page book?
Not sure how much it was to publish things, but I would figure a 7 dollar update book would have been much better then the 20 dollar repeat everything book.
And yes, I did miss the statement of the arm flip. My fault for skimming it at that point.
Though I do agree with the optional rules. Especially the ones they use in competitions. Sucks to find them out when you get there and try to play.
|
TigerShark
01/26/17 01:06 PM
12.130.166.32
|
Short summary: I'm not paying to Beta test, spell-check, edit, or proof-read your product. That's the job of your editors and play-testers. If you want fans to do it, do what D&D "Next" did: Send the stuff out for free and ask for errata and play-testing feedback.
I've been tricked too many times and won't pay another dime for CGL's rushed work. All of the $5 PDFs I have contain errors and omissions which will never be corrected, due to budgetary constraints. Oddly enough, whenever FASA is brought up, we hear trash talk from current/former employees about the lack of QC during that era and how it's better now. Well, I recall a vastly better product being made back then; one that didn't require 500 pages over two books to explain the basic and optional rules.
Rules seem to be written this way in the modern day (IMO):
Quote:
CATALYST CHECKERS MOVEMENT
Each player may move a piece in a lateral fashion, once per turn. This lateral movement can be achieved by sliding your piece onto an diagonally-adjacent, black square. You may only move one checker onto one adjacent square per turn, and only if that square is black. Movement may only be in a forward direction, which is dictated by the original position of your opponent's pieces. (See book 2, page 54 for "backward movement")
CATALYST ADVANCED CHECKERS MOVEMENT, PAGE 54
In the basic game, checkers may only move forward. Players may adopt the optional rule of allowing checkers to move backward, after reaching the furthers squares from their original, starting position. Once done, the checker becomes a "king" and may move forward or backward into a diagonally-adjacent, black square. (See diagram A1 on page 10)
...versus...
Quote:
FASA CHECKERS MOVEMENT
Moves are allowed only on the dark squares, so pieces always move diagonally. Single pieces are always limited to forward moves (toward the opponent). When a piece reaches the furthest row from the player who controls that piece, it is crowned and becomes a king. Kings are limited to moving diagonally, but may move both forward and backward.
Edited by TigerShark (01/26/17 01:57 PM)
|
Akalabeth
01/26/17 02:27 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Hahah that Checker's example is hilarious dude. Only problem is that the first Catalyst paragraph is missing an example in the middle of it.
But yeah, FASA era books are great for the most part. Catalyst has done some good stuff too, the overall quality of the printing is higher, the historicals are cool, full colour is cool, that sort of thing. Just the books are WAY too long.
Like how do you make a 350 page TechManual from what used to be 7 pages of Construction rules in a 32 page or so manual. That still boggles my mind. And to be fair, TM of course has rules for different types of units BUT at the same time, does one need to repeat the rules every time they talk about a different unit? Like if I remember correctly, instead of doing a chapter on Battlemechs and then having a page or two to state how Industrial mechs differ, they instead have a chapter for each. Same with vehicles and then support vehicles, which are included in TW along with Industrial mechs but which pretty much no one ever uses because there are simply no units worth using. I mean yeah it prevents people flipping from one page to the next. But it also super-inflates the page count as each step is repeated with only minor changes.
And as for Catalyst QC. Last time I played Alpha Strike, the guy running the thing had about 40 pages of errata with him which if I'm not mistaken is rivaling the length of the original rulebook. The original rules allowed a Komodo to sit in the woods, do nothing, and a get +3 Jump modifier without taking any penalty itself and people thought this was a good game balance. Needless to say the errata changed that.
|
TigerShark
01/26/17 05:41 PM
12.130.166.32
|
The simple truth is: If today's rule set were better, we'd see more players arriving. We don't. The player base is a tiny fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s. And the few people staggering over from MWO play a few games and quit, from what I've seen. Heck, even this board is a great example. How many active posters do you see here? 10? 15?
Kids could pick up a FASA book and start playing immediately. I learned it at 9 years of age with no help. Today's books end up in the clearance bin at game stores -- Nobody buys them. Heck, a core rule book (TechManual) is even out-of-print. When's the last time you saw that from a game like Pathfinder, D&D, or Warhammer 40k?
The new manual is a step in the right direction, as is Alpha Strike. But, at current, the core rule books (TW/TM/TO) just flat-out suck. I agree with your assessment re.: 350 pages. The layout is very poor, it's clogged with superfluous information, has bits people don't use (Aero, IndustrialMechs), and constantly requires page-flipping to accomplish simple tasks.
And, the huge issue, is the starter set(s), which introduce you to a dead era. I'm not saying people need to learn TSEMP and Hardened Armor on day 1, but at LEAST introduce people to the Dark Age and some of the tech. If you're going to make a new era, the starter set should introduce you to the tech of that era, not 3025. i.e.: Clan Invasion box set, Jihad box set, Dark Age box set, and so on.
|
Akalabeth
01/26/17 06:27 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Yeah that was one of my core complaints as well before I got banned from BT years ago for being too disruptive.
It makes no sense that the introductory boxset is set in 3025 instead of the current era. I love 3025, and so do a lot of older players but if I'm a new player I want to play the latest and greatest, not play an era from 30 years ago. It was even worse when the core mechs of the era were all unseen. Who wants to play a black silhouette?
The problem is the same that I said long ago on BT, that the core rules need to be revamped and streamlined. As it stands, Battletech's rules system is built like a house of cards. I don't know if that's the right analogy, but the point is you cannot play 3150 without understanding 3067, 3050 and 3025 because all of the advanced tech directly builds upon and references the older technologies.
Indirect fire for example in Total Warfare is not a generic action, it's an action tied to LRMs. If a new missile weapon can do indirect fire, it does it like LRMs not like anything else. UAC and RAC both jam but jam in different ways. Weapons all have unique weapon bands past 3025 that makes them difficult to memorize. If Jungle similarly blocks line of sight, it blocks it like Woods. Marking which ammo bin has fired is essential for gameplay but the record sheet doesn't accommodate it. The official sheets don't easily accommodate alternate munitions either.
For a game like Flames of War, you can buy the core rulebook and then your next purchase can be ANY BOOK in the line. Want Early War? Late War? Mid War? Italy? Africa? Normandy? Take your pick. Just pick the book with your army and it'll have all the organization stats and special rules for anything in there. It's not like 3150 where you need to buy 3-4 products just to have all the information. Originally Field Manuals had new weapons, rules, mechs and record sheets in them. They were like a bundled bonus to add to your faction. Then FM 3150 has only rules. TRO 3150 had only mechs (and not all of them, you needed another 6 PDFs for that), TRO 3150:RS had only record sheets. What a joke.
So at the end what you're left with a game that is not only complicated but has a massive financial and knowledge barrier to entry to play in the latest era and only about 5% of people are actually going to want that.
And to give Catalyst some credit, I think the BT fans are also much to blame. Catalyst seemed like they wanted to reset the ruleset & setting with 3250 but the fan backlash against that pretty much killed it entirely. Whenever I'd suggest changes on BT I'd get instantly jumped on by Demo agents and other moderator-safe hooligans as well, people who blamed the lack of players in an area not on the game but on the failure of local BT players to promote it.
But on top of that, Catalyst when I last checked has some inane application process to actually get involved in development. Like if you wanted to actually work on the game, write for it, make rules, you'd first need to volunteer and do other years of crap duty in order to get involved which means that by the time you work your way up the ladder you are so indoctrinated in the "way battletech should be" that major changes never happen. Because what the game development needs most is fresh blood and fresh perspective.
I actually stopped playing Battletech because frankly the game takes too long. I want to play Company on company games and that means even with all our house rules that speed up the game, it will still take 6 hours or more. Alpha Strike is simpler but has no character.
As for the other stuff in Total Warfare. Air support is cool, but Aerotech 2- I mean, everything about the game is different from battletech. Same weapons, different range bands, different system for taking damage. Needs a separate map. And using an aerofighter in the atmosphere is basically a game where you fight, fight fight, then fail one piloting roll and explode. Like is a hundred ton mech going to take a nose dive because it got hit by a few shots when a fighter like the A-10 Warthog gets full of holes and keeps flying. Crashing isn't about getting hit, crashing is about losing structural integrity and aerodynamics or engine power. Aerotech 2 rules are terrible. Give the fighters more structure, more stability, so they make a more predictable and balanced contribution.
|
TigerShark
01/26/17 07:00 PM
12.130.166.32
|
Well, their battle value in general is nonsense. BV doesn't take into account external factors, like terrain. You could have a 2,000 BV vehicle that's not environmentally sealed. So, on a water map, it's useless. You have Aero with BV, but for what map type? Space, atmospheric, or ground? You don't die in 1 hit in space, but you can on ground maps. And yet your "value" is the same on both? O.o
I dunno. Spit-balling here, but I'm 100% sure that things were better before the ridiculous level of complexity we got now. Just bums me out that the player base is so small.
|
Akalabeth
01/26/17 07:51 PM
64.251.81.66
|
I think the biggest problem with battle value is that last I checked offensive + defensive ability were added together, when defensive should be a multiplier of offense. The combat potential of the mech depends on the durability of its weaponry; how many weapons does it have, how efficiently can they fire, and how durable is the platform that carries them?
That and ammunition storage deductions was painful inaccurate. There's a heck of a difference between a Crusader where the only crit in the torso is ammunition and a mech which has 4-11 other things to hit.
Terrain- I think is too variable to put into Battle Value, but perhaps it should be better tied into scenario selection. Or there can be guidelines for defensive scenarios where X unit has an advantage in terrain and the other side gets more forces, that sort of thing.
Also I don't understand the idea of Tournament Legal. Are Battletech tournaments a thing? Besides Gencon/Origins? That's why I don't understand why those optional rules weren't just rolled into the normal rules, because they want to preserve the sanctity of tournament rules for tournament which are at best very very rare if I were to guess
|
ghostrider
01/26/17 10:30 PM
66.74.61.223
|
So would it be accurate to suggest they need to remake the core rules, and then have add on options, like a book that deals with nothing but mechs? (this might be included into all box sets)
And make one that deals with all atmospheric/groundwater vehicles?
And a separate one for space?
Much like the clan source books in size, that deal with construction of each as well as the rest of the information you need to run them?
Maybe have time era supplements, like what is missing from 3025 verses 3050 and so on?
|
Akalabeth
01/26/17 11:58 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Who knows.
For my 2 cents, I think Battletech has kind of a problem. The problem is that it's a board game, which markets itself as a miniature game but is made by a company which doesn't have a license to produce miniatures.
So they produce a boxset which is self-contained with plastic miniatures and maps and rulebooks and . . . what else? Nothing. There are no expansions to this board game in the sense that other board games get expansions. It's not like Carcassone where you buy a base game and then there are 20 or so expansions which each can add different things to the game, but instead with Battletech you buy books. Or maybe map packs. Or record sheets if those are still sold physically. But there is no product you can buy that gives you everything you need, straight away, to expand that basic boxset. There's no City Tech. There's no Reinforcements. Hell there's not even Aerotech these days.
So if you're someone who is familiar with board games and you pick up this cool game which is a board game you open it up, have fun and then you want to expand it you go back and get what?
A technical readout? Which is cool, but it's just a bunch of pictures of mechs with fluff in it.
Record sheets? Lots of new units, but you don't have playing pieces for them.
Field Manual? Uh, what the **** is this? Army list? How can I play this army?
Historical? History book okay, but- how can I use this in the game?
If I'm a board gamer, none of these products mean a damn to me. I want more ways to play the game and the only thing that comes close is the Technical Readout but it might have technology I don't have. Even if I get Total Warfare in addition to that.
So is Battletech a miniatures game? Uh- maybe yes? Thing is, unlike Warhammer or Flames of War it doesn't have books with Army lists. The closest you can get is a Technical Readout again, but that only provides the stats it doesn't provide the record sheets and often many of those mechs don't have playing pieces because there is so much bloody inventory and Battletech is probably only a mediocre seller that no store is going to stock everything. Even Iron Wind metals has stuff in Archives all the time.
So if it's a miniature game, it's a **** one. Because the miniatures aren't available, many of them are too big to fit on the map sheets, you need multiple books to expand the game, and on top of the armies are often extremely generic with everyone on one side of the clan/is side having virtual access to everything. The original 16 clanners, everyone uses them. 3025 mechs, everyone has most of them. Some factions are associated more with certain designs than others. And if you're a merc, which many people play, then you can get pretty much anything clan or IS.
I love the miniatures, I have tons of them- but at the same time, they don't work with the maps and the scaling of the miniatures rules requires a LOT of space. Even with our board 50" by 100" the maps, in Battletech terms, were still very small. only like 1.5 by 3 map sheets long which is very small given we have say 12-20 units aside sometimes.
So what kind of game is it? Because it's neither a board game nor a miniature game, so people from those camps aren't going to understand it but beyond the base game. It's going to be weird and inaccessible and very confusing.
On top of that. The components suck.
Plastic miniatures? Great. They look good from what I saw but this isn't a miniatures game nor is it a Fantasy Flight Game.
Paper maps? What boardgame uses paper maps? NONE. Even Federation Commander by ADB, another old school company has heavy cardboard stock maps. Problem is though map packs don't sell, so why make cardboard maps when you can make plastic minis?
If you want Battletech as a board, then make it as a boardgame.
1. Personally I would simplify the hell out of the rules. But, if that's off the table then at least stream line them
2. Cut out the plastic miniatures, put in good quality cardboard counters instead. Either flat or stand up ala the old games.
3. Ditch the coloured maps. Provide blank green paper maps and counter sheets with terrain that allow the players to build the board in different ways each time (think Settlers of Catan)
4. If possible, provide re-usable record sheets. Ie laminated for markers
5. Set the boxset in the 3150 era
In addition to that, print a number of expansions which:
1. Add new blank maps and terrain counters
2. New counters for new mechs
3. Include all the record sheets and rules to play those new mechs or units
Could even theme those expansions towards different factions
I would also personally simplify the game to something that allows more units on the board, so simpler than Battletech but more complicated than Alpha Strike. Cut out all the crap rules. Reduce the number of modifiers.
All that said, this probably wouldn't work because it's cheaper and less risky to print more books more often than expensive board game expansions less often, but if those expansions are relatively small and only say 20 bucks then maybe that risk is mitigated. But the main goal is to have the Base boardgame in the stores ALL THE TIME and for players to see it, pick it up, and then beside that base game see another 3-4 Expansions there that they can pick up and instantly add to their game whatever they want. Expansions by era or by faction or by rules set, unit type, terrain type, combinations, whatever.
As for Books? Make them superfluous to the main game. Something to buy if the player wants. Not something they need. So Technical Readouts are in, maybe other stuff is mostly out. And that's okay. Maybe scenario packs make a comeback. Scenario packs can be a mini expansion with story lines to play through, new terrain and units. Maybe it's like Doom or Fantasy Flight where it needs a DM/GM and the rest of the people are thplayers and they play through an adventure where they don't know the conclusion, only the DM does. Etcetera. Maybe even add cards or options to make those adventures different every time and not the same.
Copy other successful games.
|
MJB
01/27/17 01:50 AM
107.199.74.86
|
Just my meandering $0.02 here...
I started playing BT back in the early 90s. My son, who was eight at the time, bought a box of PlasTech mechs because they looked cool; we didn't even realize they were for a game.
The gamestore guys told us about the game and lent us the rulebook. My kid and I learned the game in one sitting, using minis and a ruler on the tabletop. My wife and her nine-year-old brother learned the next day.
It was easy to learn and fairly fast to play. We got our own copy of the rules and some mapsets.
Then came CityTech. AeroTech. Clan stuff. BattleSpace. And on and on and on...
Some of the interactions of the expansions were a bit wonky, but overall it was pretty clear and easy.
At some point, though, the overall got unwieldy, not to mention expensive. If you didn't jump all-in you could end up at a public table with no clue. That chased a LOT of new blood out.
For a while I ran a public game for beginners at a local store. Mechs only, 3025, basic rules only. Those games were very popular, and not just for beginners; we had a fair number of veterans who really enjoyed short, simple games.
BT was a staple for family and friends for about ten years, but it collapsed precisely because the rules had grown so unwieldy and sometimes byzantine; we ran out of new blood because no one wanted to start that far behind the curve.
Fast forward to just a couple of years ago. I bought Total Warfare out of nostalgia and was horrified. The had turned BT into Advanced Squad Leader- a huge pile of overly complicated rules. I can't imagine any fresh player wanting to wade in; as a veteran I was astonished at just how they had managed to so thoroughly murk up a pretty simple game.
If I ever actually get back into it, I would find a copy of the original rules and CityTech and probably stop there.
I like the idea of a more traditional map size and counters. Easier to store and transport, no need to collect minis, more space for units.
In any case, CLG needs to do something different if they want new players, IMO.
|
ghostrider
01/27/17 01:53 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Might be a good thing to make the adventure packs follow the units that they deal with. Granted, since they killed off alot of the older units like wolfs dragoons, that wouldn't be one, but how about the newer ones like the steel wolves that were in a few of the novels in the dark ages?
Having not only a list of units, but actually cut outs of the units themselves.
I have some of the pewter figurines, and for a while they barely fit on the old cardboard maps that came with the game as well as reinforcements and such. I had thought when I seen the paper ones in the stores, they were just generic ones someone did up trying to make money.
Have mechs specific to houses be part of the field manuals or other books dealing with them. Really. What good is playing 3025 house kurita without panthers and jenners, and atleast a dragon or 2?
Making each adventure different each time you play it seemed to be based on bv.
Changing forces to make the game challenging, yet how do you really do that when one side just blows that bad?
Buildings and fortifications without artillery, are ok, but once you know where they are, you can get around them rather easily. Some fire in one direction only, so they are wasted once you get behind them. Towers without turrets are just as bad. Mobile force are needed, but having 5k bv to play with when you have 15k bv set in things that are useless if the enemy never gets into firing positions... well. I think you can see that.
|
Akalabeth
01/27/17 02:18 AM
75.155.167.106
|
Wolf's Dragoons didn't get killed off. I wish to God they did, but no they still have 2 regiments or so. I think the only difference in the dark ages is that they're less virtuous or something.
|
FreeFragUK
01/27/17 09:59 AM
212.159.119.184
|
There are a lot of elements of your post which I agree with Akalabeth.
For me I picked up BattleTech as a boardgame as I'm unable to stand around a large table at present due to ill health. I managed to track down the current Introductory Box Set (Revised) which is Out of Production and incredibly hard to get a hold of (good for business right?). The overall quality of the Revised version of the box set is incredible, in my opinion. The quality of the miniatures included along with the high quality reversible board maps and supporting literature are all top notch.
For me personally I'd love to see Catalyst produce "expansion" sets to the Introductory Box Set ie. an expansion for The Clan Invasion etc etc. but price these at the same level as the introductory box set and include a similar level of content. Plenty of other companies have done this, for example FFG to name but one. It has also been done in the past too with games such as Space Crusade and Hero Quest which were miniature centric for their representations of pieces in the game.
Unfortunately this is a pipe dream I fear.
While I appreciate what you're saying with the "make it a board game" idea with using counters and blank maps etc, this is a rarity in my experience in the current market. At least until you hit large scale combined arms, in lieu of this maybe the answer is to offer to two board games (one centred around mechs and the other centred around combined arms).
Personally I'd love to completely embrace BattleTech but another barrier, as highlighted by others here, is that there are so many "core" books and even the supplements need supplements. In some respects maybe it's time Catalyst looked back at what FASA produced and to also look at the competition. Flames of War was cited as one example of how to produce a core rule book with supporting books and this is a brilliant example. Under a similar format a new player could simply grab a copy of the core book and then go "I want to play as Inner Sphere during the Clan Invasion" so they'd literally just have to pick up a book which was "Clan Invasion - Inner Sphere" or "Clan Invasion - The Clans".
Anyway this is incredibly off topic and a very big tangent.
I have grabbed the "beta" rulebook just as a point of curiousity as I'll be looking to develop my BattleTech collection as I become more engrossed with it so once I've given it a read over the next week I'll post some relevant feedback.
|
Akalabeth
01/27/17 03:28 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Yeah Plastic miniatures are better, the reason I suggest cardboard counters instead is that it's more sustainable. Plastic figures are a lot of money and Battletech requires a much higher variety of figures than a one off game like Doom or Descent and much much more variety than most similar miniature games like Warhammer where the figures are both fairly generic and fairly modular. There aren't 500 types of space marine, there's maybe three or four types of space marine with a few different poses and different weapon options and the average player is going to get a box of them or two. Or in Flames of War, which isn't even plastic but Resin and Metal, if I play a Tank company I'm not running 15 different tanks, I'm running 15 of the same type of tank with maybe a few variants in there.
Or for an extreme example look at a boardgame lke Zombies by Steve jackson, the box has like a hundred zombies but there's only 4-5 different types. Fantasy Flight games, mass produced, typically only one box or maybe a few expansions and they just have a set number of figures which are all used in the game at some point.
But Battletech, hundreds of units, many of which are used only rarely or not at all. Doesn't seem feasible. Not to mention that putting them all into plastic would directly compete with IWM unless they're getting a cut of the plastic profits. So- they could prioritize some units and neglect others, leaving those to metal only as one-off additions.but even then you need record sheets to go with those metal miniatures. But overall I think there would need to be less variety.
And personally I have to say I don't even like the lance packs they have as it is. I haven't liked lance packs since the 80s, because back then you actually got duplicates of some mechs. Remember the old Battle lance having like two Warhammers, a Thunderbolt and a Marauder or something? Fire Lance had two Archers. Skirmish lance, a pair of Shadowhawks. Now if you get any lance you get four different mechs. So I want two of something, I'll need two of everything! Works for some people maybe but doesn't really work for me. I'd rather these packs had duplicates of some mechs, to suggest their being more common, and one offs of other mechs which are either more rare or less desirable.
Like a medium lance with two Phoenix Hawks, one Vulcan and one Assassin. Or a heavy lance with say two Falconers, a Rakshasa and a Bushwhacker let's say. Just the idea that okay here's a boxset with the "main units" and inside that set, some mechs are duplicates because they're the "core" units. Helps keep it from becoming super generic. And the core units can be the popular units that everyone likes.
Can do the same with tanks. Have lances centred around main units like Manticores, Von Luckners, Alacorns, Rommel/Patton. Or on the hover side of things, maybe you got a light lance focused around the Pegasus or Zephyr, and a heavy around . . Drillsons or that other 50 tonner with maybe one Saladin for kicks. Etcetera.
As for record sheets. Maybe these boxes can have a product key to get their record sheets from an online store/client. Type in the key, get all the variants for a given time period for that mech.
As for MJB,
Advanced Squad Leader? Really wow, I heard that game was complicated so a bit surprised to hear battletech compared to it but I guess it makes sense. Another game from the 80s is Star Fleet Battles, and for a lot of people, especially those who play modern games SFB is a joke because it takes so long to play and the rulebook is so big, but sad thing is if you put the core rulebooks all together Battletech's rulebook is probably even bigger and more cluttered than SFBs.
I remember years ago people used to joke about battlemechs playing baseball with elementals as the ball, and then when Tac Ops came out, they put in a bunch of stupid rules to facilitate it! Picking up and throwing elementals, who cares. Elementals meanwhile being a massive joke in general, where any mech can shake them off almost effortlessly just by jumping or dropping prone. And while they can take damage and do leg attacks fine, Artillery will wipe out any elementals in a single hit it seems.
But yeah. It would be good to have a game where the depth of knowledge required is almost equal for each era. Maybe you can have a starter box for different eras with plastic mechs or those good counters and expansion boxes for each era and they can all be mixed and matched relatively easily. Maybe that's just not battletech, I don't know, but I think the game can evolve while keeping the spirit, be simplified somewhat, but still have some meat and still be fun with the character of each mech showing through. Maybe it's time for a rules revamp.
Because if Battletech is a dying game, then revamping the rules before it's expired is better so that you can convert some of the old guard while also getting newer players. Look at even say Federation Commander compared to Star Fleet Battles. FC is still very meaty game but it's much much more playable and accessible (though they stopped releasing new stuff so it's pretty dead now on the net anyway). Remember that Wizkids Clicky tech Mechwarrior reportedly made more money in one year than FASA made in its entire existence, so making a game more mass market, more appealing can be better for maybe not the game but the franchise, just don't need to take it as far as Alpha strike & Mechwarrior clix. But if you wait until most of the players have left before you come out with new rules then who will buy it and who will champion it in FLGS and so forth.
|
Akalabeth
01/27/17 06:32 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Also, sorry to Wrangler I know this thread got derailed hard.But on a similar topic to the ongoing discussion I noticed on the bg.battletech.com front page that they have a link to a "Battletech Primer", which is an introduction to the game and the universe. That sounds handy right.
http://d15yciz5bluc83.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BattleTechPrimer_Final.pdf?x64300
One caveat, the thing is 25 pages long! How long was the original rulebook? Like 50 pages?
A lot of it is pictures and such, but if you're a player and you want to promote the game is this something you're going to hand someone? Most board game rulebooks are only 6-8 pages in my experience, and I think the average guy on the street is going to look at this primer for about 10 seconds, see its length, and then hand it back to whoever gave it to them.
And the first three pages of the primer just tell the reader how great Battletech is, it's not until page 4 that they actually start talking about the universe. I dunno seems a little self-important to me. It's like, don't tell me great battletech is, SHOW ME.
But getting back to the Battletech Manual,
I'm sure the Quirks are only in the thing in order to get existing players to buy it, that and maybe consolidating technology. But the quirk point cost is beyond pointless as some like the Blitzkrieg with an UAC/20 suddenly has the ability to flip its torso-mounted canon into the rear arc for no cost in BV or tonnage? Meanwhile another mech gets something like Bad Reputation which only affects its sale value in a campaign. Or another mech gets maintenance benefits which are again campaign only. Shouldn't these be factored into the cost of the mech?
And please don't anyone say "It doesn't matter because these are optional rules". That's been a carte blanche excuse for badly playtested and conceived rules for far too long.
|
ghostrider
01/27/17 08:32 PM
66.74.61.223
|
I was actually going to ask what a bad reputation actually does to the game?
We all kind of agreed money has no real effects in it, so you gain something for nothing.
The issue of using plastic figures for mechs comes when you have alot of units that you commonly use. Where do you store a full battalion of mechs when you have things like cats in the home?
The cut outs are not high tech, but you are less likely to worry if one gets damaged or eaten by your cat or dog. The plastic, well, a vet trip will break you of the habit of leaving them out.
The dragoons example was meant more for people reading the books wanting to play the eridini light horse, or gray death legion, yet can't. The full roster of what was being used when, just isn't there, and running any sort of campaign without a full list of all units from both sides just doesn't make the magic. The pacts focused on some things, but what if one unit held or failed to hold? Some may wanted to play the 2nd battalion in that pack instead of the 3rd.
I do see the quirk of being able to flip the arm of the blitzkreig being beyond a simple quirk. That is full breaking of the rule just because someone says so. Every unit or no unit should have this. Not one because they said it could. Sounds like the natural aptitude abilities with gunnery going on there. Several characters in the books, namely Kai Liao-Allard, and Phelan Kell being able to do so, but then the rules stating no one else can.
Really. I could create a quirk that will allow my 100 ton mech to walk 5 every other turn, and run 8 just on a say so?
And with the statement of money, how many people have actually used the economy to really affect their games? Most will do as they want, and to hell with the costs. Research has shown that. The example of the xxl engine was a prime example of that. Simply crash an explosive laden aircraft into the unit to force the enemy to lose almost a dropship costing mech.
But back to the rules. The play testers don't seem to try to abuse the rules before suggesting they are good. The near cloaking ability someone pointed out an issue that should have been closed before it was put into the publics eye. The pulse/tc was another example. Getting around some of that by dropping the information from newer printings doesn't always do it.
|
BelleSorciere
01/27/17 11:29 PM
71.35.158.99
|
The ability to reverse arms is on every mech without hand and lower arm actuators - so a Rifleman can, and I think a Warhammer? And possibly a Locust. You can't reverse a weapon with criticals in both arm and torso, so if the Blitzkrieg's AC20 takes up an arm and torso, it can't fire backwards.
|
Akalabeth
01/28/17 12:02 AM
75.155.167.106
|
Hey dude, think you misunderstood.
The Blitzkrieg's UAC/20 isn't arm mounted. It's split between LT/CT
But in the new Battletech manual, every mech has been given one or more "Quirks", either postiive or negative which are optional rules to add spice to the designs. The Blitzkrieg's positive quirk is:
Directional Torso Mount
A well-known feature of the Goliath, a Directional Torso Mount acts as a somewhat more restrictive BattleMech shoulder turret, allowing any weapons in the mount to shoot in either the standard forward torso arc or the rear arc, depending on the mount’s current facing. The mount’s facing is set at the start of the game, and can be changed at the same time torso twists are made. However, unlike a torso twist, it does not reset at each End Phase: the arc chosen remains until deliberately changed. The mount rotates with any torso twist as normal. Each time a Directional Torso Mount-equipped ’Mech takes a hit in any torso location (Front or Rear), the player must roll 2D6 to determine if the Directional Torso Mount is destroyed. A result of 7+ means the Directional Torso Mount is destroyed (and the weapon is locked in the current arc), in addition to the normal effects of the attack.
So basically if using quirks, this mech has a free turret. That it can switch to back or front at the same time it chooses to torso twist. With the Goliath, it's screwed because hey it's a Quad but not so with a Biped.
This quirk costs two points. Another quirk that costs two points is:
RUGGED (1 OR 2 POINTS)
Rather than being easy to maintain, some ’Mechs are instead extremely reliable, reducing the frequency with which they require maintenance. The cost is 1 point if the ‘Mech can go for two times as long between maintenance periods as normal, and 2 points if it can go up to three times as long.
Which the Blood Kite has, and is only relevant in a campaign game and then only if maintenance is involved. Maintenance itself does not cost a lot under any system if memory serves me well. At absolute best this quirk would allow the mech to avoid some sort of maintenance shortfall penalty in a campaign if its not being serviced. Though in the case of the Blood Kite, being heavily dependent on ammo for its full effectiveness, I doubt that would matter very much.
So basically the Quirks are- unbalanced. Don't cost BV points. They're not equal in value. Quirks like the directional mount don't change depending on the weapon. etcetera. I dunno what the deal with these quirks are, kinda a fun idea taken to its limits and realized that hey maybe not the best idea in the end since its not part of construction.
|
Akalabeth
01/28/17 03:06 AM
75.155.167.106
|
Oh one correction, I see in the 25th Anniversary boxset that they did indeed have some good quality maps. I only saw the preceding version which had some crappier maps so kudos on that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMj8k0wTmf8
I don't know if those are still the maps they have in the boxset. I think the map packs they put out had some good quality maps too, but they probably likewise fall into the trap of being a product which doesn't really expand the game just adds more components.
|
Frabby
01/28/17 05:51 AM
79.224.100.77
|
Quirks... I used to like them, when they were the exception. Like, one in ten 'Mechs or so having one quirk or the other.
Nowadays, quirk spam isn't fun anymore. We're just one step shy of requiring a "No Quirks" quirk for when all 'Mechs must have a mandatory list of quirks.
TPTB should really call a moratorium on quirks for newly published designs or variants unless there is really, seriously very good reason to give it a quirk.
|
Akalabeth
01/30/17 04:48 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Yeah I agree with the Quirks and I don't really understand why they bothered with some designs.
Like the Matar, or Amaris' Folly aka the old Behemoth has the quirks NonFunctioning (Upper & Lower Leg actuators) not to mention Illegal so hey, here's a design that doesn't work. Have fun. Because the actuators are broken and can't be replaced no matter what so it's just a paperweight, either that or you ignore the quirks in which case why are they even there?
Like howabout a quirk which says you can use the mech but the actuators are more prone to breaking? Like the Jury Rigged actuators from Maxtech (or THB? not sure). Why have a quirk that explicitly says this is broken, you can't use ti.
It's like putting in a page about a new gun. "Okay here's this great new gun it's called an Overloaded PPC, it weighs 8 tons, 3 crits does 13 damage, 14 heat, 6/12/18 range has no minimum range but guess what, it has the quirk "Explodes when Fired". So you can put it on your mech, but if you try to use it you'll blow your mech apart because hey it was a technical failure but please enjoy the new gun!".
And then hey let's put this gun in a Tactical Supplement: Catastrophies PDF with another 9 guns that don't work and will never see the field and let's charge 5 dollars for it.
|
ghostrider
01/31/17 01:53 AM
66.74.61.223
|
The idea of having random issues came up a while ago in a thread. Never really thought about it, but that would go great with quirks. Like the mercury's head laser feeling like it is running hot when fired?
Or the original javelin being top heavy (+1 to piloting)?
Hell the old adventure packs have some things like this in them. The roll of 5+ when firing an ml, or it does no damage but does heat up the 3 points. Maybe with that quirk, on a roll of 10+ it does 1 additional damage to make the quirk worth a damn.
Because I agree. Why deal with a quirk that doesn't help you with anything? One that hurts? Why use the unit?
Akalabeth. You are starting to sound like I did when I stopped buying books. Not that I disagree about the crap of things they threw on the wall to see what might stick, and decided to charge you for the priviledge of playtesting it for them.
|
Akalabeth
01/31/17 03:04 AM
75.155.167.106
|
Random damage "quirks" would be cool for 3025
Think old Heavy Gear, which would you give X number of negative quirks (or lemon rolls) based on the production state of the Gear (mech). Take a mech in 3025, roll for random problems, then maybe a weapon does a bit of extra heat, or it jams, or bit of armour damage, like the old scenario books. That could be cool, in theory, in the 3025 setting in any case.
Problem is I think that only really works in a small game, where there's only a few units to worry about. We tried using quirks or repair problems in our campaign but they would often be forgotten with a lot of units on the board.
I don't hate the quirks per se, but- as the other guy said, Frabby I think, they took them a bit far. When every unit in the game need a quirk then, it's just quirks for quirk's sake rather than quirks to fit the fiction.
As for unplaytested rules, well- Battletech's real problem is verbosity and maybe legacy baggage: contradictory or needless complicated rules kept for no other reason than that's they way they are. Game design is best when done iteratively, and after 30 years I think Battletech could cut some fat and be a leaner, tighter game while retaining its core ideas.
|
ghostrider
01/31/17 11:58 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Some quirks seemed to be for fluff filler. I want to say the battlehawk mech was like that. Missions failed to CO blamed the new just being tested mech. That I could see.
But as was suggested, a mech that actuators failed completely and does not move, should not be on the market in brand new status. Or mass production.
Some fluff I seen was for I believe Quickcell. Supposedly made lrm/srm carriers in 3025 era with I want to say scorpions as well. They supposedly had a bad reputation for inferior quality. A statement suggested the radar unit of a new vehicle was just thrown in the crew compartment, uninstalled.
From what I have seen, it is very much like people throw in negative quirks that don't do much, but give them some advantage, and stay away from any that could actually affect the game.
The canon mechs, don't quite follow that, but as with most things, if it is not an officiated con game, most of that gets tossed as well.
Do they have a full list of what mechs and varients are made by and used by each specific house or state? From 3025, or even the star league, as well as which clans used what equipment? I know now all clans used all the omni mechs, except when taken in battle. I want to say the timber wolf was not popular with the jade falcons.
This means in one list, not spread over every last tro or tech manual out there? Because honestly, I do not really see the awesome being made in the fwl not being very numerous in the federated suns. I know some external sales will happen, but the supposed lack of heavy/assault mechs as well the ppc issue would prevent large sales to a 'hostile' nation.
|
Akalabeth
02/02/17 09:07 PM
64.251.81.66
|
On the subject of quirks, someone started a thread on the main forum where they'd like the quirks removed from the book. Though given that the writer, the assistant line developer and a global moderator have all shot him down I don't think it's going to amount to much.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56215.0
Similarly there's another thread where one of the manual developers asks for feedback and then responds to all the criticism or directs people to specific things he wants looked at. That's kind of a piss poor way to get feedback. It's like if a group is playtesting your game, and when they fail to get something, you explain it to them or if someone doesn't get something or doesn't like something you say "that's the way it is!"
I don't know why they ask for feedback when the assistant developer's response in the quirks thread makes it clear that they won't change anything anyway.
|
TigerShark
02/03/17 12:34 PM
12.130.166.32
|
I posted a separate thread with another suggestion. This is a LONG overdue change and has been a thorn ever since BV2 came out. Creates a lot of balance issues and I'm hoping that, after some time, it's changed. BT has always moved at a glacial pace, but we've been through this long-enough, IMO.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56225.msg1292803#msg1292803
|
Akalabeth
02/03/17 02:23 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Great. A friend of mine wants to streamline the game as well, I'll direct him to that thread.
|
Akalabeth
02/10/17 10:06 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Saw on the BT forum that they might add more stuff to the Battletech Manual.
|
TigerShark
02/13/17 06:55 PM
12.130.166.32
|
I imagine they'd have to, after a while.
|
Akalabeth
02/15/17 01:47 PM
64.251.81.66
|
I mean the Manual was originally intended to intentionally leave out material from 3145, but looks like a discussion will at least have the author or whoever ask to see whether those can be put in.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
2 registered and 193 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 22675
|
|
|
|
|
|
|