Bob Lorgar wrote: It's one of the trashiest of trash units. Never understood why anyone ever wanted one. Ever.
You... do realize that is the point, right? It's a cheapo unit made to defend stuff and leave better stuff available.
For what is worth, it actually is pretty decent used on urban environments. Able to give a headache to much larger opposition. Almost as if it was designed for that or something.
Elbows wrote: Seems awfully wasteful to break down a game this large to simple meta-gaming. We have Warhammer for that. Your argument could be used to ignore, likely 75% of all Battlemechs which are outclassed by various other mechs in their weight class, etc.
I agree. Metagaming with BTech is silly given that there is one faction that is literally, in every way, superior to the others.
Urbie was the original meme, before memes even existed. It was always a joke of a unit: ugly and awful but cheap and plentiful and reliable. People love it BECAUSE it's such an ugly duckling that usually dies horribly, but every now and again you get an amazing story of triumph out of one when it sucker punches somebody important with that AC-20.
And again, in-universe it's dirt cheap and mass produced, meant for garrison and city defense where they don't need to move around much and their short range is mitigated by knowing the enemy is coming to them
The Urban is fluffed as a milita mech. For the foes it was designed to face - civilians mainly - it is perfect. Mech grade armour and a stonking great gun. Load foam rounds for crowd control.
Cheap as well. You don't need a twenty-five million C-Bill TimberWolf pulling garrison when your heaviest enemy is likely to be a machinegun mounted on a technical.
They are all but useless in a normal mech on mech lance sized game of Battletech. You really need fast movers with an AC-20. A Saladin Assault Hover Tank would be my ideal choice. Two to really freak out an opponent.
niall78 wrote: The Urban is fluffed as a milita mech. For the foes it was designed to face - civilians mainly - it is perfect. Mech grade armour and a stonking great gun. Load foam rounds for crowd control.
Cheap as well. You don't need a twenty-five million C-Bill TimberWolf pulling garrison when your heaviest enemy is likely to be a machinegun mounted on a technical.
They are all but useless in a normal mech on mech lance sized game of Battletech. You really need fast movers with an AC-20. A Saladin Assault Hover Tank would be my ideal choice. Two to really freak out an opponent.
The regular urbie (UM-R60) only has an AC/10, not a 20 (that's a variant), plus a small laser for point defense, but it has basically as much armor as a 30 tonner can possibly have... and is a mech, which makes it inherently much more resilient than any similarly sized vehicle. The greater range of the AC/10 also benefits it.
The Saladin is a great hovertank, but even though it's front armor is decent at 17 points, the sides and the rear are paper mache (plus, it's a vehicle). Being a hover vehicle is particularly unsuitable for the Urbie's playing field (that is, packed urban environments) what with the skidding and the like (kind of an accident waiting to happen). Plus, hover vehicles have a really big tendency to lose movement when hit, and the Saladin has no turret, which makes it even less suitable for protracted environments.
Out in the open? Yeah, Saladin's a great little bugger, but I'd argue that for the same in-universe price tag, I'd rather get 10 Savannah Masters than a single Saladin. Those things are murder.
The Urbanmech operational parameters are written in its freaking name. As simple as that.
Elbows wrote: Seems awfully wasteful to break down a game this large to simple meta-gaming. We have Warhammer for that. Your argument could be used to ignore, likely 75% of all Battlemechs which are outclassed by various other mechs in their weight class, etc.
I agree. Metagaming with BTech is silly given that there is one faction that is literally, in every way, superior to the others.
that and you can design custom mechs that are better anyway, mechs tend to be designed with some character, and there's a story behind em, sure the CGR-1A1 is crap (although you can make it work by doing exactly what it's name says) but it
s the type of thing you can totally see coming out of military procurement
one thing battletech has going for it over 40k is the mech design system. I'm not going to claim every mech is perfectly balanced etc as there are definatly some things that are better then others, but over all, everything is based around trade offs. you can't have a mech that is simoultaniously the fastest, most armored, most shooty mech in the game, because the rules don't allow for that...
I think it's also worth noting that the character of battletech players tends not to be WAAC as much as other games, TROs outsell record sheets books, by a huge margin
Even the much-vaunted Clan Omnis have problems. Take the stock standard Thor. It has terrible ammunition loads. It has a gun that can fire two types of ammunition, carries only one ton of it, but has two tons for its missile launcher. Why? Because that's the way it was designed! And that's fine.
I liken 'Mechs to cars quite often. Not every car design works out well. Some really suck. Some are inexplicably popular despite sucking. Some never gain any traction despite being excellent pieces of machinery. It's better that way. Otherwise we'd all be just targ-comp Clan pulse boats and 100-ton Gauszillas, and where's the fun in that?
Kalamadea wrote: Urbie was the original meme, before memes even existed. It was always a joke of a unit: ugly and awful but cheap and plentiful and reliable. People love it BECAUSE it's such an ugly duckling that usually dies horribly, but every now and again you get an amazing story of triumph out of one when it sucker punches somebody important with that AC-20.
And again, in-universe it's dirt cheap and mass produced, meant for garrison and city defense where they don't need to move around much and their short range is mitigated by knowing the enemy is coming to them
Even the much-vaunted Clan Omnis have problems. Take the stock standard Thor. It has terrible ammunition loads. It has a gun that can fire two types of ammunition, carries only one ton of it, but has two tons for its missile launcher. Why? Because that's the way it was designed! And that's fine.
I liken 'Mechs to cars quite often. Not every car design works out well. Some really suck. Some are inexplicably popular despite sucking. Some never gain any traction despite being excellent pieces of machinery. It's better that way. Otherwise we'd all be just targ-comp Clan pulse boats and 100-ton Gauszillas, and where's the fun in that?
I suppose the fun is having a game that incentivizes de-optimization.
It is kind of Semi-Historical, as you usually play in a specific setting and time frame
can optimize everything, but this is not what most players want from the game
imagine it like a WW2 game, were you can optimze, but a 1942 German Afrika Army will not be that
for BT, instead of building the optimized Mech you take those that were available at the chosen timeframe for your chosen nation and this is also a reason why there are so many background books for the different wars/conflicts and years
The existence of period lists notwithstanding, nothing you described isn't also the case with 40k, yet the mindset of the 40k community is very different from the BT community. I, personally, don't think it has anything to do with the game itself or anything you described - Flames of War is another game that fits with everything you described (including timeframes of availability of various units, etc.) yet thats another game that is viewed primarily through a competitive lens by its community.
for Flames of War, a lot of people here have left with 3rd and play Battlegroup now for that very reason
and also for 40k, a lot of people I know played and builded a specific army for a specific timeframe/scenario
but 40k is not that detailed in the background, and very unbalanced so that if you go for a specific army organisation from the fluff, your opponent need a power gamer list just to have a chance
you never say lets play M41-800 were Primaris did not existed and Ultramarines had not 1st company and chose the army accordingly to that
Thats not how me and my group play Battletech either. *shrug*
how do you do it?
we agree on a year (3025 most of the time), the point system we want to use and sometimes a specific theatre, chose the factions and the mechs
while for 40k, you get in with how many points and which house rules to be used
We go by general period rather than specific year (thus far either clan invasion or succession wars) and then take whatever we want from within that period - only real rule is don't mix clanner tech and inner sphere tech
Yeah I know Rasalhague Dominion and all that, i'm speaking in more general terms. We're very casual about our approach to the game, not really rivet counters or fluff historians by any means.
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah I know Rasalhague Dominion and all that, i'm speaking in more general terms. We're very casual about our approach to the game, not really rivet counters or fluff historians by any means.
Them, but I meant more that by the end of the Invasion, the IC had scavenged enough Clan Tech to reverse engineer or develop equivalents and both sides were regularly using salvaged/captured mechs.
I can't speak for Alpha Strike, but classic Battletech allows for luck to effect the game in a way that does not lend itself to a competitive mindset. If you jumped your mech expertly behind mine, and unleashed all of your weapons- you should kill me- but sometimes you won't. Even more sometimes, my rear mounted medium laser will instakill your pilot, or deal your gyro 3 critical hits the very first time it strikes.
Few people talk about the times they gloriously wore someone down to internals and blew one part after another off until the mech died. But everyone's got a story like the time my Valkyrie landed 2 lrms into the back of a Hunchback, set off it's ammo and turned that thing into a crater, or the time that Hollander blew away that Daishi with one shot!
Even something like the LRMs, they might be worth their weight this shot or not- who knows!
Other than a few Ork weapons that competitive players avoid like the plague, 40k doesn't allow luck that sort of power in its game.
Most of what I've seen involve people bringing stock 'Mechs. There are literally thousands of variants, allowing people to play whatever they want without ever dabbling in custom designs. Plus the game is divided up into historical eras, and people tend to either stick to one (or a few) of those, and whilst not necessarily recreating battles they'll make up their own battles that fit within that historical era.
Big BTech events tend to be narrative based games where they'll re-do a major battle from the fiction or, a lot of the time, play a battle that will influence the upcoming fiction. It's just a kind of weird gentleman's agreement that everyone plays the game the same way. It's very hard to explain.
I mean, it's possible to play BTech competitively, and it has a complex points system that some people swear by and that I've never used once! I think the closest I've ever come to "competitive" BTech was when myself and a friend came up with the concept of "Endurance BattleTech", where we put out 400-odd 'Mech miniatures and every time you lost a 'Mech you'd walk over to the table, grab a new mini, grab the record sheet, and walk it on next turn. We were trying to defeat one another in whatever manner we could, but there was technically no way to win as we would run out of time before we ran out of 'Mechs.
I can't speak for Alpha Strike, but classic Battletech allows for luck to effect the game in a way that does not lend itself to a competitive mindset. If you jumped your mech expertly behind mine, and unleashed all of your weapons- you should kill me- but sometimes you won't. Even more sometimes, my rear mounted medium laser will instakill your pilot, or deal your gyro 3 critical hits the very first time it strikes.
Few people talk about the times they gloriously wore someone down to internals and blew one part after another off until the mech died. But everyone's got a story like the time my Valkyrie landed 2 lrms into the back of a Hunchback, set off it's ammo and turned that thing into a crater, or the time that Hollander blew away that Daishi with one shot!
Even something like the LRMs, they might be worth their weight this shot or not- who knows!
Other than a few Ork weapons that competitive players avoid like the plague, 40k doesn't allow luck that sort of power in its game.
and if 40K did ahve that level of luck people would scream bloody murder. I mean some of the compeitive crowd here seem to think the game'd be better if ALL dice rolls where removed.
I mean my personal best dump luck story was the time I took a Templar vs a king crab, due to some poor manuvering on my part the King crab got 3 inches away in my rear arc, I should have been dead. but he missed with both shots, I managed to torso twist and fire my arm moutned gauss rifle...
tore his head clean off
40k is a mostly luck driven game already. I mean, its like 70% listbuilding and about 25% dice rolling, the remaining 5% is what little agency players actually have.
BUT, 40K is perhaps not as "swingy" as BTech is, because it doesn't have any mechanics (anymore) that can delete a unit off the table with a single really look die roll.
Before the third edition compendium we played with tonnage, and damn that was terrible. I think a lot of people had that experience when they first tried Battletech which is really unfortunate. Just picking one or two mechs to a side and basically playing out Solaris7 brawls on one or two hex maps. Using BV and playing within the same era, and just as importantly, taking as close to a lance or star as you can within that BV, makes the game great. I hope more people give this game a chance.
Huh - the time I played the most BT was the early days of it so long ago it is depressing, but we always played by tonnage to balance sides and I do not recall it being too bad? Where does it really fall apart as a balance method? Is it more later years of the timeline?
Im trying to build up to playing it again with old friends but need to review the newest rules I guess - I assume it is all point values in the latest editions?
petrov27 wrote: Huh - the time I played the most BT was the early days of it so long ago it is depressing, but we always played by tonnage to balance sides and I do not recall it being too bad? Where does it really fall apart as a balance method? Is it more later years of the timeline?
When everyone had the same 'mechs and the same equipment playing by tonnage is doable. When you get into differing tech bases is when it falls apart.
petrov27 wrote: Huh - the time I played the most BT was the early days of it so long ago it is depressing, but we always played by tonnage to balance sides and I do not recall it being too bad? Where does it really fall apart as a balance method? Is it more later years of the timeline?
When everyone had the same 'mechs and the same equipment playing by tonnage is doable. When you get into differing tech bases is when it falls apart.
ahh - ok that would be it then as we basically played only the stuff in the 1st tech readout (otherwise known at the time as the only tech readout )
Most Clan stuff is half the weight, +50 range & damage on 3025 tech. Armour, fewer limits on actions from heat, better pilots, and at higher speeds, with fewer restrictions on configuration.
Heh, I've been playing Alpha Strike (the streamlined rules set) and loving it. Points need some tweeking, IMO, but it plays fast for random nights at the game store.
Other than a few Ork weapons that competitive players avoid like the plague, 40k doesn't allow luck that sort of power in its game.
and if 40K did ahve that level of luck people would scream bloody murder. I mean some of the compeitive crowd here seem to think the game'd be better if ALL dice rolls where removed.
luck in 40k is different than in BT
getting in the back and blowing up a Mech is not luck as you see it in 40k, as there is no reward for getting in the back of a unit
while in 40k, luck is if you size initiative and get an alpha strike on your opponent or if he fails all his armour saves
getting in the back and blowing up a Mech is not luck as you see it in 40k, as there is no reward for getting in the back of a unit
while in 40k, luck is if you size initiative and get an alpha strike on your opponent or if he fails all his armour saves
Indeed: positioning and movement is dramatically more important in Battletech, and that's not remotely down to luck.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: There's that theory that you can have something fast, have something cheap, and have something high quality, but you only get to pick two of those.
BTech has a similar thing:
1. You can be fast.
2. You can be well armoured.
3. You can have a lot of guns.
4. You can be good at managing heat.
You get to pick 2 of those if you're the Inner Sphere. Clans get to pick 3, and sometimes all four.
Kind of one of the reasons why we end up gravitating towards 3025 era: there's always tradeoffs.
Even when limiting yourself to official models and TROs and stuff, over time designs started to get more "optimized" with the newest TROs; some still got character, but it feels like the priorities on mech design changed over time.
Fluid_Fox wrote: True, but to be fair at invasion most IS mechs were refitted with double heat sinks
'Some', not 'most'. That also doesn't take care of the othe points that Nurglitch listed.
Theres no denying the advantage clan tech had, I'm just pointing out mitigating factors and the things that exasperated that advantage. Like playing with tonnage instead of BV, or using older TROs.
So, still being a relative newbie that only plays casually, for the purposes of better understanding, would you say BV = matched play points and tonnage = power level is a fairly accurate understanding of the two "balancing mechanics"?
chaos0xomega wrote: So, still being a relative newbie that only plays casually, for the purposes of better understanding, would you say BV = matched play points and tonnage = power level is a fairly accurate understanding of the two "balancing mechanics"?
BV is a bit like regular points. Tonnage though, no, that's not like power level if you're using different tech bases. Maybe if you're sticking to one thing in particular (like Clan v Clan, or 3025 Inner Sphere vs 3025 Inner Sphere), but any sort of mix of those will make tonnage comparisons meaningless.
Tonnage in 40k would be like balancing by taking the same amount of models on both sides. Probably fine if playing Marine v Marine or some other close mirror, but a bad idea if you're using it to balance, say, Orks v Cutodes.
H.B.M.C. wrote: There's that theory that you can have something fast, have something cheap, and have something high quality, but you only get to pick two of those.
BTech has a similar thing:
1. You can be fast.
2. You can be well armoured.
3. You can have a lot of guns.
4. You can be good at managing heat.
You get to pick 2 of those if you're the Inner Sphere. Clans get to pick 3, and sometimes all four.
All true but with BV balancing a Clan force will be there times lighter than its IS counterpart.
Unless a Clan player can actually play very well they won't survive a matched encounter.
Clan or Word of Blake is playing on hard mode in a BV matched game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clan tech is also not the be all and end all.
By the FedCom Civil War and Jihad Era the Inner Sphere has plenty of high tech goodies.
Although the BV on units is increasing to more match the pricy Clan tech.
Solid play wins Battletech games in all eras though. A badly moved DireWolf or MadCat is just a fat target even to intro level tech.
infinite_array wrote: Tonnage in 40k would be like balancing by taking the same amount of models on both sides. Probably fine if playing Marine v Marine or some other close mirror, but a bad idea if you're using it to balance, say, Orks v Cutodes.
Not really, as 4 Assault Mechs won't be the same as 4 Lights in Tonnage and it would be more like 1 Assault against 4 Lights
From my point of view, Tonnage in BT is similar to Matched Play Points in 40k (and Power level is like "lets play 4 VS 4" in BT)
they work for everything that is on the same level, but as soon as a faction uses the newer tech level, balance is off
for 40k tech level would be different Codex generation, just rememeber playing an Index Army VS Codex Army at the start of 8th, matched play points could not help to balance them as the advantages were on a different level not affected by points at all, same here with Tonnage
but as long as both players use the same technical readout it works
BV and tonnage, and BV2, all have their flaws, even within similar tech levels. It's just the way of Battletech's idiosyncratic designs.
For tonnage, let's toss a JM-6s Jagermech against a CPLT-C1 Catapult. It's horribly unfair for the Jager, even though they are both 65 tonners.
For BV, Let's take a Wolverine, 957, vs a Cyclops 965. This is very bad news for the Wolverine pilot.
BV 2 is a bit better, saying that Cyclops 1308 is equal to a Thunderbolt 1335.
For a lot of it, to get a fair fight you do have to tweak it to fit certain mechs that just happen to be built at the intersection of the cracks in the weighting system and just use some common courtesy when making your list.
In any method, of course you COULD just toss out a pocketful of Savannah Masters and invoke several hours of missed shots and minor damage. But should you?
Gitzbitah wrote: In any method, of course you COULD just toss out a pocketful of Savannah Masters and invoke several hours of missed shots and minor damage. But should you?
The most horribly unfair experiment I've seen was with tonnage:
Friend: "Ok, let's play 100 tons, I pick a Wolverine and a P-Hawk"
Other friend: "Right. I'll get... 20 Savannah Masters"
I can't speak for Alpha Strike, but classic Battletech allows for luck to effect the game in a way that does not lend itself to a competitive mindset. If you jumped your mech expertly behind mine, and unleashed all of your weapons- you should kill me- but sometimes you won't. Even more sometimes, my rear mounted medium laser will instakill your pilot, or deal your gyro 3 critical hits the very first time it strikes.
Few people talk about the times they gloriously wore someone down to internals and blew one part after another off until the mech died. But everyone's got a story like the time my Valkyrie landed 2 lrms into the back of a Hunchback, set off it's ammo and turned that thing into a crater, or the time that Hollander blew away that Daishi with one shot!
Even something like the LRMs, they might be worth their weight this shot or not- who knows!
Other than a few Ork weapons that competitive players avoid like the plague, 40k doesn't allow luck that sort of power in its game.
and if 40K did ahve that level of luck people would scream bloody murder. I mean some of the compeitive crowd here seem to think the game'd be better if ALL dice rolls where removed.
I mean my personal best dump luck story was the time I took a Templar vs a king crab, due to some poor manuvering on my part the King crab got 3 inches away in my rear arc, I should have been dead. but he missed with both shots, I managed to torso twist and fire my arm moutned gauss rifle...
tore his head clean off
SRM infantry platoon in a building. Atlas passes by hammering my mechs. I get a shot at the back. Hit, roll low on the number of srm hits, but got a double 1 on the location table, An ammo hit later there is a crater where a pristine Atlas was and a player staring at me with murder in his eyes.
I can't speak for Alpha Strike, but classic Battletech allows for luck to effect the game in a way that does not lend itself to a competitive mindset. If you jumped your mech expertly behind mine, and unleashed all of your weapons- you should kill me- but sometimes you won't. Even more sometimes, my rear mounted medium laser will instakill your pilot, or deal your gyro 3 critical hits the very first time it strikes.
Few people talk about the times they gloriously wore someone down to internals and blew one part after another off until the mech died. But everyone's got a story like the time my Valkyrie landed 2 lrms into the back of a Hunchback, set off it's ammo and turned that thing into a crater, or the time that Hollander blew away that Daishi with one shot!
Even something like the LRMs, they might be worth their weight this shot or not- who knows!
Other than a few Ork weapons that competitive players avoid like the plague, 40k doesn't allow luck that sort of power in its game.
and if 40K did ahve that level of luck people would scream bloody murder. I mean some of the compeitive crowd here seem to think the game'd be better if ALL dice rolls where removed.
I mean my personal best dump luck story was the time I took a Templar vs a king crab, due to some poor manuvering on my part the King crab got 3 inches away in my rear arc, I should have been dead. but he missed with both shots, I managed to torso twist and fire my arm moutned gauss rifle...
tore his head clean off
SRM infantry platoon in a building. Atlas passes by hammering my mechs. I get a shot at the back. Hit, roll low on the number of srm hits, but got a double 1 on the location table, An ammo hit later there is a crater where a pristine Atlas was and a player staring at me with murder in his eyes.
M.
I killed a mint DireWolf with an ejected pilot on one of the MekWars servers years ago.
One point of damage - through armour critical on the head. Pilot killed result.
Statistically most mechs die though sheer attrition. You need to strip the armour to really hurt them but the possibility of mad rolls is always there.
Can late backers not put up comments on the KS? The Crockett and Flashman have some serious issues. IMO neither of these two sketches convey what mechs they are supposed to represent. I had to pull out my 3025 TRO just make sure I wasn't crazy. To be fair the art for the Crockett kinda sucks anyway.
Conversely, the Guillotine, Lancelot, Crab and Mongoose look fantastic. In fact that mongoose is my new favorite re-design. Even in a mostly static pose there it looks threatening.
The Crockett just...well looks like a Warhammer variant as opposed to the 85 toner it's supposed to be. Arms look like they got PPC's and not large lasers. The shoulders and head-cowl arrangement seem 'bleh' or at the very least non-Crockett'ish. Also, the AC10 looks kinda big.
Flashman looks relatively okay but there's something very off about the shoulders. It looks too hunched up. It's got a weird CT weapons port? Could be the flamer in the head but it looks bigger than it should if that's the case. Arms look too big, again, PPC's instead of large lasers. Tiny thing but the medium lasers were on the outside of the larges not above them.
No, you cannot post on the Kickstarter; technically you were not a Kickstarter backer. You were let into the Crowdox pledge manager. Not the same thing.
Also, there were around 100 mech redesigns here give or take. That a few of 11000 backers don’t like a particular one is unlikely to have any effect at all on Catalyst’s plans.
I know in the past the scale for the released models has been all over the place. With them being worked up digitally, it would be nice if they are now all properly scaled to one another.
I was comparing the redesign sketch to the 3025 TRO:
I know it's not great. I mean the SRM's are not even there, I'm not sure how the legs work, and I'm pretty sure they are showing the AC10 on the CT. That being said I just don't get a Crockett vibe off the sketch. The Flashman at least 'looks' sort of right but has the aforementioned issues in the sketch compared to it's original picture here:
You know...it does dawn on me though that maybe the mechs being designed are not their 3025 variants. A quick comparison does in fact seem like the sketch is an 8k, not a 7k. Well I guess that makes sense, this is a Clan Invasion era thing, not a Succession War era one. My bad.
guinness707 wrote: Can late backers not put up comments on the KS? The Crockett and Flashman have some serious issues. IMO neither of these two sketches convey what mechs they are supposed to represent. I had to pull out my 3025 TRO just make sure I wasn't crazy. To be fair the art for the Crockett kinda sucks anyway.
Your post here is as valid as your post in the KS comments would be - they probably won't read it, and if they do they aren't going to change it, because quite simply they won't care about your individual opinion out of a sea of 10k+.
Faint Praise is "To provide praise that is minimal or inconsequential, implying that such praise is the best that could be said. ". So basically to me you were saying that the redesign sketch was minimally better than the older artwork.
Also, you must have the much later printed 3025 revised tech readout. These Mechs were not in the sainted original tech readout 3025; the Crockett and Flashman first appeared in the 2750 Star League tech readout....with different art also than what you’re posting here.
totalfailure wrote: Also, you must have the much later printed 3025 revised tech readout. These Mechs were not in the sainted original tech readout 3025; the Crockett and Flashman first appeared in the 2750 Star League tech readout....with different art also than what you’re posting here.
My 3025 TRO is a Fanpro reprint from 2002. Doesn't matter if the Crockett or Flashman were or were not in previousTROs or not. They are in the copy I own (and probably subsequent reprints) which is the basis of my opinion. The sketch looks like a Warhammer more than a Crockett. Just a few tweaks and they could nail it like they did the Guillotine.
Are we really arguing over the Crockett of Flashman?
I'll be honest I wasn't familiar with the Crockett anyway, so I didn't remember what it was until I saw the caption. The Flashman looks fine to me though.
guinness707 wrote: My 3025 TRO is a Fanpro reprint from 2002. Doesn't matter if the Crockett or Flashman were or were not in previousTROs or not. They are in the copy I own (and probably subsequent reprints) which is the basis of my opinion. The sketch looks like a Warhammer more than a Crockett. Just a few tweaks and they could nail it like they did the Guillotine.
Sorry, but other than the necessity of both being giant humanoid robots, the Crockett and the Warhammer are distinctly different.
guinness707 wrote: My 3025 TRO is a Fanpro reprint from 2002. Doesn't matter if the Crockett or Flashman were or were not in previousTROs or not. They are in the copy I own (and probably subsequent reprints) which is the basis of my opinion. The sketch looks like a Warhammer more than a Crockett. Just a few tweaks and they could nail it like they did the Guillotine.
Actually it does matter, because while it’s lovely you like that art so much, the point is that it’s is not the first or only interpretation of those Mechs out there.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: What pledge tier snags one of each mech? It reads as quite... esoteric.
Well, you've got 19 different mech packs which can be chosen as pledge rewards, and you need the legendary mechwarrior pack to guarantee you get one of every single mech.
So you would need Galaxy Commander plus the Legendary Mechwarrior addon, coming in at 625 dollars. That's the easiest way.
At a pledge down, you pay 300 for the 12 packs of Star Colonel, and then need to add on 8 packs, which if you're only interested in getting the largest number of mechs, could cost you 165 (20 per pack for various innersphere packs, and 25 for the legendary mechwarrior addon- you use your pledge packs for Comstar and Clan, which are more expensive a la cart). So 465 should get you one of each sculpt. Make a list, the pledge manager is challenging.
Plus a little for shipping, minus a bit if you would like to use the named character buyback option and get some credit.
Yikes... they sure don't make it easy. To be fair Battletech can be a bit impenetrable for newer players. To this day I still don't know which books are needed to create the most robust tabletop war-game version, nor how many neoprene maps are added to create a good sized game where range and flanking meaningfully happen.
Is the Legendary Mechwarriors pack going to be hitting retail at some point?
I've nabbed a Clan Invasion starter, Elementals, and a Heavy Striker set through Miniature Market(hate to do it--but nowhere local stocks it). Patiently waiting for the rest of Clanner stuff to go up.
EDIT: Note that there is no release date for the Kickstarter product yet. If a store has it up on pre-order, don't believe their pre-order dates as they're pure fiction.
EDIT: Note that there is no release date for the Kickstarter product yet. If a store has it up on pre-order, don't believe their pre-order dates as they're pure fiction.
Which Kickstarter product?
Miniature Market's been fairly up front about it being a "we don't know when, but Catalyst is HOPING for July/August"...which seems to line up with what the Kickstarter itself has been saying for the (I think?) Wave I stuff.
Did you guys know about the Puzzles and Art Posters yet?
EDIT: Note that there is no release date for the Kickstarter product yet. If a store has it up on pre-order, don't believe their pre-order dates as they're pure fiction.
Which Kickstarter product?
Miniature Market's been fairly up front about it being a "we don't know when, but Catalyst is HOPING for July/August"...which seems to line up with what the Kickstarter itself has been saying for the (I think?) Wave I stuff.
Did you guys know about the Puzzles and Art Posters yet?
All of the 'Mech packs are Kickstarter products. Right now, the only products with the updated miniatures are 'A Game of Armored Combat' and the Beginner Box.
Catalyst just got the white samples of the packaging two weeks ago, so there's no way a July release date is going to happen and is probably pushing it for August if there are no other delays.
guinness707 wrote: My 3025 TRO is a Fanpro reprint from 2002. Doesn't matter if the Crockett or Flashman were or were not in previousTROs or not. They are in the copy I own (and probably subsequent reprints) which is the basis of my opinion. The sketch looks like a Warhammer more than a Crockett. Just a few tweaks and they could nail it like they did the Guillotine.
Sorry, but other than the necessity of both being giant humanoid robots, the Crockett and the Warhammer are distinctly different.
They can certainly be distinguished, but I'm not sure if I'd really call them distinct if I wasn't familiar with Battletech. One of the weaknesses of Battletech, for me, is that the 'mech designs are just cosmetic, in that there's no game difference between the legs on a Marauder and the legs on a Warhammer. It's kind of neat to see that someone unified the aesthetic, somewhat, and having some family resemblance between the Warhammer and the Crockett, or between the OST series or whatever adds some nice depth to the background. Like how Warhammer 40k has patterns, marks, and so on.
guinness707 wrote: My 3025 TRO is a Fanpro reprint from 2002. Doesn't matter if the Crockett or Flashman were or were not in previousTROs or not. They are in the copy I own (and probably subsequent reprints) which is the basis of my opinion. The sketch looks like a Warhammer more than a Crockett. Just a few tweaks and they could nail it like they did the Guillotine.
Sorry, but other than the necessity of both being giant humanoid robots, the Crockett and the Warhammer are distinctly different.
They can certainly be distinguished, but I'm not sure if I'd really call them distinct if I wasn't familiar with Battletech. One of the weaknesses of Battletech, for me, is that the 'mech designs are just cosmetic, in that there's no game difference between the legs on a Marauder and the legs on a Warhammer. It's kind of neat to see that someone unified the aesthetic, somewhat, and having some family resemblance between the Warhammer and the Crockett, or between the OST series or whatever adds some nice depth to the background. Like how Warhammer 40k has patterns, marks, and so on.
There was an old Challenge Magazine that took the lore quirks and applied them to the various 'Mechs and the current BattleTech manual does the same for both good and bad quirks so for instance
a Warhammer has:
Warhammer Rugged (2), 3 times as long without maintaince
Searchlight, (useful at night, must roll to see if destroyed in location)
Stable, (-1 bonus to piloting checks from Physical attacks)
Ubiquitous (easier to get replacement parts)
and a Marauder has
Marauder
Command ’Mech, Directional Torso Mount (RT),
Hyper-Extending Actuators, Narrow/Low Profile;
Exposed Weapon Linkage (AC/5)
guinness707 wrote: My 3025 TRO is a Fanpro reprint from 2002. Doesn't matter if the Crockett or Flashman were or were not in previousTROs or not. They are in the copy I own (and probably subsequent reprints) which is the basis of my opinion. The sketch looks like a Warhammer more than a Crockett. Just a few tweaks and they could nail it like they did the Guillotine.
Sorry, but other than the necessity of both being giant humanoid robots, the Crockett and the Warhammer are distinctly different.
They can certainly be distinguished, but I'm not sure if I'd really call them distinct if I wasn't familiar with Battletech. One of the weaknesses of Battletech, for me, is that the 'mech designs are just cosmetic, in that there's no game difference between the legs on a Marauder and the legs on a Warhammer. It's kind of neat to see that someone unified the aesthetic, somewhat, and having some family resemblance between the Warhammer and the Crockett, or between the OST series or whatever adds some nice depth to the background. Like how Warhammer 40k has patterns, marks, and so on.
There was an old Challenge Magazine that took the lore quirks and applied them to the various 'Mechs and the current BattleTech manual does the same for both good and bad quirks so for instance
a Warhammer has:
Warhammer Rugged (2), 3 times as long without maintaince
Searchlight, (useful at night, must roll to see if destroyed in location)
Stable, (-1 bonus to piloting checks from Physical attacks)
Ubiquitous (easier to get replacement parts)
and a Marauder has
Marauder
Command ’Mech, Directional Torso Mount (RT),
Hyper-Extending Actuators, Narrow/Low Profile;
Exposed Weapon Linkage (AC/5)
The Crocket definitely looks way more generic- but I think that's in keeping with its mission. Remember, it's a training mech that get converted to combat roles.You want something that stable, and easy to pilot.
The original artwork and follow ons kept this super cool Samurai head which looked very much like it was a Draconis Combine mech. I'm quite glad the new one will look more at home in Comguard and Word of Blake formations, and if I ever acquire an old sculpt, I'll run it as the 3039 Kuritan versions.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Yikes... they sure don't make it easy. To be fair Battletech can be a bit impenetrable for newer players. To this day I still don't know which books are needed to create the most robust tabletop war-game version, nor how many neoprene maps are added to create a good sized game where range and flanking meaningfully happen.
I'm new. 100% agreed. I pledged ~$1100 on this kickstarter and then went out to buy the "A Game of Armored Combat" (I added a second smaller pledge to get the 2 mech starter box through the kickstarter as well as a second urbanmech and 2-3 of the mech salvage boxes or whatever).
I have zero idea what I'm doing or what I actually need to buy, or even what the best way to play is. All I know is I'm getting some really cool gak and I'm probably going to have some fun with it.
I don't have this problem with other games, they are usually much more straightforward and its typically much clearer as to what the "core" rules are and what the optional add-ons are, etc. but it seems like Battletech is a slightly different animal where the answers to these questions are "everything and nothing" depending on who you ask/how they play the game.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Yikes... they sure don't make it easy. To be fair Battletech can be a bit impenetrable for newer players. To this day I still don't know which books are needed to create the most robust tabletop war-game version, nor how many neoprene maps are added to create a good sized game where range and flanking meaningfully happen.
I'm new. 100% agreed. I pledged ~$1100 on this kickstarter and then went out to buy the "A Game of Armored Combat" (I added a second smaller pledge to get the 2 mech starter box through the kickstarter as well as a second urbanmech and 2-3 of the mech salvage boxes or whatever).
I have zero idea what I'm doing or what I actually need to buy, or even what the best way to play is. All I know is I'm getting some really cool gak and I'm probably going to have some fun with it.
I don't have this problem with other games, they are usually much more straightforward and its typically much clearer as to what the "core" rules are and what the optional add-ons are, etc. but it seems like Battletech is a slightly different animal where the answers to these questions are "everything and nothing" depending on who you ask/how they play the game.
It’s likely appeared several times in this thread already, but the ‘You've got the box set, now what?’ thread on the official Battletech forums is worth reading - https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=44730.0 As far as advice on map sheets, I consider one map sheet per 2-4 Mechs in the game as a minimum. So for a lance v. lance 4 on 4 game, I would use at least two sheets. In most cases, I would say two sheets is the least I would use for ANY game. But you know the great thing about Battletech? There are no official table sizes. Play some games, and you’ll get a feel for what’s right.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Yikes... they sure don't make it easy. To be fair Battletech can be a bit impenetrable for newer players. To this day I still don't know which books are needed to create the most robust tabletop war-game version, nor how many neoprene maps are added to create a good sized game where range and flanking meaningfully happen.
I'm new. 100% agreed. I pledged ~$1100 on this kickstarter and then went out to buy the "A Game of Armored Combat" (I added a second smaller pledge to get the 2 mech starter box through the kickstarter as well as a second urbanmech and 2-3 of the mech salvage boxes or whatever).
I have zero idea what I'm doing or what I actually need to buy, or even what the best way to play is. All I know is I'm getting some really cool gak and I'm probably going to have some fun with it.
I don't have this problem with other games, they are usually much more straightforward and its typically much clearer as to what the "core" rules are and what the optional add-ons are, etc. but it seems like Battletech is a slightly different animal where the answers to these questions are "everything and nothing" depending on who you ask/how they play the game.
YIKES! That is easily $1000 more than you ever needed to spend to play many years worth of Battletech games! The problem is people look at the hundreds of products available and the thousands of models in the catalogue and assume it to be WAY more complex than it is, because there's just SO much history to the game (and because the main Catalyst website is awful). You need the A Game of Armored Combat starter box and the main rulebook Total Warfare to play. Full stop. Really-really.
That gives you 2 FULL armies to play and the complete rules to expand that into mixed-unit combat if you want to play with infantry and vehicles and purchase just a few extra models. This is a game where adding a single mech is a SIGNIFICANT change to playing the game, buying 4 mechs is akin to buying a complete new army in Warhammer 40K. In fact the book AGoAC comes with IS the full rulebook, it just doesn't have the optional-advanced rules like the Level 2 tech (upgraded versions of the basic mechs, essentially) or Clan Tech (level 3 tech, just think of Clan mechs as Level 3 tech). Also the full rules for infantry, power armor and vehicles/aircraft are all optional-advanced rules, that's all in the Total Warfare book. Everything else is ancillary and useful, but it's all sort-of-kind-of really useful for very very niche things you'd want to occasionally (and only very occasionally) do: rules for narrative & map based campaigns or experimental weapons or gladiator ring fighting, or just new variations on the same stuff in case you get bored or want to play specific in-universe historically accurate options. Or background fluff, A LOT of it if mostly just for background fluff.
How many neoprene mats do you need? One. One neoprene mat is the right size for a full 4 mech vs 4 mech game, which will take you most of an afternoon to play through. One neoprene mat is the same exact size as 2 paper mats placed side-by-side, like the 2 mats included in the AGoAC starter. The AGoC including exactly 2 paper mats is not a coincidence, nor is it a coincidence that the neoprene mat is the same size as 2 paper mats, all of these things are intentional. It's also the same size as any 2 paper mats from any of the paper mat addon packs that have been released over the last 30 years. 2 mats side-by-side has been the standard size playfield for decades, but sometimes you want a 4x4 for megabattles or if you want to try some really long range battles or extended narrative scenarios, etc. If you plan on playing all-day-long marathon-run megabattles, then you'd want a second neoprene mat.
The TROs are sort of a cross between fluff and useful rules, but they really aren't needed. At all. All game rules in them are just telling you how to fill out the Unit Sheets for that specific mech/vehicle. But, pre-filled out Unit Sheets aka Record Sheets for everything (literally every unit and variant in the game) are up for free online from multiple websites. My personal fav is http://battletech.rpg.hu/mechfactory_frame.php, which also has a phone app, but there's a few other websites that repeat the same info or can print the Record Sheets in older styles. You can get all the background (and more) by looking around https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page, which is an incredible fan-made wiki.
I'm not sure how one can pledge that much in the KS.
I think I paid $600 and I'm getting one of every 'Mech, all the map sheets, card packs and a few other add-ons here and there. That's about 74 'Mechs, plus the 10 from the Beginner/Starter boxes. That's more 'Mechs than someone really ever needs.
Sure, I have another 400 odd on top of that, but that's just me.
I do think that their website should be clearer on what is required to play BTech though.
I'd put:
Beginner Box
Starter Box
Total War -or- BattleMech Manual
1 Mapsheet Set (like Grasslands)
Kalamadea wrote: You need the A Game of Armored Combat starter box and the main rulebook Total Warfare to play. Full stop. Really-really.
Unless you want to play Clans and not filthy freebirthers, in which case you only need the Clan Invasion box from the KS and Total Warfare.
The Clan Invasion box only has 5 mechs, AGoAC box set has 8. While 2v2 or 2v3 depending on mechs chosen can be a decent sized game, I wouldn't consider it a complete experience for 2 players in the same way that AGoAC is a complete game for 2 players. As HBMC said, if you get the Beginner Set+AGoAC box+rulebook+map sheets, you're pretty well set up for many, many games of Battletech and can stick with just that or expand from there to your heart's content. If you only have the Clan Invasion starter, that's quite a bit more limited. You could use the Beginner Box and use the Griffin as a Griffin IIc and the Wolverine as a Conjurer, but I still consider that much more limited. Most of those mechs are OmniMechs, so you've got a heck of a lot of options when playing within those fewer mech chasis. I feel like Clan Invasion Starter+Beginner Box is a great start for a single player whereas the AGoAC+Beginner Box can either be a decent start for 2 players OR a great start for one
As to your other point, Remember Tukkayid. The Clans brought their best, and Space AT&T said "get bent, weirdo."
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Yikes... they sure don't make it easy. To be fair Battletech can be a bit impenetrable for newer players. To this day I still don't know which books are needed to create the most robust tabletop war-game version, nor how many neoprene maps are added to create a good sized game where range and flanking meaningfully happen.
I'm new. 100% agreed. I pledged ~$1100 on this kickstarter and then went out to buy the "A Game of Armored Combat" (I added a second smaller pledge to get the 2 mech starter box through the kickstarter as well as a second urbanmech and 2-3 of the mech salvage boxes or whatever).
I have zero idea what I'm doing or what I actually need to buy, or even what the best way to play is. All I know is I'm getting some really cool gak and I'm probably going to have some fun with it.
I don't have this problem with other games, they are usually much more straightforward and its typically much clearer as to what the "core" rules are and what the optional add-ons are, etc. but it seems like Battletech is a slightly different animal where the answers to these questions are "everything and nothing" depending on who you ask/how they play the game.
It’s likely appeared several times in this thread already, but the ‘You've got the box set, now what?’ thread on the official Battletech forums is worth reading - https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=44730.0 As far as advice on map sheets, I consider one map sheet per 2-4 Mechs in the game as a minimum. So for a lance v. lance 4 on 4 game, I would use at least two sheets. In most cases, I would say two sheets is the least I would use for ANY game. But you know the great thing about Battletech? There are no official table sizes. Play some games, and you’ll get a feel for what’s right.
Yup, read it a few times, its less helpful than most people seem to understand or realize as it requires a certain degree of familiarity with the material to fully understand, I think I pointed out its shortcomings a few pages ago, but it might have been on facebook or reddit. One of the big shortfalls is that Battletech as a whole is a much more open-ended ruleset than a game like 40k or Warmachine, so "what you need" will vary depending on who you're playing with/your local group of players.
You need the A Game of Armored Combat starter box and the main rulebook Total Warfare to play. Full stop. Really-really.
Which one is the "main" rulebook though? lol this is one of the problems with Battletech IMO - some people think the game should only be played with mechs, so get the Battlemech manual, others say you should play it as a combined arms game with infantry and vehicles, etc. so get Total Warfare.
How many neoprene mats do you need? One.
Need and want are two different things. I know I only needed one (technically none, if I really wanted to I could just play with the crappy paper mats that were included with the starter box), that didn't stop me from buying all 7 or 8 neoprene mats.
I'm not sure how one can pledge that much in the KS.
I think I paid $600 and I'm getting one of every 'Mech, all the map sheets, card packs and a few other add-ons here and there. That's about 74 'Mechs, plus the 10 from the Beginner/Starter boxes. That's more 'Mechs than someone really ever needs.
That doesn't sound right. I pledges Star Colonel + Ristar, added 9 more ForcePacks to get the rest of the mechs I was missing, Premium Record Sheets, Pilot and Initiative Decks, BattleMech Manual, Tac Ops Advanced Equipment and Advanced Rules, Total Warfare, one 5-pack mat set and one 6-pack (to get all of them, plus I think one extra because thats how it worked out for the best bang for my buck), Die Cut Pack, Record Sheet Book, and I think thats it.
Grabbing a late $150 pledge for my Dad, who currently only owns the Beginners Box and AGoAC Box.
Can people recommend four good pack choices to help flesh out the game? I know there are a handful of go-to staple Mechs in all different weight classes.
I got a Star Colonel pledge, and only had to add 8 packs to get all the 'Mechs.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Can people recommend four good pack choices to help flesh out the game? I know there are a handful of go-to staple Mechs in all different weight classes.
4 packs to expand upon. Let's go with 2 Clan and two IS, so when combined with the Beginniner/AToW boxes plus the Clan box you get by default in the KS you get an even spread.
For the Clans, I'd recommend the Clan Command Star and Clan Heavy Striker Star - These give you some of the classic Clan 'Mechs of the era (Daishi, Thor, Loki, Vulture) and the best 'Mech in the entire game (the Ryoken).
For the Inner Sphere I'd recommend the Inner Sphere Battle Lance, and either the Inner Sphere Command Lance or Heavy Lance. The Battle Lance nets you 4 classic BTech 'Mechs, including the Warhammer, Rifleman and the ubiquitous Phoenix Hawk. The Command Lance gives you a Marauder and an Archer, however the Heavy Lance gives you the fantastic Grasshopper, the reliable Centurion, and the very interesting Hatcheman close-combat 'Mech.
So those. Or the IS Direct Fire Lance if you just want an Atlas (as a bonus, it has a Marauder II and the very reliable Orion heavy 'Mech).
Kalamadea wrote: You need the A Game of Armored Combat starter box and the main rulebook Total Warfare to play. Full stop. Really-really.
Unless you want to play Clans and not filthy freebirthers, in which case you only need the Clan Invasion box from the KS and Total Warfare.
The Clan Invasion box only has 5 mechs, AGoAC box set has 8. While 2v2 or 2v3 depending on mechs chosen can be a decent sized game, I wouldn't consider it a complete experience for 2 players in the same way that AGoAC is a complete game for 2 players. As HBMC said, if you get the Beginner Set+AGoAC box+rulebook+map sheets, you're pretty well set up for many, many games of Battletech and can stick with just that or expand from there to your heart's content. If you only have the Clan Invasion starter, that's quite a bit more limited. You could use the Beginner Box and use the Griffin as a Griffin IIc and the Wolverine as a Conjurer, but I still consider that much more limited. Most of those mechs are OmniMechs, so you've got a heck of a lot of options when playing within those fewer mech chasis. I feel like Clan Invasion Starter+Beginner Box is a great start for a single player whereas the AGoAC+Beginner Box can either be a decent start for 2 players OR a great start for one
As to your other point, Remember Tukkayid. The Clans brought their best, and Space AT&T said "get bent, weirdo."
Your statement that I have quoted doesn't suggest it's for two players, it suggests it's for the poster you're responding to. For everything one person needs, the Clan Invasion box instead of AGoAC is fine.
You need the A Game of Armored Combat starter box and the main rulebook Total Warfare to play. Full stop. Really-really.
Which one is the "main" rulebook though? lol this is one of the problems with Battletech IMO - some people think the game should only be played with mechs, so get the Battlemech manual, others say you should play it as a combined arms game with infantry and vehicles, etc. so get Total Warfare.
You just answered your own question, actually. The Battletech Manual is geared towards additional rules for advanced mechs vs advanced mechs, Total Warfare is all the rules for combined arms (advanced mechs AND vehicles AND infantry). If you think you want to only ever play mechs, get Battletech Manual. If you think you may eventually want to try infantry and vehicles, get Total Warfare. I personally recommend Total Warfare. Either way, those books are for ADVANCED-OPTIONAL rules. Emphasis on advanced, emphasis on optional. You get the complete rulebook in the box set (it even includes the basic rules for constructing custom mechs). Remember, you're looking at decades of expansions, but the rules in AGoAC was the ENTIRE game of Battletech for many many years when it first released. The early Technical Readouts just added more mechs using the same equipment built with the same construction rules, and importantly the early TROs were the only way to get fluff in the days before the internet. Later, the TROs started including Level 2 tech, vehicles and infantry, but the game had already been around (and been a complete game) for years by that point. The Total War/Battletech Manual rulebooks are basically codifying all the EXPANSION rules in a single book.
Yup, read it a few times, its less helpful than most people seem to understand or realize as it requires a certain degree of familiarity with the material to fully understand
Yes, that is the point. If you're having problems with the linked "Where to go from there" Battletech forum thread, it's because you're trying to absorb 30+ years of materials without even a fundamental grasp of the base game. That thread boils it down to as basic as it possibly can be boiled down to. If if it's still too much info, then you need to go back to the core. Battletech is fundamentally about mechs vs mechs. A lot of people like to expand that into combined arms, but that isn't what the basis that the core game is built around. Level 2 tech isn't complicated, but it's another layer on top of the main game. Vehicles (tanks and APCs) aren't very complicated, but it's another layer to learn on top of the core game. Hovercraft aren't complicated, but it's another layer on top of tracked/wheeled movement. VTOLs aren't complicated, but it's another layer. Infantry isn't complicated, but it's another layer. Clan technology (level 3) isn't that complicated, but it's yet another layer. That's why they aren't in the basic rulebook that comes with AGoAC, and I can't stress this enough, the rulebook that comes with AGoAC is a complete rulebook for the game. EVERYTHING else is an unnecessary (but often very fun) addon for people that want to dive deeper into Battletech. I don't recommend even looking at that stuff until you've played enough games of Level 1 mechs vs Level 1 mechs that you know the fundamentals, because it will never make sense until you know the fundamentals.
Yes, I added an extra pack for the elementals because I wanted more than 2 or whatever.
I don't know if I needed more than 2, but they looked cool, so I *wanted* more than 2.
And that is why rules for infantry and vehicles exist. That is why virtually every Battletech player has dozens of mechs that have never and will never get played with. It looked cool, so I wanted it. Story of my life.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I got a Star Colonel pledge, and only had to add 8 packs to get all the 'Mechs.
For the Clans, I'd recommend the Clan Command Star and Clan Heavy Striker Star - These give you some of the classic Clan 'Mechs of the era (Daishi, Thor, Loki, Vulture) and the best 'Mech in the entire game (the Ryoken).
For the Inner Sphere I'd recommend the Inner Sphere Battle Lance, and either the Inner Sphere Command Lance or Heavy Lance. The Battle Lance nets you 4 classic BTech 'Mechs, including the Warhammer, Rifleman and the ubiquitous Phoenix Hawk. The Command Lance gives you a Marauder and an Archer, however the Heavy Lance gives you the fantastic Grasshopper, the reliable Centurion, and the very interesting Hatcheman close-combat 'Mech.
So those. Or the IS Direct Fire Lance if you just want an Atlas (as a bonus, it has a Marauder II and the very reliable Orion heavy 'Mech).
Thanks! I'll go with precisely this. Should we assume, broadly that there will be plenty of ways to end up with equitable Combat Value games, between these?
Edit: Random aside, but which book has the hex-grid-less version of the rules? NOT Alpha Strike, rather playing the full game on open tabletops? I remember seeing them ages ago, but imagine they might've gotten folded into Total War?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I got a Star Colonel pledge, and only had to add 8 packs to get all the 'Mechs.
For the Clans, I'd recommend the Clan Command Star and Clan Heavy Striker Star - These give you some of the classic Clan 'Mechs of the era (Daishi, Thor, Loki, Vulture) and the best 'Mech in the entire game (the Ryoken).
For the Inner Sphere I'd recommend the Inner Sphere Battle Lance, and either the Inner Sphere Command Lance or Heavy Lance. The Battle Lance nets you 4 classic BTech 'Mechs, including the Warhammer, Rifleman and the ubiquitous Phoenix Hawk. The Command Lance gives you a Marauder and an Archer, however the Heavy Lance gives you the fantastic Grasshopper, the reliable Centurion, and the very interesting Hatcheman close-combat 'Mech.
So those. Or the IS Direct Fire Lance if you just want an Atlas (as a bonus, it has a Marauder II and the very reliable Orion heavy 'Mech).
Thanks! I'll go with precisely this. Should we assume, broadly that there will be plenty of ways to end up with equitable Combat Value games, between these?
Edit: Random aside, but which book has the hex-grid-less version of the rules? NOT Alpha Strike, rather playing the full game on open tabletops? I remember seeing them ages ago, but imagine they might've gotten folded into Total War?
Absolutely. If you are using classic rules, you are not going to want more than 4 mechs to a side for any games under 2 hours. With Clans, maybe 5 Clan mechs vs 2 Inner Sphere lances. Having as many as you'll have access to will give you many combinations- and each mech can be reconfigured into multiple variations (the Warhammer alone has over 10 canon variants).
I'm not sure where the rules are for converting to tabletop play- as I recall it was a simple equation, like make each hex equal an inch, and apply some modifier for turning. I don't think it was complicated enough to merit its own ruleset.
They're not as common, but you may want to take a look at the Comstar packs, and see if they look cool to you. They are a better value for pledge reward than anything else, because they contain 6 mechs which are used by the Inner Sphere and more rarely by the Clans. But right now you don't know how you'll like to play, so go with what looks cool.
It's fairly short about 24 pages and also includes things like los rules and fire arcs as well as tables with all the ranges movement modifiers and so on.
Some like to say Battletech is too complicated and confusing. It’s doesn’t have to be that way. First, you don’t need everything day one. Buy the box set and play some games before you buy six hardcover rule books you may never use. One of the great things about Battletech is it is very easy to customize the play experience to what you want, and completely ignore the rest of the stuff you don’t want or need for your games. Or better yet, play some games first, and then decide what you need, instead of just ‘everything’ now.
Ghaz wrote: And yet again, the new artwork wins hands down...
That was never the problem. Certainly, the new Crockett art is undeniably better than the old Crockett art. The problem is, it does not look anything like a crockett.
Look at the Guillotine or the Crab or the Mongoose. The new art is just as much better than the old art as the Crockett, but the new artwork for those mechs still share similarities in silhouette or layout that allows you to look at the new Guillotine and say "yes, that's a Guillotine" . Without the label on the drawing, you would never guess the new artwork is supposed to represent a Crockett.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Yikes... they sure don't make it easy. To be fair Battletech can be a bit impenetrable for newer players. To this day I still don't know which books are needed to create the most robust tabletop war-game version, nor how many neoprene maps are added to create a good sized game where range and flanking meaningfully happen.
I'm new. 100% agreed. I pledged ~$1100 on this kickstarter and then went out to buy the "A Game of Armored Combat" (I added a second smaller pledge to get the 2 mech starter box through the kickstarter as well as a second urbanmech and 2-3 of the mech salvage boxes or whatever).
I have zero idea what I'm doing or what I actually need to buy, or even what the best way to play is. All I know is I'm getting some really cool gak and I'm probably going to have some fun with it.
I don't have this problem with other games, they are usually much more straightforward and its typically much clearer as to what the "core" rules are and what the optional add-ons are, etc. but it seems like Battletech is a slightly different animal where the answers to these questions are "everything and nothing" depending on who you ask/how they play the game.
YIKES! That is easily $1000 more than you ever needed to spend to play many years worth of Battletech games! The problem is people look at the hundreds of products available and the thousands of models in the catalogue and assume it to be WAY more complex than it is, because there's just SO much history to the game (and because the main Catalyst website is awful). You need the A Game of Armored Combat starter box and the main rulebook Total Warfare to play. Full stop. Really-really.
That gives you 2 FULL armies to play and the complete rules to expand that into mixed-unit combat if you want to play with infantry and vehicles and purchase just a few extra models. This is a game where adding a single mech is a SIGNIFICANT change to playing the game, buying 4 mechs is akin to buying a complete new army in Warhammer 40K. In fact the book AGoAC comes with IS the full rulebook, it just doesn't have the optional-advanced rules like the Level 2 tech (upgraded versions of the basic mechs, essentially) or Clan Tech (level 3 tech, just think of Clan mechs as Level 3 tech). Also the full rules for infantry, power armor and vehicles/aircraft are all optional-advanced rules, that's all in the Total Warfare book. Everything else is ancillary and useful, but it's all sort-of-kind-of really useful for very very niche things you'd want to occasionally (and only very occasionally) do: rules for narrative & map based campaigns or experimental weapons or gladiator ring fighting, or just new variations on the same stuff in case you get bored or want to play specific in-universe historically accurate options. Or background fluff, A LOT of it if mostly just for background fluff.
How many neoprene mats do you need? One. One neoprene mat is the right size for a full 4 mech vs 4 mech game, which will take you most of an afternoon to play through. One neoprene mat is the same exact size as 2 paper mats placed side-by-side, like the 2 mats included in the AGoAC starter. The AGoC including exactly 2 paper mats is not a coincidence, nor is it a coincidence that the neoprene mat is the same size as 2 paper mats, all of these things are intentional. It's also the same size as any 2 paper mats from any of the paper mat addon packs that have been released over the last 30 years. 2 mats side-by-side has been the standard size playfield for decades, but sometimes you want a 4x4 for megabattles or if you want to try some really long range battles or extended narrative scenarios, etc. If you plan on playing all-day-long marathon-run megabattles, then you'd want a second neoprene mat.
The TROs are sort of a cross between fluff and useful rules, but they really aren't needed. At all. All game rules in them are just telling you how to fill out the Unit Sheets for that specific mech/vehicle. But, pre-filled out Unit Sheets aka Record Sheets for everything (literally every unit and variant in the game) are up for free online from multiple websites. My personal fav is http://battletech.rpg.hu/mechfactory_frame.php, which also has a phone app, but there's a few other websites that repeat the same info or can print the Record Sheets in older styles. You can get all the background (and more) by looking around https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page, which is an incredible fan-made wiki.
THANK YOU
That is really what has kept me out of the game ever since it came out. I’ve seen all the things and then look at my wallet , I’ve spent ten seconds of thousands on GW in close to 30 years of playing Warhammer. Spent lots on D&D back in the day as well, and just didn’t need another money sink. If it really is just needing that stuff to play, then I may stop by the FLGS today and grab the starter and AGoAC and start reading. One of the guys up here was about to start up a league before the Covid shutdown.
That's it really. As another player said don't spend mega money on stuff you don't need. Dip your foot in for $60 and go from there. Especially anyone who hasn't went big on the Kickstarter.
MegaMek is also there as a way to get your toes wet or to try the rules out.
Ive mixed feelings on the Pack Hunter, Im sure its an improvement on the original (no idea what it looks like) but something feels off, not sure if its the arms or legs, just slightly bizarre proportions there
chaos0xomega wrote: Ive mixed feelings on the Pack Hunter, Im sure its an improvement on the original (no idea what it looks like) but something feels off, not sure if its the arms or legs, just slightly bizarre proportions there
I actually don't really like that take on a Howler. It's absurdly, comically broad shoulders was the whole identity of it, to me.
It isn't bad though, I wouldn't be mad if I got one, but I don't think I would really buy that willingly. I just would rather the flat/broad look, like this.
We have a date! The new target for product in hand is Halloween!
OoooOOOoooOOOoooOOO!
From their most recent update-
" August 1st: start shipping to the logistics Hubs
August 16th: final shipment to the logistics Hubs.
September 1-15th: all product arriving in all logistics Hubs.
September 15th-30th: all product collated and beginning to ship to backers.
September 21st - October 31st: Backers receiving Wave 1 worldwide!"
We just had an AWESOME meeting with Quartermaster Logistics and everything is moving forward smoothly. We also heard from our miniatures manufacturer in the past 24 hours and they confirmed that all product scheduled for July 31st is DONE and being packaged for shipment to the local hubs!
BTech really hasn't changed all that much. Things have been tweaked here and there, but really you can pick up and play with any of the older rulesets and you'll find things are much the same.
The more recent Catalyst releases are more about streamlining and clarifying (presentation wise, not streamlining rules).
So I literally just filled out my canon character survey where I had the option to take the credit. Now that they are locking down wave 1, I wonder what form that credit is going to take. If it will be like a card refund, or if I will just get to add like an extra model pack or something.
balmong7 wrote: So I literally just filled out my canon character survey where I had the option to take the credit. Now that they are locking down wave 1, I wonder what form that credit is going to take. If it will be like a card refund, or if I will just get to add like an extra model pack or something.
You can either take it as catalyst store credit, or use it on wave two stuff.
balmong7 wrote: So I literally just filled out my canon character survey where I had the option to take the credit. Now that they are locking down wave 1, I wonder what form that credit is going to take. If it will be like a card refund, or if I will just get to add like an extra model pack or something.
You can either take it as catalyst store credit, or use it on wave two stuff.
The Highlander really looks better than its art. I'm also loving the Black Knight's globose style chestplate. It will contrast nicely with the typical chest heavy mechs, and looks like a solid menacing design.
guinness707 wrote: Anyone care for the Legendary mechs? The Mad Cat is fine but the others.....just seem really bad.
I don't know about everyone else, but I've always seen Battletech as a "my guys" sort of game, so no interest statwise. Though alternately posed mech models isn't a bad thing - as long as they don't cost extra. On the KS previews, I like the Marauder and Mad Cat. Obvious problem with the Dire Wolf's gyro, and the Archer somehow looks "wrong" - too bulky.
I like the Legendary 'Mechs as they're different poses (and different in armament, in case of Kerensky's Daishi).
I've never been big on WYSIWYG in BTech, but having things that a visually distinctive from one another makes them easier to identify on the battlefield.
guinness707 wrote: Anyone care for the Legendary mechs? The Mad Cat is fine but the others.....just seem really bad.
I don't know about everyone else, but I've always seen Battletech as a "my guys" sort of game, so no interest statwise. Though alternately posed mech models isn't a bad thing - as long as they don't cost extra. On the KS previews, I like the Marauder and Mad Cat. Obvious problem with the Dire Wolf's gyro, and the Archer somehow looks "wrong" - too bulky.
Sorry, what part of the Dire Wolf model is the gyro, and what's obviously wrong with it?
guinness707 wrote: Anyone care for the Legendary mechs? The Mad Cat is fine but the others.....just seem really bad.
I don't know about everyone else, but I've always seen Battletech as a "my guys" sort of game, so no interest statwise. Though alternately posed mech models isn't a bad thing - as long as they don't cost extra. On the KS previews, I like the Marauder and Mad Cat. Obvious problem with the Dire Wolf's gyro, and the Archer somehow looks "wrong" - too bulky.
Sorry, what part of the Dire Wolf model is the gyro, and what's obviously wrong with it?
It's a joke about how the model is pointing up to the sky. Though, to be serious, I think in BT terms it's part of the (internal) lower center torso, possibly around the joint between the legs.
guinness707 wrote: Anyone care for the Legendary mechs? The Mad Cat is fine but the others.....just seem really bad.
I don't know about everyone else, but I've always seen Battletech as a "my guys" sort of game, so no interest statwise. Though alternately posed mech models isn't a bad thing - as long as they don't cost extra. On the KS previews, I like the Marauder and Mad Cat. Obvious problem with the Dire Wolf's gyro, and the Archer somehow looks "wrong" - too bulky.
Sorry, what part of the Dire Wolf model is the gyro, and what's obviously wrong with it?
It's short for gyroscope (and not a Greek sandwich ) and is what is responsible for helping the 'mech keep it's balance.
I do like alternative sculpts/poses but a couple look a little iffy in that Legendary pilot set - like the pilot maybe had one too many adult beverages during the pre-mission briefing...
I will reserve final judgement till I have them in hand though....
petrov27 wrote: I do like alternative sculpts/poses but a couple look a little iffy in that Legendary pilot set - like the pilot maybe had one too many adult beverages during the pre-mission briefing...
I will reserve final judgement till I have them in hand though....
It's due to assembly errors at the manufacturer and has supposedly been addressed.
guinness707 wrote: Anyone care for the Legendary mechs? The Mad Cat is fine but the others.....just seem really bad.
I don't know about everyone else, but I've always seen Battletech as a "my guys" sort of game, so no interest statwise. Though alternately posed mech models isn't a bad thing - as long as they don't cost extra. On the KS previews, I like the Marauder and Mad Cat. Obvious problem with the Dire Wolf's gyro, and the Archer somehow looks "wrong" - too bulky.
Sorry, what part of the Dire Wolf model is the gyro, and what's obviously wrong with it?
It's a joke about how the model is pointing up to the sky. Though, to be serious, I think in BT terms it's part of the (internal) lower center torso, possibly around the joint between the legs.
I just looked it and it made more sense. What's that melted mass of plastic on the right torso supposed to be?
guinness707 wrote: Anyone care for the Legendary mechs? The Mad Cat is fine but the others.....just seem really bad.
I don't know about everyone else, but I've always seen Battletech as a "my guys" sort of game, so no interest statwise. Though alternately posed mech models isn't a bad thing - as long as they don't cost extra. On the KS previews, I like the Marauder and Mad Cat. Obvious problem with the Dire Wolf's gyro, and the Archer somehow looks "wrong" - too bulky.
Sorry, what part of the Dire Wolf model is the gyro, and what's obviously wrong with it?
It's a joke about how the model is pointing up to the sky. Though, to be serious, I think in BT terms it's part of the (internal) lower center torso, possibly around the joint between the legs.
I just looked it and it made more sense. What's that melted mass of plastic on the right torso supposed to be?
You mean the Ultra AC20? Yeah, it seems to have suffered a bit on that model. Hopefully the ones that we get are a bit tighter.
Production doesn't usually out-strip samples in quality. Then again, maybe they're using Master Unit Dies to do the samples before carving out the steel molds.
Some of those details look pretty soft, but painting with heavy washes should probably still get some nice results for those less into that side of the hobby.
I've got dropships full of plastic, old PVC, resin and metal mechs and I can't believe that I'm actually saying this, but the new PVC mechs are my favourite just from a material standpoint.
I don't know at what point in life that durability became a factor in the equation (that's a lie, I do know - it was the appearance of children...), but I find that the moderate increase in the level of detail that you get with resin isn't worth the trade-off.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.
No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.
Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.
paying more for better detailed resin minis won't be an option for me
might be nice to have some legendary or special config mechs in resin for display but not for gaming (I have my problems with premium high detailed but expensive models that are nice for display but not really suited for gaming)
PVC is fine, better than Resin or Metal for the job but the only thing really missing for now are weapon upgrade packs to convert the different Mechs
H.B.M.C. wrote: They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.
No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.
Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.
keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.
No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.
Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.
keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.
I am very much aware of the fact, yes. I still have the cardboard cutouts of the first edition.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.
No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.
Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.
keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.
which minis used for gaming are NOT boardgame markers?
H.B.M.C. wrote: They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.
No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.
Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.
keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.
which minis used for gaming are NOT boardgame markers?
H.B.M.C. wrote: They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.
No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.
Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.
keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.
which minis used for gaming are NOT boardgame markers?
by that I mean Battletech at it';s core design isn't a mini game. I can literally play battletech with some sheets of paper, a hex map and a chat client, I've done it (don't reccomend it BTW, but it's what you needed to do in the age before Megamek) I can't do that with say... 40k, AOS, X-wing etc
BrianDavion wrote: by that I mean Battletech at it';s core design isn't a mini game. I can literally play battletech with some sheets of paper, a hex map and a chat client, I've done it (don't reccomend it BTW, but it's what you needed to do in the age before Megamek) I can't do that with say... 40k, AOS, X-wing etc
Honestly, I completely agree. That's actually one of the things I like about Battletech: the board makes it so much clearer.
That doesn't really mean a thing about the minis used for it, though. As it doesn't for any of the others, really.
by that I mean Battletech at it';s core design isn't a mini game. I can literally play battletech with some sheets of paper, a hex map and a chat client, I've done it (don't reccomend it BTW, but it's what you needed to do in the age before Megamek) I can't do that with say... 40k, AOS, X-wing etc
you can play X-Wing perfectly fine with just the base and the cards, no models needed at all
AoS and 40k less so because Line of Sight is a thing (not so much any more with 9th 40k) but you are fine using bases with a rod to know how large the model is
it does not look good, but you don't need the models to play the game and there is no game I played were the models were really needed and could not be replaced with a simple cardboard marker as well
yet the new Battletech minis are nice and well done and make the game look better and overcome the old boardgame with markers reputation
H.B.M.C. wrote: They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.
No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.
Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.
keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.
which minis used for gaming are NOT boardgame markers?
Games in which the three dimensional volume of the miniature are relevant to the purposes of gameplay - which actually makes GW's miniatures legitimately not just boardgame markers. You couldn't replace them with wood meeples or a monopoly piece and still play the same game (whereas a game like warmachine or infinity the models third dimensional is essentially irrelevant due to the way the mechanics relate to its volume).
It's Kickstarter adjacent, but for those of you who may be unaware, IWM has begun releasing metal versions of the plastic CGL redesigns. Some even have variant parts.
if GW models are not markers, any conversion or not exactly building a unit as it is supposed to be would be a problem
not even talking about old models that have different size or 3rd party models
yet you see more conversions and 3rd party models in GW games than in Games like Warmachine or Infinity
while GW games do not have specific rules, the games are so loose that the actual model used does not matter and an appropriate sized piece of wood is enough to play
kodos wrote: if GW models are not markers, any conversion or not exactly building a unit as it is supposed to be would be a problem
not even talking about old models that have different size or 3rd party models
I'm surprised that you seem to have never encountered the phrase "modeling for advantage". It originated in the 40k community, and its still primarily used within the GW hobby and virtually nowhere else.
infinite_array wrote: It's Kickstarter adjacent, but for those of you who may be unaware, IWM has begun releasing metal versions of the plastic CGL redesigns. Some even have variant parts.
Now that's a very good idea; premium metal versions for people that are willing to buy.
kodos wrote: if GW models are not markers, any conversion or not exactly building a unit as it is supposed to be would be a problem
not even talking about old models that have different size or 3rd party models
I'm surprised that you seem to have never encountered the phrase "modeling for advantage". It originated in the 40k community, and its still primarily used within the GW hobby and virtually nowhere else.
Never on the Table, and 5th Edition was the only one were we had real arguments here about
but not because someone converted things but how to handle the original GW models inside units that gave an advantage, as someone using the kneeling models to build the "first rank, second rank" closed formation that was available in the IG Codex from the previous edition doing something "bad" now
but it was a short discussion and all events here used the house rule that no matter how the actual model looks like, it is treated as the standard standing model of that type
I know this comes up from time to time here on dakka, but it was never a big problem in reality
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote: It's Kickstarter adjacent, but for those of you who may be unaware, IWM has begun releasing metal versions of the plastic CGL redesigns. Some even have variant parts.]
those with the variant parts are very interesting, buying one use magnets and you can switch as you like, not only with the metal one but also using it for the PCV models
H.B.M.C. wrote: They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.
No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.
Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.
keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.
which minis used for gaming are NOT boardgame markers?
Games in which the three dimensional volume of the miniature are relevant to the purposes of gameplay - which actually makes GW's miniatures legitimately not just boardgame markers. You couldn't replace them with wood meeples or a monopoly piece and still play the same game (whereas a game like warmachine or infinity the models third dimensional is essentially irrelevant due to the way the mechanics relate to its volume).
Well, there is a reason why so many miniature games are swapping to standarized volumes for size, after all.
I'm guessing they're referring to games that use a standard size cylinder for each base size of model, to sticking out arms/wings/antennae etc can't be used to target/see the model
Infinity and Star Wars Legion are good examples. The use of silhouette templates means that the three-dimensional volume of the model is standardized regardless of the models actual physical size.
Deadzone doesn't work like that - it's true line of sight, and you only need to be able to see the tip of a hand or gun, and that could be well outside of the base. It has the opposite situation with cover that most games have - you have cover by default and then if you can see every part of the model including all of the base, you get a clear shot bonus.
MrPieChee wrote: Deadzone doesn't work like that - it's true line of sight, and you only need to be able to see the tip of a hand or gun, and that could be well outside of the base. It has the opposite situation with cover that most games have - you have cover by default and then if you can see every part of the model including all of the base, you get a clear shot bonus.
My bad then. Point is, it's not something that just one or two systems do, and is done for a reason.
Siygess wrote: Holy cow. So many IS packs that I didn't pledge for.
Much regret!
I wouldn't have too much regret since who knows how long it'll take for Catalyst to actually produce and distribute these miniatures. It's not like they've got a great track record in this area.
With nearly everything on the water and moving towards our hubs, where they'll be organized and start shipping out to backers, we received final samples of everything late last week, and we've spent the weekend and the last few days reviewing everything, providing comments back to the manufacturer, and taking photos. And time to share a pile of those photos!
I have never needed masses of giant miniature robots more in in my entire life than I do right now, looking at those pics. I'm usually pretty patient with kickstarters, but these pics of the actual models on a real hex map have my blood boiling and I just want to reach through my screen and start priming them. Suddenly, my toys just can't get here soon enough
Okay, so I didn't get in on this because I already have more rulebooks & boxed sets than is good for me, what is the best way to get all the IS mechs from this? (I'm not much of a Clanner)
The Inner Sphere mechs are all available separately.
Inner Sphere Command Lance is one of the two IS first wave releases. Marauder, Archer, Valkyrie, and Stinger are in this set.
Inner Sphere Battle Lance is second IS first wave release. Warhammer, Rifleman, Phoenix Hawk, and Wasp are in this set.
Stormonu wrote: Okay, so I didn't get in on this because I already have more rulebooks & boxed sets than is good for me, what is the best way to get all the IS mechs from this? (I'm not much of a Clanner)
Because of how the Kickstarter is structured, your best bet is going to be to get a Star Colonel pledge when the pledge manager reopens. There are 11 IS/Comstar packs (12 if you count the legendary pack) and Star Colonel has 12 picks. That also gives you some extras to sell/trade from the Clan side.
To my earlier question, if I could get neoprene maps, how many do I want for a healthy sized tactical game? I found a few sellers with the older neoprene mats, but know they're usually super hard to get.
One mapsheet can easily service 2 or so 'Mechs per side. I doubt you'd ever need more than 4 map-sheets at a time, which I believe is two of the neoprene mats.
Issue with those might be that the designs don't really mesh well when put side by side.
Nice, thanks. I ended up with huge lots of Heroscape hexes to build 3d-maps, but can only go about 32-hexes wide and maybe 60 long, which is probably too narrow, yeah?
Can "only" go that wide & long? You got plenty. Standard paper mats are 22"x18" and are 17 hexes long by essentially 17 hexes wide, width works out weird because of of the interlocking nature of hexes. Neoprene mats are sized to be exactly 2 of the paper mats side-by-side, so 17 hexes long and 34 hexes wide. The neoprene mats (at least the original 4 mats) are all double-sided and all have a unique landscape on one side like desert or moonscape or mountains and the other side is a grasslands that matches up across the different neoprene mats. One neoprene mat will be good for most games, a second mat would be the equivalent of a 4x4 paper mat or 34x34 hexes for large games.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Nice, thanks. I ended up with huge lots of Heroscape hexes to build 3d-maps, but can only go about 32-hexes wide and maybe 60 long, which is probably too narrow, yeah?
But a 1.75 inch hex mat to be the base of your Heroscape so you don't have to build "Level 0." It works so much better and saves so much time. I got mine from Hotz Matz for like $60. Completely worth the investment.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Nice, thanks. I ended up with huge lots of Heroscape hexes to build 3d-maps, but can only go about 32-hexes wide and maybe 60 long, which is probably too narrow, yeah?
But a 1.75 inch hex mat to be the base of your Heroscape so you don't have to build "Level 0." It works so much better and saves so much time. I got mine from Hotz Matz for like $60. Completely worth the investment.
I did actually, though I would never do business with him again. It took months to get my order and his customer service was hell. :-p
I'm basically super set for a big Battletech winter!
It'd probably be pretty easy to find a template to print out on normal sized transparent 'paper' though the inkjet reality might make that more difficult than I expect.
A decent print shop might be able to do it on larger transparencies... maybe.
Not the most helpful, but all I can really think of.
If you're going to use a mat, is there any particular reason to just not switch to hexless? Our group used to play hexless back in the 80's/90's a lot.
If you're going to use a mat, is there any particular reason to just not switch to hexless? Our group used to play hexless back in the 80's/90's a lot.
As said above, hexes remove arguments. Everything is binary with hexes: You're either in range, or you're not. You move the exact correct distance every time. LOS is exactly defined. You never have to measure anything. You just have to know how to count to 35 (at most).
Getting supplemental stuff in anticipation of receiving this... which book(s) do I want for campaign rules?
I don't mean narrative campaigns, per se, but more like generic map campaigns, maybe with finite resources, persistent damage/repairs to track, etc...?
I really like the Wolfhound. It takes me back to the days of Mechwarrior: Mercs on pc, when I got permanently sidetracked by Solaris fights, and a Wolfhound was my fav. (Followed closely by an Uziel).
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I don't mean narrative campaigns, per se, but more like generic map campaigns, maybe with finite resources, persistent damage/repairs to track, etc...?
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I don't mean narrative campaigns, per se, but more like generic map campaigns, maybe with finite resources, persistent damage/repairs to track, etc...?
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Thanks! Do the Campaign Operations have at least rudimentary repair/maintenance elements for said campaign?
A few different versions actually, of varying levels of abstraction (expenditure of "resources", expenditure of time via "strategic turns", the detailed spending of actual money should you be tracking a Merc unit or something similar, etc.).
I love it! Thanks guys. It really is wild how much Battletech is just a buffet of crazy that can be drawn on, with the game morphing into a different animal depending on a group's tastes.
Meanwhile, GW games ship with three ways to play, two of which are immediately villified, and the third still isn't an agreed upon "good" way to play. LOL
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I love it! Thanks guys. It really is wild how much Battletech is just a buffet of crazy that can be drawn on, with the game morphing into a different animal depending on a group's tastes.
I love the fact that in Tac Ops (page 151-152) there is a diagram and a full page detailed example of how to apply the rules for what happens if a train runs into a dropship. To use these rules, you'd have to
a) have train tracks on the board
b) have a dropship actually land right on top of them for some reason
c) have a train actually come through
d) have the dropship not take off for some reason when it sees the train coming
e) not be willing to just say "both of them die" (because at the damage levels created by the rules, realistically that's what happens if you bother to calculate it all out)
I'd really be stunned if anyone has ever actually used those rules, but there they are, in black and white.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I love it! Thanks guys. It really is wild how much Battletech is just a buffet of crazy that can be drawn on, with the game morphing into a different animal depending on a group's tastes.
One of the jokes for the original Tactical Operations book was "We've got a rule for that!" because they just had so many options for adding things to the game.
That's also why the BattleMech Manual is such a good book, as it's touted as 90% of the rules people use 90% of the time. In other words, it's a book just for 'Mech combat (no tanks, infantry, etc.), and includes a lot of the common things from Tac Ops/Strat Ops/etc. that are just in general use despite being optional rules (like 'Floating Criticals').
My fav rule comes from Strategic Operations, describing the rules for how the velocity of space craft can impact the damage potential of physical munitions:
StratOps wrote:Players who want more realism from Units crossing each other at substantial percentages of light-speed (as might happen mid-transit in systems with large stars) are encouraged to resolve combat by dropping record sheets into cross-cut shredders simultaneously. The record sheet that is shredded the slowest wins the engagement though, obviously, it is destroyed in the process.
Dakka, I answered the character questionnaire back in April and chose to forgo my unique character in return for $75 pledge credit.
Nothing happened.
Then a couple of weeks back I was asked to resubmit info and again asked for pledge credit. I contacted CrowdOx and Catalyst both for information, and was ignored by both, then and again now.
I was not a Kickstarter backer but backed via CrowdOx, my package still included the same benefits.
Anyone know how I can redeem my pledge credit before the door shuts. I want to buy more BattleMechs with it while I still can.
StratOps wrote:Players who want more realism from Units crossing each other at substantial percentages of light-speed (as might happen mid-transit in systems with large stars) are encouraged to resolve combat by dropping record sheets into cross-cut shredders simultaneously. The record sheet that is shredded the slowest wins the engagement though, obviously, it is destroyed in the process.
That is an awesome part of the book. I might be tempted to argue that instead of simultaneous shred-dropping, you should instead do it in initiative order.
Alpharius Walks wrote: Does your pledge show a "donation" amount or similar in crowdox? I forget the exact verbiage but that is the credit in the pledge manager until used.
Given that pledges are currently closed they may also not be working as heavily on that until it reopens.
No it doesn't, though I had a good look. This is the closest I have got to getting some workable help.
I'm in the same boat Orlanth, although I haven't even gotten as far as the character survey yet, despite several emails requesting it.
As I understand it, we've both very much missed our window for Wave 1. I plan to email again once they reopen. CGL really have terrible crowdox/kickstarter pledge integration. If they do another one I'm prioritizing hitting the pledge level I'll eventually want in the actual kickstarter.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I love it! Thanks guys. It really is wild how much Battletech is just a buffet of crazy that can be drawn on, with the game morphing into a different animal depending on a group's tastes.
Meanwhile, GW games ship with three ways to play, two of which are immediately villified, and the third still isn't an agreed upon "good" way to play. LOL
I've commented a few times that the Battletech player base is basicly the player base GW WISHES 40k had. the compeitive tourny types are pretty quiet and the bulk of the player base is intreasted in basicly in telling stories with their units.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I love it! Thanks guys. It really is wild how much Battletech is just a buffet of crazy that can be drawn on, with the game morphing into a different animal depending on a group's tastes.
One of the jokes for the original Tactical Operations book was "We've got a rule for that!" because they just had so many options for adding things to the game.
back when it first came out I was in an IRC channel some of the designers came in, it was almost a game to find random gak that happened in the novels and ask them if Tac ops had a rule for that (the answer was ALWAYS "yes")
@BrianDavion The older I get, the more I appreciate getting off of the tournament hamster-wheel, and as you say, playing games the way GW wishes its fans did.
I've been writing an editorial just this morning about the games that last, and what they do and don't tend to contain. An answer I keep coming back to is "width and depth", and an ability to engage with the game at any level.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Speaking of the never-ending rabbit-hole of depth for those so inclined... I literally just learned that Total Warfare doesn't have all the rules for Battlemechs? I assumed that was a given, but someone just told me about Floating Criticals from the Battlemech Manual???
Does anyone happen to know what the main ommissions are from Total Warfare, or at least the widely known ones? I'm trying to decide if I need that book while a couple are in stock.
Gitzbitah wrote: I'm in the same boat Orlanth, although I haven't even gotten as far as the character survey yet, despite several emails requesting it.
As I understand it, we've both very much missed our window for Wave 1. I plan to email again once they reopen. CGL really have terrible crowdox/kickstarter pledge integration. If they do another one I'm prioritizing hitting the pledge level I'll eventually want in the actual kickstarter.
I didn't care about getting wave 1, it will mean double shipping and most of my purchases are wave 2.
Speaking of the never-ending rabbit-hole of depth for those so inclined... I literally just learned that Total Warfare doesn't have all the rules for Battlemechs? I assumed that was a given, but someone just told me about Floating Criticals from the Battlemech Manual???
Does anyone happen to know what the main ommissions are from Total Warfare, or at least the widely known ones? I'm trying to decide if I need that book while a couple are in stock.
Battletech has nearly an infinite variety of optional and advanced rules that are built upon Total Warfare that effect even pure mech combat. Mainly the advanced rules books Tactical Operations and Strategic Operations. The game is as deep as you want it to be - need to have mechs fighting in zero-g on the hull of a space station while exposed to high radiation from a nearby neutron star? Yeah there's rules for that.
Battletech has some differing rules "levels" that it's worth noting.
From Sarna.net:
Quick Start Rules
Classic BattleTech Introductory Box Set, this is a partial rules set and does not include Heat Sinks and any other rules that may be too complex for beginners.
Basic Rules
Published in the Classic BattleTech Introductory Box Set, This level of play is only the most basic of the rules sets and does not include Infantry, or Combat Vehicles.
Standard Rules
Total Warfare is the book that the Standard Rules are published in. The Standard Rules are the level of rules that are used in most Tournaments and Official Games. The Standard Rules are primarily the Tournament Legal Rules from the Rules Level 2 System.
Tech Manual While Construction and Custom 'Mechs are not part of the Standard Rules Set, This is the book that contains the construction rules that were used to build the Canon Tournament Legal Units.
Advanced Rules
Advanced Rules Equipment is in production "in universe" but have rules too complex for Tournament Play. This has a very rough correspondence to Rules Level 2 Equipment that was too complex for Tournaments.
Tactical Operations contains the advanced rules and equipment that deal with or are useful on the Tactical Level of game play.
Strategic Operations contains the advanced rules and equipment that deal with or are useful on the Strategic Level of game play
Experimental Rules
Experimental Rules Equipment is being prototyped or has gone out of production. There is a very rough correspondence to Rules Level 3 Equipment. They are also considered rare and exotic technology which are considered to be not for use for Standard & Tournment game play.
Tactical Operations contains the experimental rules and equipment that deal with or are useful on the Tactical Level of game play.
Strategic Operations contains the experimental rules and equipment that deal with or are useful on the Strategic Level of game play.
A lot of the varient rules you're thinking of like floating crits are classed as advanced rules, but it's common to use them anyway (until codiified floating crits was proably one of the most common house rules in the game). Battletech players do NOT have a "I GOTTA PRACTICE FOR THE TOURNY!" mindset, so it's pretty common for people to use advanced and experimental rules.
If you JUST wanna use floating criticals though I can sum it up for you VERY easily.
So when you roll to hit and roll snake eyes. you get a critical hit role. even if there is still armor on the location. in standard rules for battletech this is ALWAYS resolved against the center torso. Floating criticals makes this a little more intreasting by having you first roll against location for the Through armor critical (hence forth called TACs) so you can potentially get a TAC on an arm, leg, left torso, etc, even if you're rolling REAAAALLY lucky the head (it's happened to me before)
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Speaking of the never-ending rabbit-hole of depth for those so inclined... I literally just learned that Total Warfare doesn't have all the rules for Battlemechs? I assumed that was a given, but someone just told me about Floating Criticals from the Battlemech Manual???
Does anyone happen to know what the main ommissions are from Total Warfare, or at least the widely known ones? I'm trying to decide if I need that book while a couple are in stock.
They're not omissions. Total Warfare is the complete rules for BattleTech. Everything else adds onto that.
The BattleMech Manual exists for those that want to just play 'Mechs, without any of the extra stuff (vehicles, aerospace, battle armour, infantry, etc.), and thus includes many of the additional optional rules from Tac Ops/Strat Ops/etc. that most people use.
I assume the Total Warfare book with the Atlas and blue background is the latest/current version? Or is there a new version pending with all the kickstarter etc activity going on in the past year or two maybe?
Not really, more like a general acceptance of which rules to use(and even then, not really). Most events at cons and the like tend to be specific scenarios, campaigns, historical events, etc. rather than tournaments. The game is focused more on the setting than tournament play like 40K and the like.
petrov27 wrote: I assume the Total Warfare book with the Atlas and blue background is the latest/current version? Or is there a new version pending with all the kickstarter etc activity going on in the past year or two maybe?
Battle Value is inherently unbalanced. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. BV is formulaic because it needs to be to account for the customisation and construction rules.
However the weapons themselves are also formulaic which doesnt help actual balance. Even so some elements of construction cannot be accounted for yet have an influence in play, such as armour distribution and heat balance.
Fluff rules are necessary to rebalance the game. I like how the Battletech computer game quietly upped the damage of autocannon, so that we now have the AC-6, AC-8, AC-12 and AC-20 in the range brackets of the originals.
I can see this being fair even with no changes to BV because autocannon are inherently inferior due to mass and ammo vulnerability.
Orlanth wrote: Battle Value is inherently unbalanced. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. BV is formulaic because it needs to be to account for the customisation and construction rules.
However the weapons themselves are also formulaic which doesnt help actual balance. Even so some elements of construction cannot be accounted for yet have an influence in play, such as armour distribution and heat balance.
Fluff rules are necessary to rebalance the game. I like how the Battletech computer game quietly upped the damage of autocannon, so that we now have the AC-6, AC-8, AC-12 and AC-20 in the range brackets of the originals.
I can see this being fair even with no changes to BV because autocannon are inherently inferior due to mass and ammo vulnerability.
dude, the AC 10 is the greatest weapon ever developed and you will NEVER convince me otherwise!
I have occasionally wondered what the writers of Battletech were thinking with some of the weapon stats and mechanics. Especially considering Centurion.
Orlanth wrote: Battle Value is inherently unbalanced. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. BV is formulaic because it needs to be to account for the customisation and construction rules.
However the weapons themselves are also formulaic which doesnt help actual balance. Even so some elements of construction cannot be accounted for yet have an influence in play, such as armour distribution and heat balance.
Fluff rules are necessary to rebalance the game. I like how the Battletech computer game quietly upped the damage of autocannon, so that we now have the AC-6, AC-8, AC-12 and AC-20 in the range brackets of the originals.
I can see this being fair even with no changes to BV because autocannon are inherently inferior due to mass and ammo vulnerability.
BV works very well as a general guide for balance in both the highly competitive environment and narrative/rpg or GM'd campaigns.
I helped run numerous online servers running campaign BT utilising MegaMek for the games. Highly competitive enviorments where balance was key and BV worked great. Of course it isn't foolproof - it takes no account of the map been played - but it does the job.
Fluff rules - while great in a non-competitive setting - break BV in a competitive setting. Say something simple like bonuses and negatives for different weight classes on piloting rolls for damage falls. Great in theory - an assault should be harder to knock over with hits than a light. But you've now given a huge uncounted BV bonus to heavy mech players over light players. So although we could play BT online with every optional rule turned on - most of the fluff rules were discarded for breaking balance.
Nurglitch wrote: I have occasionally wondered what the writers of Battletech were thinking with some of the weapon stats and mechanics. Especially considering Centurion.
how so? Centurion's a solid machine. keep in mind Battletech's writers don't design mechs to be optimized nesscarily. also autocannons where a loooot better back in the days of single heat sinks
Indeed, many of the early Battletech designs were flawed, as the game designers tried to match the appearance of the mostly ‘borrowed’ from anime Mech designs. This generally resulted in over-gunned Mechs with too few heat sinks and far too little armor to even think about being anywhere near where actual shooting was going on...
Nurglitch wrote: I have occasionally wondered what the writers of Battletech were thinking with some of the weapon stats and mechanics. Especially considering Centurion.
how so? Centurion's a solid machine. keep in mind Battletech's writers don't design mechs to be optimized nesscarily. also autocannons where a loooot better back in the days of single heat sinks
Not the Centurion Battlemech, the game Centurion that FASA also produced.
Nurglitch wrote: I have occasionally wondered what the writers of Battletech were thinking with some of the weapon stats and mechanics. Especially considering Centurion.
how so? Centurion's a solid machine. keep in mind Battletech's writers don't design mechs to be optimized nesscarily. also autocannons where a loooot better back in the days of single heat sinks
Not the Centurion Battlemech, the game Centurion that FASA also produced.
The confusion lies in the fact that Centurion is a part of the Renegade Legion setting and is not a BattleTech game
Nurglitch wrote: I have occasionally wondered what the writers of Battletech were thinking with some of the weapon stats and mechanics. Especially considering Centurion.
how so? Centurion's a solid machine. keep in mind Battletech's writers don't design mechs to be optimized nesscarily. also autocannons where a loooot better back in the days of single heat sinks
Not the Centurion Battlemech, the game Centurion that FASA also produced.
The confusion lies in the fact that Centurion is a part of the Renegade Legion setting and is not a BattleTech game
Battletech is FAR from perfect, but as a game it's been around awhile, and hasn't really changed much, part of that is because the core fundamentals are so strong. I do like how movement and terrain can effect hit chances etc. it really enchourages manuver etc. I mean speed's hardly a subsisute for armor, but I've taken down much heavier mechs by using my mobility intelligently.
Nurglitch wrote: That medium laser has three times the range, 150% more damage, and 66% of the weight of a machine gun with a ton of ammo. It's a tad... ridiculous?
except that to mount a medium laser on a vehicle you also, normally need to mount the proper amount of heat sinks (and tanks IIRC can't take DHS) the Savannaha master uses a fusion engine but in 3025 that was actually pretty rare on tanks. so a medium laser on MOST tanks would take 4 tons.
Also machine guns are better against infantry, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
Nurglitch wrote: That medium laser has three times the range, 150% more damage, and 66% of the weight of a machine gun with a ton of ammo. It's a tad... ridiculous?
except that to mount a medium laser on a vehicle you also, normally need to mount the proper amount of heat sinks (and tanks IIRC can't take DHS) the Savannaha master uses a fusion engine but in 3025 that was actually pretty rare on tanks. so a medium laser on MOST tanks would take 4 tons.
Also machine guns are better against infantry, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
Well, better so long as you're within 90m of those infantry, which isn't a great place for vehicles or 'mechs to be in relation to infantry.
Nurglitch wrote: That medium laser has three times the range, 150% more damage, and 66% of the weight of a machine gun with a ton of ammo. It's a tad... ridiculous?
My brother and a friend, who played Battletech religiously often told me that the medium laser was the best weapon in the entire game.
Personally, I prefer the PPC, despite the minimum range.
Nurglitch wrote: That medium laser has three times the range, 150% more damage, and 66% of the weight of a machine gun with a ton of ammo. It's a tad... ridiculous?
My brother and a friend, who played Battletech religiously often told me that the medium laser was the best weapon in the entire game.
Personally, I prefer the PPC, despite the minimum range.
The cool thing about Centurion, the game, was that armour was arranged in blocks (like they are on vehicles in CBT) and the weapons also had their damage arranged in shapes. It was like murder-tetris. I feel like there's plenty of opportunity to slightly modify CBT so bizarrely inefficient weapons can do interesting things beyond cross of that many armour/internal-structure bubbles (or do cluster damage like the missiles and LB-X autocannons).
For example:
[img=https://renegade-legion.fandom.com/wiki/Centurion_(Boardgame)?file=Centurion_damage_template.jpg][/img]
Have you seen the Linebacker I in Recognition Guide Vol. 6? 20 machine guns (with two arrays of 6 machine guns each) and only a ton and a half of ammo.
Ghaz wrote: Have you seen the Linebacker I in Recognition Guide Vol. 6? 20 machine guns (with two arrays of 6 machine guns each) and only a ton and a half of ammo.
Nope, haven't really gotten into the recognition guides.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And when you're a Savannah Master, speed is about all you've got.
Well, I'd swear you also theoretically had an extremely destructive charge move, although I recall that depending on exactly which version of the charge rules you're using.
Bob Lorgar wrote: Well, I'd swear you also theoretically had an extremely destructive charge move, although I recall that depending on exactly which version of the charge rules you're using.
That's actually what I'm referring to.
I think equal BV Atlas vs Savannah Masters is a win for the tiny little vehicles as enough of them going kamikaze will bring the big Assault 'Mech down in now time.
Nurglitch wrote: That medium laser has three times the range, 150% more damage, and 66% of the weight of a machine gun with a ton of ammo. It's a tad... ridiculous?
My brother and a friend, who played Battletech religiously often told me that the medium laser was the best weapon in the entire game.
Personally, I prefer the PPC, despite the minimum range.
you're brother's "right" in that the medium laser is on a tonnage to damage heat etc ratio the most efficant weapon. but that doesn't mean the medium laser is the only weapon you should have on a chassis (otherwise the Black Hawk'd be the best mech in the game)
proably one of the more optimized designs out there is the warlord, 85 tons twin heavy PPCs, and 6 medium lasers. and the heat sinks to use them
But the Black Hawk doesn't have medium lasers. It has Clan ER Medium Lasers, and they are an entirely different beast. The +2 heat per gun makes a big difference. They're also essentially pocket Large Lasers.
Closest thing I can think of with actual medium lasers is the Komodo.
Honestly, its not DHS that kills any short ranged weapon that isn't a medium laser--its free engine heat sinks (though DHS don't help there either). MLs don't actually need sinks for most mechs until you've mounted three, and as they're often secondary weapons behind something hotter like a large laser or PPC, theres a decent chance you're packing more sinks for those anyhow. Three MLs kinda outperform an SRM-4 in both damage races and crit hunting unless you've got very hot dice for the tonnage if heat is handled, and those free sinks means it very often is. Really its what kills the AC5 and 10 as well--you kinda have to get up to heavies before you're likely to cram on more than one big gun like that, and even then it helps bias things towards energy guns.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But the Black Hawk doesn't have medium lasers. It has Clan ER Medium Lasers, and they are an entirely different beast. The +2 heat per gun makes a big difference. They're also essentially pocket Large Lasers.
Closest thing I can think of with actual medium lasers is the Komodo.
I was refering to the Black hawk (KU) not the Nova. 6 medium lasers 4 MPLs (ok now THOSE are absolutely unoptimized) and 2 SLs.
I'm unsure what KU means, but as far as I know, the Black Hawk IS the Nova, as it is its IS name. And as it is the first it had, for many it's its name, period.
Albertorius wrote: I'm unsure what KU means, but as far as I know, the Black Hawk IS the Nova, as it is its IS name. And as it is the first it had, for many it's its name, period.
Presumably KU means Kurita.
But yes. The Black Hawk and the Nova are the IS and Clan names for the same mech.
)
, I’ve spent ten seconds of thousands on 
You do know that the Kickstarter isn't just Clan 'mechs?
