Manchu wrote:
I really shudder at the idea of chits. No statement has put me off of BT as much as what you just said.

Don't tell Scott that! Him, Ilias, and Kevin all love Squad Leader, haha

Seriously though, that's one of the many reasons why I love Battletech Alpha-strike (Quick-strike/Battleforce), as it's a miniatures game with abbreviated stat-tracking that allows you to play very large games in a short amount of time.

I know, Scott was aghast when I told him I'd never even heard of ASL. The reason for that is chits. When I see chits, my interest falls right off. (I have a similar feeling about board games that use victory points.) Anyway, that really explains why I have not been able to get into the huge pile of Catalyst BT books I inexplicably bought a year or so ago. But I am correspondingly more excited about Alpha Strike.

BT is something that I want to like so badly. Looks like Alpha Strike could make it happen. In the meantime, we should use StratOps like you suggested.

 Eilif wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:


When Catalyst took over the reigns, I had high hopes. I even knew one of the play testers and got to play what I feel was the best set of mech rules ever. When the actual game came out, he was pissed that they basically stuck with the old rules, and bastardized the play test rules into the quick start stuff. I have no doubt that the new Alpha Strike rules are those play test rules from back in 2006. No hex maps. No bubble sheets. No 10,000 little rules to remember. It's a completely different game. Plays fast and smooth and still has the Battletech flavor.

I may just get back into the game using those Alpha Strike rules.

Can't argue about the complexity, but I do know that for many BT fans, the fact that the rules have changed little over the past 25 years is one of the things that they really appreciate about the system. It means that except for certain rulebooks, nearly every BT supplement, ever produced can still be used in the game. Your sourcebooks never get nerfed or made obsolete. In fact, the "Introductory Rules" (used to be called level 1) have changed so little that you can probably use the same box set rulebooks from the 90's with little/no change.

As for the Alpha Strike rules, I can't say for sure that none of those play test rules will be incorporated, but I wouldn't count on it. It's already been made fairly clear that Alpha Strike is just a new layout (much needed), standalone vehicle for the Quick-Strike rules (which are a mod of Battleforce), possibly with a few tweaks. If you want a feel for what the rules will be like, download the Battleforce intro rules and Quick-Strike sample cards here:
http://bg.battletech.com/?page_id=27

The problem with the same rules from 25 years ago is this: Who still plays Battletech? The same people from 25 years ago. You don't see any new blood in the game. The future of any game is its player base, and until you get those teenagers/twenty somethings to play the game, then it'll be the same people at 30 years, then 35... and by then, no one will be playing or it'll be such a niche game that people will never heard of it. Today's gamers want simple, uncomplicated. They are coming from instant gratification in the form of TV, Video Games, M:tG... they want to play! And they want to play fast games, not stand around calculating modifiers and filling in bubbles. The suggestion above about a phone app... that's one step away from a video game. Take a noob player to Battletech, and let them play any of the various video games of Battletech. Then show them how to play the table top version. I guarantee you will get comments of "this game is hard", "why are there so many rules/modifiers?", "why is this game so slow???" and "these models look nothing like the video game...". If you do the reverse, show them the table top game, then play the video game, you'll get comments like "The table top is nothing like the Video Game. Where is all the action?".

In order for Catalyst games to capitalize on this Renaissance of Mech Warfare, they have to adapt the the realities of todays' Gamer. Fast paced, easy rules. Fantastic looking miniatures, lots of color, none of this B&W Technical Readout crap with wire drawings. Hex sheets have to go. No other game on the market right now uses a grid movement system. One on One mech battles are highly unrealistic. All the fluff in the game describes Lances/Stars and armies fighting it out on a battlefield. Unless you're playing old, old fluff, where it was one mech and a bunch of infantry/tanks. FoW with Mechs is the way I have described it. Yes, there is the Solarious Arena, and the Clan Trails. If that's the case, then make a separate Arena/Gladiator Combat System. Heck, use the current rules for it, and let people decide which system to play. I bet people will want to play larger games with lots of units rather then one on one combat.

I also don't agree that the Alpha Strike rules will just be a blending of the traditional rules and Battleforce. I haven't seen where Catalyst has said Alpha Strike is just a new layout/clean up of the game sheet.

IMHO, all Catalyst Games has done is pander to the old school fan boys of Battletech and done little/nothing to get new people into the game. If you only make 200 box sets and sell them all, does that make it "Wildly successful?" My point here- if you only do very limited print runs, then it will make it look like the game is good, everyone is buying it and it's selling out. The reality is, a noob to Battletech buys the game, tries to play it with his buddies who have no idea how to play it, don't like it, and then shelve it. In those places where there is a local who knows how to play (usually a 'Long Beard' ), they'll stick with it for a little bit longer, but they'll always look over and see the Warmachine, Warhammer, and M:tG players set up, play 2-3 games, heck, maybe even a tournament, finish, pack up, leave and they'll still be slugging it out with their first game that day. Not fun.

Even the tournaments ran at major conventions by Catalyst have highly modified rules, very limited mech/map selection, and draconian time limits (What do you mean, he won? All he fired was a MG and took 1 point of armor off me...).

Please don't take this as an attack on Battletech/Catalyst games! There is HUGE potential here to create a fantastic game! Only Warhammer 40K has parity with the fluff of Battletech, and if Catalyst can approach the same quality of models as GW, they could have a runaway hit! If they do nothing, then Battletech will still be the same game of 25 years ago, with the same players playing it. If the players are OK with that, and if Catalyst Games are OK with it, then who am I to argue against it?

You'd be hard pressed to find a more dedicated fan base then Battletech fans. After all, they took up Battletech when FASA folded, and they rescued Iron Wind Miniatures. So the passion is there, I just hope they embrace the idea of making a new game and getting new blood into it.

I'll chime in as one of those people who love Battletech, but doesn't have the patient - or disposable time - to throw at a game anymore. I find that many players of a more nostalgic bent confuse complexity for depth, when really the two are at best correlative. You can have nuanced gameplay with simple mechanics, just like you can have simple gameplay with complicated mechanics. I find that wargames anymore need to think carefully about the 'idiom' of what they are trying to accomplish and make sure their rules are simple enough to convey that thought without losing whatever level of grit they wish to keep.

 Tamwulf wrote:


I also don't agree that the Alpha Strike rules will just be a blending of the traditional rules and Battleforce. I haven't seen where Catalyst has said Alpha Strike is just a new layout/clean up of the game sheet....

...IMHO, all Catalyst Games has done is pander to the old school fan boys of Battletech and done little/nothing to get new people into the game. If you only make 200 box sets and sell them all, does that make it "Wildly successful?"...

As for Alpha strike rules, I didn't say its a blending of the traditional rules. Rather, as the press release suggests, it's a stand-alone book version of "Quick Strike".
"Quick Strike" is "Battleforce" (not to be confused with "Battletech") taken to the tabletop and units represent units rather than squads (In battleforce each unit is a lance/platoon etc). The two games are so similar that they use the same stat cards and the designers have already stated that the cards will stay the same.

As for the boxed set and "wildly succesfull" I have no national numbers, but my FLGS (which normally doesn't stock more than a small battletech selection) had two very tall stacks of BT boxed sets and they all sold out. It surprised me as I didn't think there were that many BT fans around. I don't know (in fact I kind of doubt it) those buyers actually played BT much after getting the boxed set, but from all accounts, the last two versions of the BT boxed set were good sellers.

 Tamwulf wrote:


...". If you do the reverse, show them the table top game, then play the video game, you'll get comments like "The table top is nothing like the Video Game. Where is all the action?".

I agree with most of what you have said, but this is patently false. I have introduced many people to classic battletech, and those people were drawn in by the amount of carnage that one can accomplish while still having a fast flowing game. Battletech is very visual, those players you speak of craving action, would probably find the board game very similar to the video game, shooting each others arms and legs off and creating very detailed damage.

 Tamwulf wrote:

In order for Catalyst games to capitalize on this Renaissance of Mech Warfare, they have to adapt the the realities of todays' Gamer. Fast paced, easy rules. Fantastic looking miniatures, lots of color, none of this B&W Technical Readout crap with wire drawings. Hex sheets have to go. No other game on the market right now uses a grid movement system. One on One mech battles are highly unrealistic. All the fluff in the game describes Lances/Stars and armies fighting it out on a battlefield. Unless you're playing old, old fluff, where it was one mech and a bunch of infantry/tanks. FoW with Mechs is the way I have described it. Yes, there is the Solarious Arena, and the Clan Trails. If that's the case, then make a separate Arena/Gladiator Combat System. Heck, use the current rules for it, and let people decide which system to play. I bet people will want to play larger games with lots of units rather then one on one combat.

Hex sheets? That's the commodity that makes the current system playable. I often play lance on lance games in 2 hours or less. I don't see a problem with this. How long can a tournament size game of 40k last? Battletech doesn't need to be exactly the same as every other game, what it does need is a single entry book with all the rules for the most common units, rather than spreading that out over 4.

GBL wrote:
Battletech doesn't need to be exactly the same as every other game, what it does need is a single entry book with all the rules for the most common units, rather than spreading that out over 4.

The rules in the starterbox don't cover everything you'll find in "tournament level" play, but to be fair the "Total Warfare" book does and even has the standard unit construction rules for mechs.

The Techmanual has advanced construction rules and rules for building anything else, but most folks probably won't need it.

As for a list of common units, that's another thing entirely. Except for the stats that come with the intro set, you do have to buy a TRO for whatever era you are fighting.


Still, a new player (or any player for that matter) can still have alot of fun running mech v mech actions in the pre-3050 universe using only what comes in the starter. It even has some rules for limited mech customization. There's even additonal starterbooks and TRO 3037 that you can use without buying the Total Warfare hardback rulebook.

Beyond that you have to get TW, but that's why they call it an "Introductory box".

I guess I'm weird. I play BTech because I love the ultra-insane detail level. I like the fact that everything takes forever.

 judgedoug wrote:

efarrer wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:


That is the reason I believe Catalyst should relaunch Battletech using Alpha-Strike as the core rules and relegating the Classic Battletech rules to advanced, optional rules. Alpha-Strike with redesigned miniatures based on Alex Iglesias' artwork launched as the core game would revitalize Catalyst Games and the Battletech brand. I have no doubt it my mind that it would get it played in every game store and sell incredibly well, especially as a tie-in with Mechwarrior Online.

Or more likely, it would suffer the same fate as the other games that were re-released with the dumbed down rules...

see Confrontation for a wonderful example.

Obviously Catalyst should continue on the path that has taken Battletech from one of the biggest miniatures games in the world, with it's own cartoon and massive merchandising, to the incredibly unpopular game that it is today, with only a handful of really old gamers who fondly remember "the good ol' days of Battletech, before the clans" taking up a table at a convention to get their one game in for the year.

It's rather interesting that this is the attitude that I encounter on the forums such as the official Battletech forums and Lords of the Battlefield. There's a core group of Battletech gamers who would absolutely love it if no one else ever played the game. It's unfortunately a very cancerous attitude that should really be excised. Battletech will never be as great as it once was without a total redesign and rebranding of the system to make it marketable again. As it stands, it's an obtuse, clunky system with terrible miniatures.

I really, really hope Alpha-strike takes off, because it is a superior ruleset that could easily compete in the market today. There is no comparable ruleset with wide distribution that allows you to play huge, tactically rewarding battles between giant robots in a short timespan. The rules are intuitive and easy to pick up compared to almost every other popular system on the market, and orders of magnitude more manageable than Classic Battletech. But I know it won't be a success, as every Battletech release sells less than the previous one.

I would love for a re-vamp of Battletech as well, but personally I don't think that will happen until the crew at Catalyst lose the license. There has just been too much mismanagement of the old FASA licenses under their watch for me to have faith in them successfully steering a new edition of the game towards a larger audience.

If we could move away from Battletech being viewed as just a "beer and pretzels" board game with optional miniatures and have it turned into a full blown miniature game I would be a very happy camper. Of course that would require a revamping of the game mechanics and streamlining the combat and damage systems. But, as judgedoug states, that isn't going to happen. The game developers have really painted themselves into a corner by making Battletech so cheap to play. You don't need minis, you don't need any books other than the core rule book and a single technical readout (a type of unit stat book) to play near endless games. That is awesome from a poor player's perspective but is absolutely ass if you want to make money as a company. And so there is a huge community of players who are content to play with their dusty old editions of the game because they either lack the interest or the ability to invest in building up the game by spending money.

And then there is the problem with the miniatures. I really like Iron Wind Metals. They have been incredible in terms of their commitment to bringing back the old Ral Partha minis, and pushing the Battletech line forward, but their sculpts are really hit and miss (mostly miss these days) and they are tasked with an almost insurmountable challenge when it comes to making the Battletech miniature line a sales success. How they haven't scrapped the entire line is beyond me, because with the glacial release schedule from Catalyst, the gaps in the main product line like intro box sets, map sets, ect., and the difficulty in getting stores to even carry any Battletech products, I am amazed that Iron Wind Metals make any sales of Battletech miniatures in the first place. Iron Wind gets little support from Catalyst and has to contend with the deeply rooted notion among the player base that miniatures are an unnecessary expense.

Here is some food for thought: Ever see any professional quality paint jobs on Battletech miniatures? If you think of Camospecs Online, then you likely know that all of the content on that site is fan driven because IWM and Catalyst can't afford to properly pay in house painters. Are there any other game systems with the history and pedigree of Battletech currently on the market that share that same badge of shame? Is there any major game system that relies on its fans to paint the company's showcase models? I cannot think of another company which makes Battletech's situation all the more sad.

Honestly, the game has been cursed since FASA closed shop and the license hopped from Wizkids/Fanpro to Topps/Catalyst. I still meet people who think the game died with FASA, and when you convince them that it is "alive" (I am using that term loosely) they can't find product on game shelves because Catalyst hasn't reprinted core products crucial to getting the game in the hands of new players.

The license needs to be given over to a new company with new blood and new ideas. Preferably one without Catalysts' sense of financial mismanagement so that this game can properly grow. Until that happens the game will continue to flounder and exist in a state of perpetual mediocrity.

Give it to FFG.

(/bias)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Give it to FFG.

(/bias)

That would work for me. I want some hard-backed House books with slick full-color interiors.

Can someone briefly explain what the Alpha Strike rules are, as well as Quick Strike? I know there are here as a PDF, are they just essentially quick start rules vs advanced rules?

 Ouze wrote:
Can someone briefly explain what the Alpha Strike rules are, as well as Quick Strike? I know there are here as a PDF, are they just essentially quick start rules vs advanced rules?

The Quick Strike rules are a paired down version of the basic rules set. They take away things like heat and abstract movement and damage resolution. It is literally a "quick" way to either introduce someone to the feel of Battletech or get a fast game in on a lunch break.

Alpha Strike will likely be similar.

I'm in agreement with HBMC on the level of detail. If I want an army-level game, then I'll play 40k. I love Battletech as a lance-level game - particularly for the ridiculous level of detail.

Streamlining it just makes me go, 'meh'.

And REALLY? Those models? Seriously? When you have the new Robotech RPG models coming out that look beautiful and you have Paulson coming out with mechs of his own design that look fantastic, there is no excuse for crappy looking models in this day and age.

 Death By Monkeys wrote:
I'm in agreement with HBMC on the level of detail. If I want an army-level game, then I'll play 40k. I love Battletech as a lance-level game - particularly for the ridiculous level of detail.

Streamlining it just makes me go, 'meh'.

But are you as a presumably long time player really the the intended target market for an INTRO set's rules? It seems like long term players are more interested in protecting the sanctity of the classic ruleset at the expense of actually growing the playerbase. If you buy the intro set, it'll likely be for the same reasons that HBMC does... to get some new minis. The actual rules in the intro set won't change how you play if you've already got the classic rules. You can keep doing what you've likely been doing forover a decade while new players get in at the ground level; some will stay at the alpha rules level but others will move on the the classic ones.

Warboss is right there. I don't really care what rules come in the box. I'm in it for the better quality minis.

 warboss wrote:
But are you as a presumably long time player really the the intended target market for an INTRO set's rules? It seems like long term players are more interested in protecting the sanctity of the classic ruleset at the expense of actually growing the playerbase. If you buy the intro set, it'll likely be for the same reasons that HBMC does... to get some new minis. The actual rules in the intro set won't change how you play if you've already got the classic rules. You can keep doing what you've likely been doing forover a decade while new players get in at the ground level; some will stay at the alpha rules level but others will move on the the classic ones.

Fair point. If I recall, even the Battletech rules that I started out with in the 80's had basic and advanced rules. While my friends and I quickly adopted the advanced rules, we did play our first few games with the basic rules.

I'm in the HBMC/Death by Monkeys camp on this on but I don't see why both rule sets can't coexist peacefully. Few people play one game/rule system exclusively and so giving people options would open the game up to more people.

Incidentally, does anyone recall the rumors a few years ago that there would be an optional, more complex 40K rules set, which would bring back the modifiers, different movements, etc? I would still love to see that for small skirmish style games, sort of like space hulk.

Either way:
More options = good

That also goes for models. I have a lot of the old models and I'm happy with them, but they are showing their age and I could definitely see a revamp being highly desirable for new players. I really don't understand why they haven't tried lance sized plastic box sets.

 Unix wrote:

I really don't understand why they haven't tried lance sized plastic box sets.

My guess is it would step on IWM's toes since they hold the rights to produce Battletech miniatures. I am sure there is some clause that allows Catalyst to release plastic minis in the starter set but since IWM isn't tooled for plastic production the minis stay metal. This is all speculation on my part, so grain of salt and all that.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Unix wrote:

I really don't understand why they haven't tried lance sized plastic box sets.

My guess is it would step on IWM's toes since they hold the rights to produce Battletech miniatures. I am sure there is some clause that allows Catalyst to release plastic minis in the starter set but since IWM isn't tooled for plastic production the minis stay metal. This is all speculation on my part, so grain of salt and all that.

I figure you're right, although that's weird that Catalyst games could put out a cheaper, potentially better identical product and that doesn't infringe on IWM's toes. Personally I think just doesn't want to change their name to petroleumwind plastics.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Can someone briefly explain what the Alpha Strike rules are, as well as Quick Strike? I know there are here as a PDF, are they just essentially quick start rules vs advanced rules?

The Quick Strike rules are a paired down version of the basic rules set. They take away things like heat and abstract movement and damage resolution. It is literally a "quick" way to either introduce someone to the feel of Battletech or get a fast game in on a lunch break.

Alpha Strike will likely be similar.

Not quite. The problem is that many folks confuse "Quick Start" and "Quick Strike".

"Quick Start" is the pared down version of the basic ruleset. It is included in the introductory boxed set as a lead-in into the Battletech "Introductory" rules. However, "Quick Start" rules and record sheets are not compatible with "Battletech" Introductory rules or record sheets.

The Battletech "Introductory Rules" cover mech vs mech combat and technology in the pre 3050 era. They use the same record sheets and are compatible with the full Battletech Game as found in the main rulebook "Total Warfare".

"Quick Strike" (soon to be named "Alpha Strike") is something else entirely. It is a ruleset derived from the "Battleforce" game.
"Battleforce is a Tactical level ruleset played out on a hex map where each miniature or chit represents a formation (Lance, Platoon, etc). The mechanics are similar, but less complex than Battletech and it has it's own unique unit cards. It's made to have alot more units on the table than regular Battletech. Battleforce was formerly a stand-alone game, but now has been rolled into the "Strategic Operations" Book.

Quick Strike is a ruleset derrived from Battleforce. It uses most of the same rules, and the same unit cards. The main differences are:
-It's played on 3d terrain (though it can be played hexed)
-One miniature equals what it is, not a lance or platoon of them.

Not sure how you could be in it for the better minis, those look like crap.

The more I think about it there are ways they could revamp the game to make it more accessible and possibly more real. I've always found the damage system a little strange. I can shoot a machine gun at an M1 Abrams all day and nothing is going to happen to it, but in Battletech I will eventually take down even the biggest Mech with it. I'm good with the heat and movement modifiers, but the damage system does seam a bit odd.

 Eilif wrote:

GBL wrote:
Battletech doesn't need to be exactly the same as every other game, what it does need is a single entry book with all the rules for the most common units, rather than spreading that out over 4.

The rules in the starterbox don't cover everything you'll find in "tournament level" play, but to be fair the "Total Warfare" book does and even has the standard unit construction rules for mechs.

The Techmanual has advanced construction rules and rules for building anything else, but most folks probably won't need it.

As for a list of common units, that's another thing entirely. Except for the stats that come with the intro set, you do have to buy a TRO for whatever era you are fighting.


Still, a new player (or any player for that matter) can still have alot of fun running mech v mech actions in the pre-3050 universe using only what comes in the starter. It even has some rules for limited mech customization. There's even additonal starterbooks and TRO 3037 that you can use without buying the Total Warfare hardback rulebook.

Beyond that you have to get TW, but that's why they call it an "Introductory box".

Neither is any good for the most common use case as I outlined previously.

If you want to play a detailed campaign with mercenaries you need 4 expensive hardcover books, rather than 2 cheap(er) paperbacks as was the case back in the day of BMR:r

Total Warfare is good for, as the name suggest, Total Warfare, but it trades out important sections on construction and repair that BMR:r contained. In doing this, they cut their legs out from under them.

The book I suggested upthread, a combined Mech Combat/Repair/Rearm/Construct/Mercenary Management book. would be a better "Next Step" than Total Warfare, whose only purpose is an all in one rules compendium, with everything you never needed.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Give it to FFG.

(/bias)

That would work for me. I want some hard-backed House books with slick full-color interiors.

Don't forget errata PDF's which overwrite 50% of the core rulebook!

Seriously, what couple of games I've played Battletech, it does feel somewhat clunky, with plenty of modifiers which you just have to remember. I feel that sometimes Mechs feel just too hard to kill (though when you get close, damage starts ramping up pretty fast). I don't mind detail as such, but some of the damage mechanics just feel bizarre and unintuitive. Btw, my first encounter with BattleTech universe were the computer games.

OTOH, I don't agree that "quick & streamlined" is always "better". If I compare Descent edition 1 vs edition 2, then, despite how much quicker Ed.2 is, much easier to set up, less buggy, much faster to play...still, Edition 1 usually just feels like more fun.

It would be hard to put all the unit rules in one book. One of the key points is being able to play in different time periods and the mechs represented by each. I have never played in a group that plays post-3050, they flat out refuse and many groups are like this. One issue is the weapons get too powerful and the games dont last as long. It loses the ragtag feel of century old beat up mechs duking it out when one high tech guy with a Gause Rifle head shots an Atlas and moves on to the next target.

I love playing 12-12 games with a friend of mine. I guess we play fast - 3 hours is about average.

 Unix wrote:
I'm in the HBMC/Death by Monkeys camp on this on but I don't see why both rule sets can't coexist peacefully. Few people play one game/rule system exclusively and so giving people options would open the game up to more people.

As a long-term fan of Heavy Gear, I would offer warning here - a system that tries to be three things to five people inevitably does all three things poorly. Design choices will be made over time to emphasize one aspect over another, and generally that's hard to reconcile in a way that makes everybody happy.

I'm not saying it can't be done... but it is a pretty hard challenge.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Honestly, the game has been cursed since FASA closed shop and the license hopped from Wizkids/Fanpro to Topps/Catalyst. I still meet people who think the game died with FASA, and when you convince them that it is "alive" (I am using that term loosely) they can't find product on game shelves because Catalyst hasn't reprinted core products crucial to getting the game in the hands of new players.

The license needs to be given over to a new company with new blood and new ideas. Preferably one without Catalysts' sense of financial mismanagement so that this game can properly grow. Until that happens the game will continue to flounder and exist in a state of perpetual mediocrity.

Thanks for a fantastic reply/post. I am really glad there are others out there who feel like I do. Battletech is such an amazingly rich property - as previously stated, the lore and background are as deep and complex as Warhammer 40,000, but the game is nearly unapproachable to a new gamer.

As @Tamwolf said earlier, there's no new blood because the "video game generation" doesn't get instant gratification from the game... I can see how that is a viable theory, but the reverse is also true. I'm over 30 now, and I have limited free time. When I get together with my gaming group, I like to play as many satisfying games as possible. If a game doesn't play fast and well, and I don't get a feeling that my tactical choices mattered, it won't be played again, ever. Classic Battletech does not fit that mold. It takes a very long time to play, compared to other games; and the constant slugging and blowing bits off, damage by damage, with range and movement and heat and so on modifiers adds a level of complexity that can probably be emulated more elegantly - and then after all these modifier and stat tracking, a lucky Gauss rifle takes the head off your mech. Ya know what? Mechwarrior Online does this better, haha.

I understand there is still an audience for Classic Battletech, and if it's a profitable propety, Catalyst (or whomever in the future) should continue to support it with releases. But, here's the thing - instead of making Alpha Strike a supplement, it should be the _core game_. It should have the box set, containing newly designed miniatures; it should have new releases; it should be out there getting demo'ed and getting new players into the Battletech universe, with giant tournaments and making the property financially viable again. I firmly believe the Alpha Strike [quickstrike/battleforce] system, marketed properly, and supported with new miniatures, could put Battletech into the big three/four (40k, Warmachine, X-Wing, Battletech).

I've been a Battletech fan for some time and my friends and I don't mind expansive rules for games and quite enjoy dedicating a weekend day once in a while to gaming (Twilight Imperium anyone?).

That aside, I am STILL really excited for the idea of Alpha Strike. There are times I am in the mood to play BT but don't have the 5 hours to put into a company-sized game.

Very welcome indeed!

 Eilif wrote:

"Quick Strike" (soon to be named "Alpha Strike") is something else entirely. It is a ruleset derived from the "Battleforce" game.
"Battleforce is a Tactical level ruleset played out on a hex map where each miniature or chit represents a formation (Lance, Platoon, etc). The mechanics are similar, but less complex than Battletech and it has it's own unique unit cards. It's made to have alot more units on the table than regular Battletech. Battleforce was formerly a stand-alone game, but now has been rolled into the "Strategic Operations" Book.

Quick Strike is a ruleset derrived from Battleforce. It uses most of the same rules, and the same cards. The main differences are:
-It's played on 3d terrain (though it can be played hexed)
-One miniature equals what it is, not a lance or platoon of them.

This is correct, and why it makes for an excellent game. You can have dozens of mechs on the table, each represented by only a single stat card that lists it's capabilities, on a beautiful table covered with awesome urban or jungle or whatever terrain. It's more visually arresting and quicker to play than normal Battletech and the rules are quite simple and very elegant. They operate on the "simple core rules, with things adding special rules" tenant that makes it very easy to pick up and play, as a new player has to learn the rules for 5 minutes, and then the few special rules for the few special items his mechs have (such as autocannon damage not causing heat, etc)

 IceRaptor wrote:

 Unix wrote:
I'm in the HBMC/Death by Monkeys camp on this on but I don't see why both rule sets can't coexist peacefully. Few people play one game/rule system exclusively and so giving people options would open the game up to more people.

As a long-term fan of Heavy Gear, I would offer warning here - a system that tries to be three things to five people inevitably does all three things poorly. Design choices will be made over time to emphasize one aspect over another, and generally that's hard to reconcile in a way that makes everybody happy.

I'm not saying it can't be done... but it is a pretty hard challenge.

I disagree. I think that having distinct games under one theme is a fairly successful model. It's when you try to make one game to cover more than one scope of play that things get bogged down. It's why 40k Apocalypse games take all day, when games of that scope would better handled by a ruleset like Epic 40k.

BT does it right by offering a coherent universe, but separate games that -while having the ability to exist together in a wider campagin- each have their own rules.

In the Battletech Universe, you can already
-RPG with "A time of War"
-Lance V Lance with "Battletech"
-Platoon V Platoon with "Quick Strike", soon to be "Alpha Strike"
-Battallion v Battallion or larger with "Battleforce"
-Space Combat with "Aerotech"
-There's even overall rules for managing or running an interstellar campaign.

 Eilif wrote:

 IceRaptor wrote:

 Unix wrote:
I'm in the HBMC/Death by Monkeys camp on this on but I don't see why both rule sets can't coexist peacefully. Few people play one game/rule system exclusively and so giving people options would open the game up to more people.

As a long-term fan of Heavy Gear, I would offer warning here - a system that tries to be three things to five people inevitably does all three things poorly. Design choices will be made over time to emphasize one aspect over another, and generally that's hard to reconcile in a way that makes everybody happy.

I'm not saying it can't be done... but it is a pretty hard challenge.

I disagree. I think that having distinct games under one theme is a fairly successful model. It's when you try to make one game to cover more than one scope of play that things get bogged down. It's why 40k Apocalypse games take all day, when games of that scope would better handled by a ruleset like Epic 40k.

BT does it right by offering a coherent universe, but separate games that -while having the ability to exist together in a wider campagin- each have their own rules.

In the Battletech Universe, you can already
-RPG with "A time of War"
-Lance V Lance with "Battletech"
-Platoon V Platoon with "Quick Strike", soon to be "Alpha Strike"
-Battallion v Battallion or larger with "Battleforce"
-Space Combat with "Aerotech"
-There's even overall rules for managing or running an interstellar campaign.

I agree that multiple rule sets could work, but Ice Raptor might be right for the reason that the companies operating Battletech are dysfunctional in managing the game.

It's funny, I have an unopened 25th starter box that I found in a store for $50 a couple of weeks ago. As soon as I discovered this thread, I thought I better get it on Ebay now, but then I remembered that Catalyst has been talking about re-releasing the set for three years now, and even if they do this time I don't have a lot of faith in them actually making higher quality miniatures, and finally when they released the box set last time they sold out in a week so there's no guarantee that I would get the new one.

Battletech has a lot going for it, a well developed background, a video game pipeline that would introduce new players, and a relatively small buy in price. Unfortunately what it has going against it is the company in charge of developing it.

 Unix wrote:

I agree that multiple rule sets could work, but Ice Raptor might be right for the reason that the companies operating Battletech are dysfunctional in managing the game.

That was more the warning; each of those properties consumes some amount of developer time and energy. If your business can support all three - great! But it's hard to have the resources to do all three well, instead of simply jamming poorly implemented instances together and calling it done so you can sell 'a combined experience'.

It can - and has - been done. But it takes essentially 5 companies, not just one, IMO.

 IceRaptor wrote:

That was more the warning; each of those properties consumes some amount of developer time and energy. If your business can support all three - great! But it's hard to have the resources to do all three well, instead of simply jamming poorly implemented instances together and calling it done so you can sell 'a combined experience'.

It can - and has - been done. But it takes essentially 5 companies, not just one, IMO.

Seems to be working ok for Battletech. However, a big reason that the 5 systems work is that they've had almost 35 years to create them. Even though they have been repackaged in new books and tweaked here and there, all of those systems (except Quick/Alpha-Strike) are over 10 years old, and a couple are over 20. So you end up with continuity and systems that have had alot of playtesting and tweaking, but it also makes it hard to create "fresh" experiences, which is one of the biggest complaints that folks have about BT.

Unfortunately (or "fortunately" depending on your point of view) I'm not sure it is even possible to revamp BT games without upsetting that balance. Even AlphaStrike isn't really an exception as it's a game that already exists, just not one that is presently published in an easily accessible form.

 IceRaptor wrote:

 Unix wrote:
I'm in the HBMC/Death by Monkeys camp on this on but I don't see why both rule sets can't coexist peacefully. Few people play one game/rule system exclusively and so giving people options would open the game up to more people.

As a long-term fan of Heavy Gear, I would offer warning here - a system that tries to be three things to five people inevitably does all three things poorly. Design choices will be made over time to emphasize one aspect over another, and generally that's hard to reconcile in a way that makes everybody happy.

I'm not saying it can't be done... but it is a pretty hard challenge.

Actually, I have found Alpha/Quick Strike HELPS with this. Units that are utter garbage and never seen on a Battletech table are more useful in Alpha Strike. It was one of the things I enjoyed about running Quick Strike games, I could use a ton of "bad designs" that worked far better in QS than they ever could in Battletech.

 Mattlov wrote:
Actually, I have found Alpha/Quick Strike HELPS with this. Units that are utter garbage and never seen on a Battletech table are more useful in Alpha Strike. It was one of the things I enjoyed about running Quick Strike games, I could use a ton of "bad designs" that worked far better in QS than they ever could in Battletech.

That's good news. Alpha Strike is one of my 'must haves' from Gencon, so I'm hoping they have made it a game I can play with friends in a reasonable amount of time. Cheers!

 Unix wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

 IceRaptor wrote:

 Unix wrote:
I'm in the HBMC/Death by Monkeys camp on this on but I don't see why both rule sets can't coexist peacefully. Few people play one game/rule system exclusively and so giving people options would open the game up to more people.

As a long-term fan of Heavy Gear, I would offer warning here - a system that tries to be three things to five people inevitably does all three things poorly. Design choices will be made over time to emphasize one aspect over another, and generally that's hard to reconcile in a way that makes everybody happy.

I'm not saying it can't be done... but it is a pretty hard challenge.

I disagree. I think that having distinct games under one theme is a fairly successful model. It's when you try to make one game to cover more than one scope of play that things get bogged down. It's why 40k Apocalypse games take all day, when games of that scope would better handled by a ruleset like Epic 40k.

BT does it right by offering a coherent universe, but separate games that -while having the ability to exist together in a wider campagin- each have their own rules.

In the Battletech Universe, you can already
-RPG with "A time of War"
-Lance V Lance with "Battletech"
-Platoon V Platoon with "Quick Strike", soon to be "Alpha Strike"
-Battallion v Battallion or larger with "Battleforce"
-Space Combat with "Aerotech"
-There's even overall rules for managing or running an interstellar campaign.

I agree that multiple rule sets could work, but Ice Raptor might be right for the reason that the companies operating Battletech are dysfunctional in managing the game.

It's funny, I have an unopened 25th starter box that I found in a store for $50 a couple of weeks ago. As soon as I discovered this thread, I thought I better get it on Ebay now, but then I remembered that Catalyst has been talking about re-releasing the set for three years now, and even if they do this time I don't have a lot of faith in them actually making higher quality miniatures, and finally when they released the box set last time they sold out in a week so there's no guarantee that I would get the new one.

Battletech has a lot going for it, a well developed background, a video game pipeline that would introduce new players, and a relatively small buy in price. Unfortunately what it has going against it is the company in charge of developing it.

Well they say they are constantly underestimating demand for their product.

But this is also the company that used contractors wages to paint a house, and then had their accountant resign when they asked them to cover it up.

Heh. My brother worked on Alpha Strike (and many if the recent TROs). Interesting.

GBL wrote:

Well they say they are constantly underestimating demand for their product.

But this is also the company that used contractors wages to paint a house, and then had their accountant resign when they asked them to cover it up.

Evidence? Explanation?

 Eilif wrote:

GBL wrote:

Well they say they are constantly underestimating demand for their product.

But this is also the company that used contractors wages to paint a house, and then had their accountant resign when they asked them to cover it up.

Evidence? Explanation?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=catalyst+game+labs+embezzlement

GBL wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

GBL wrote:

Well they say they are constantly underestimating demand for their product.

But this is also the company that used contractors wages to paint a house, and then had their accountant resign when they asked them to cover it up.

Evidence? Explanation?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=catalyst+game+labs+embezzlement

Yeah, thanks for the google link.... real helpful...

If you're going go make overly-simplistic and potentially misleading blanket statements, the onus is on you to back them up. Not on us to go searching to see whether what you say is valid.

I recall something about Loren Coleman, and financial misdeeds from a few years back, but I don't think your single statement really explains the situation well.

 Eilif wrote:

GBL wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

GBL wrote:

Well they say they are constantly underestimating demand for their product.

But this is also the company that used contractors wages to paint a house, and then had their accountant resign when they asked them to cover it up.

Evidence? Explanation?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=catalyst+game+labs+embezzlement

Yeah, thanks for the google link.... real helpful...

If you're going go make overly-simplistic and potentially misleading blanket statements, the onus is on you to back them up. Not on us to go searching to see whether what you say is valid.

I recall something about Loren Coleman, and financial misdeeds from a few years back, but I don't think your single statement really explains the situation well.

I don't think I should have to cite sources when I mention something that has been on public record for years.

But here goes.

Catalyst found itself in serious financial trouble. $850,000 dollars went missing, flagged as contractors wages, actually went to Loren Coleman's house extension. Rather than let Loren go, they made him promise to pay it back eventually.

Catalyst found itself unable to pay its real contractors, it relied heavily on contract work for its Shadowrun game. Rather than let the beans spill, the simply released a product created by contractors, without paying those contractors.

Those contractors revoked catalysts right to print the material, and they had to revoke it from sale. Several partners of catalyst ended their contracts with them due to missed payments. It damaged Catalysts credibility permanently, and set back their release schedule for quite a while.

FrankTrollmans original whistleblowing and response:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50989

A good round up of the whole thing:

http://geek-related.com/2010/04/17/catalyst-games-defiant-criminals/

Edit: Randall's post on the subject: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=141308#141308

Some of you have already expressed your inability to be patient with Catalyst as we try and find solutions, and I completely understand your frustration. That frustration was mirrored by several Catalyst full-time employees who felt they simply could not continue with Catalyst after all that has occurred, including Jennifer Harding (Office Manager and Bookkeeper), Dave Stansel (Operation Manager) and Adam Jury (Head of Graphic Design), all of whom have formally left the company. We’re already moving to try to find appropriate people to take on their work and responsibilities. Though I wish their decisions might have been different—as they’re incredibly valuable to what Catalyst has been able to accomplish—I cannot fault them for the choices they’ve made. I’ve worked with them in various capacities for a long time and consider them good friends. I wish them well and hope we’ll have a chance to work together again some time in the future.

Thanks for that. I never did hear how things shook out post the discovery of Coleman's misdeeds, but it appears not much has been said since 2010. Was there ever any word as to if/whether the colemans were paying back the $ they stole?
Everything seems to have gone quiet since April 2010.

Catalyst are still selling Shadowrun products, so I don't really see what's come of this.

 Eilif wrote:
Thanks for that. I never did hear how things shook out post the discovery of Coleman's misdeeds, but it appears not much has been said since 2010. Was there ever any word as to if/whether the colemans were paying back the $ they stole?
Everything seems to have gone quiet since April 2010.

Things stopped being reported publicly by the end of 2010. As it stands, officially Loren is repaying Catalyst, but we have no indication that it ever happened. Against Trollmans predictions, catalyst did manage to retain the license for Battletech and Shadowrun. I think the biggest results were, massive delays on some books, terrible rewrites, books getting approved with zero editorial oversight (*cough* WAR! *cough*)

It's been a while since I bought any SR books so I can't comment about the quality in the last two or three years. I do appreciate this subject being brought up as I had completely forgotten about it in the years since. I'll likely wait till both this battletech intro box and the new upcoming shadowrun edition are in my hands before deciding whether to buy.

 warboss wrote:
It's been a while since I bought any SR books so I can't comment about the quality in the last two or three years. I do appreciate this subject being brought up as I had completely forgotten about it in the years since. I'll likely wait till both this battletech intro box and the new upcoming shadowrun edition are in my hands before deciding whether to buy.

SR gets better run than Battletech does. It simply does it quietly and no one notices. SR4 was one of the best RPGs I've ever played, and many of the supplements released are very good. I highly recommend it for anyone, and I look forward to 5th edition this year.

Interesting seeing this here before noticing it on the CBT forums.

I hope they sell the mechs separately.

What's the reaction at the CBT forums?

 Mattlov wrote:

 warboss wrote:
It's been a while since I bought any SR books so I can't comment about the quality in the last two or three years. I do appreciate this subject being brought up as I had completely forgotten about it in the years since. I'll likely wait till both this battletech intro box and the new upcoming shadowrun edition are in my hands before deciding whether to buy.

SR gets better run than Battletech does. It simply does it quietly and no one notices. SR4 was one of the best RPGs I've ever played, and many of the supplements released are very good. I highly recommend it for anyone, and I look forward to 5th edition this year.

The Jason Hardy era supplements are pretty poor. But the good ones are still in print.

What's the reaction at the CBT forums?

I don't even have to look to know that it is blind patriotism for the brand. I am assuming that no one in those threads are asking where Interstellar Ops is for instance.

Oh heck yeah! This is great news. I've been wanting to get back into BattleTech. And just a week ago I finally saw the intro box figs in person, not having gotten around to buying the set after all the huge delays from when it was originally supposed to come out. And well, looking at the miniatures I have to say I was pretty much appalled. It was like looking at a bunch of "Army Men" - extremely thin and very undetailed. Doesn't help matters that WH40k has spoiled me as far as figure details go. While the CityTech figs back in the day seemed ok, now they're just crappy (yet still about a million times better than the intro box ones). The metal 'Mechs (I only have three right now) still are nowhere near GW quality, but good enough - just don't have enough of them, and of course they're pricey per model... but well, obviously one doesn't need all that many.

This newest reprint based on those pics should be worth it though. The Clan 'Mechs... Timber Wolf... meh, not really a fan despite everyone having such a hard-on for it in general. The quality of it appears fine though, just like the Hellbringer and Summoner of the previous box. Would've preferred to get the Summoner this time around personally, despite already having a metal one. The BattleMaster is definitely of interest to me, though!

Alpha Strike seems of great interest as well. CBT matches indeed take such a long time, even with a limited number of 'Mechs. From what I gather it won't use hexes either, which would be nice - hexes are problematic especially considering lateral movement, as we all probably know.

Hm. I may have to pick this up. I sold my copy of the last introductory set with all the mechs I had to help fund my trip to Dublin . This new set, with hopefully improved quality mechs (the ones in the last set were TERRIBLE with the exceptions of the clan mechs) and a copy of Alpha Strike to replace the binder full of printed pages I have to play the current tabletop version of Battletech will be a great buy.

(Side note: Oh hey! Didn't know the little flag changed depending on the country I was posting from. Clever, that.)

Weird statement about shrinkage in the plastics. There should be virtually no shrinkage in plastics as there would be in metal. It makes me wonder About their mold building process.

Usually a 3-up is made and a pantograph is used to scale it down as the mold (steel or aluminum) is milled or in a more modern CnC machine is used to take the CAD directly off the file.

I hope that these look better than this last batch of plastics.

Actually depending on how the machines are set, things like mold temps & cooling time, plastic parts can shrink quite a bit. How do I know...ive been in injection molding for 3 years. Im writing this post sitting next to an Engel 330/100 injection molding press.

Personally, I'm more interested in Experimental Technical Readout: 1945

That was a pretty cool april fools

FYI Battletech Alpha Strike is available for PDF purchase and physical book preorder...

Preview 1 - http://bg.battletech.com/?p=5117
Preview 2 - http://bg.battletech.com/?p=5128

Purchase - http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=alpha+strike&x=0&y=0


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Example of unit card:

I just got the PDF and am giving it a look over. I play BT every month or so and we've been talking about switching to something a bit faster.

 judgedoug wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Example of unit card:

Thanks for posting that. I didn't realize it had gone up for pre-order. Those new stat cards are quite a visual upgrade (though functionally identical) to the old plain ones. Very Pretty!

The old ones (front and back shown here):

Not bad, but not as nice.

I have the pdf also and I like what I read. But not including the mechs is a pain in to Rear-Center-Toros! The book claims you only need dice, minis, and a table. But stats would've been nice. (Grumble)

-K

I thought the PDF included around 60 mechs?

I couldn't find the cards, but I did fine a list of stats for a variety of mechs starting on page 135 (using the page numbers printed on the page if anyone as the physical copy).

For now the Master Unit List http://www.masterunitlist.info/ has the Battleforce original cards - just double the Movement for inches and ignore some of the special rules that don't apply... from what I understand the MUL is having a big update in time for the hardcover release that will add in all the cards for all the mechs for Alpha Strike. I think they're about 2/3 done right now.

EDIT: Ninja'd by judgedoug

So it turns out all the BattleForce QuickStrike stats will work fine with Alpha Strike, you just need to double their movement and turn it from hexes to inches.

You can go to the master unit list and just type what you are looking for into the search field. Find the unit you want and scroll down for the stats.

http://www.masterunitlist.info/

Alpha strike is a great setup. My buddy got whatever they referred to as their "beta", we tried it, and it was a solid, uncomplicated ruleset. BT players should be quite happy with what they're getting.

Here's a very thorough review of Alpha Srike from the author of the Goalsystem (Supersystem, Chaos in Carpathia, Delves, etc...) series of games.
http://www.playunplugged.com/2013/07/review-battletech-alpha-strike-pdf-version/

Also, anyone interested in either BT or Alpha Strike should check out Solaris Skunk Werks. I just found out about it from a guy on Facebook. It's a free mech designer program and if you download the master library files you'll have the stats for tons and tons of mechs and vehicles. It also generates the BattleForce stats talked about above if you want to use them for Alpha Strike (just double the move to make it into inches).

it is java based and executes as a jar file, so it should work on any platform.

http://www.solarisskunkwerks.com/

The master library files are found on the downloads page under reference sheets.

Thanks for the great reponses. I have looked on the Master Unit List and there are some mechs in the book, but not many. The original Battleforce 2 had stats for every mech in print at the time. Thus eliminating the need for buying other products like mech cards or looking up each and every mech you want to use. I'm glad for the game and am planning to use the huge pile of Robotech models I bought on the KS. Just need to figure out that MAC-II.

-K

I don't know if it was mentioned earlier, but check here:
http://www.pryderockindustries.com/dl_game_aids.php#BFC
For alot of Alpha Strike cards in a format/size that matches playing cards with pictures.

I just want to throw one thing out thereabout the stat cards that are currently available for Quick Strike, and using them for alpha strike. For mechs with large missile batteries or high damage AC's the damage isn't quite right as far as alpha strike is concerned. On the quick strike card for example, a King crab KGC 000 has a damage profile of S1/M1/L1 and the special ability of AC 2/2/0. For Alpha Strike, you need to add the AC damage into the basic damage stats thus giving it a damage output of S3/M3/L1. Same thing would apply to another mech if it had more than one special ability weapon in the notes.

Purely for example and I am just making these numbers up... say you had a mech with base damage S2/M2/L2 and the special abilities of AC 2/2/0 and LRM 1/2/2 on the quick strike card. You actual damage output in AS would be S5/M6/L4.

This is because the alpha strike system has moved the damage that the special ability weapons do into the main damage profile, BUT keeps a notation of where some of that damage comes from for things that might affect it like different weapon ammunition in the case of missiles and ACs or anti missile systems which can reduce missile damage.

Another things that does not carry over from the quick strike cards is the new Alpha strike ability of overheat long. As it stands right now in alpha strike, when you overheat it only effects the damage for the short and medium bands but not the long band. If a mech has the OVL special ability though it can apply the overheat bonus to the long band. So far the only mechs known to have OVL are the few printed in the AS book.


All in all though I really like this book. I have always had a love/hate relationship with battletech. I like the universe, but I can't stand the basic game. It is way more detailed than I want a game to be. It also really breaks down if you try to do anything larger than Lance/Star/Level II This gives me the type of system to do the types of battles I read about in all the fiction I read. I don't want to play random lance out on patrol duty... I want Tukayyid. I want Luthien clan invasion. I want the big fights that always seem to happen. Regular battletech is fine if you really need a small detailed fight but I want the larger engagements, and with this I can finally do it. To put my money where my mouth is on this I did buy the PDF when it hit on Monday and with get the book when it comes out. This is something I don't mind supporting. Now if they could just get away from Iron Wind Metals and get some better minis going at a more reasonable price.

I use EM4 plastics and Reaper's CAV stuff.

Does anyone know if the new Introductory Box Set will only have different miniatures or whether there will be any chance to the other components as well?

Fallen668 wrote:
Now if they could just get away from Iron Wind Metals and get some better minis going at a more reasonable price.

You are in the same place I am here. You need to check out the N-Scale customs, that are becoming a a bit of a localized phenomenon in battletech.

http://www.lordsofthebattlefield.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=39193

These guys make better, higher quality mechs than IWM have ever seen.

I am very intrigued by this.

Manchu wrote:Does anyone know if the new Introductory Box Set will only have different miniatures or whether there will be any chance to the other components as well?

The only "New" mechs in the box set will be the two bonus mechs of Battlemaster and Mad Cat. The rest of the Mechs are the same models, based on the same sculpts except that they have reportedly made new masters and are using a new company.

GBL wrote:

Fallen668 wrote:
Now if they could just get away from Iron Wind Metals and get some better minis going at a more reasonable price.

You are in the same place I am here. You need to check out the N-Scale customs, that are becoming a a bit of a localized phenomenon in battletech.

http://www.lordsofthebattlefield.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=39193

These guys make better, higher quality mechs than IWM have ever seen.

The customs are cool, but to be fair, N scale Mechs are twice as big as IWM makes. At that scale it's much easier to add alot of detail. The real surprise is that they cost less than twice as much!

I note also that that maker is making Battletech scale mechs as well, at about Battletech prices and they are beautiful. IWM should consider buying his designs. Or shutting him down.

 Ouze wrote:
I am very intrigued by this.

So am I.
I play "classic" Battletech but every once and a while we want a huge game, this may fit in nicely.

 Eilif wrote:

Manchu wrote:Does anyone know if the new Introductory Box Set will only have different miniatures or whether there will be any chance to the other components as well?

The only "New" mechs in the box set will be the two bonus mechs of Battlemaster and Mad Cat. The rest of the Mechs are the same models, based on the same sculpts except that they have reportedly made new masters and are using a new company.

Yep, I got that. My question is more about the books, mats, etc.

 Eilif wrote:
I note also that that maker is making Battletech scale mechs as well, at about Battletech prices and they are beautiful. IWM should consider buying his designs.

You do realize that Iron Wind Metals does not design the 'mechs? They simply turn the artwork provided by Catalyst into three dimensional miniatures.

 Manchu wrote:
Yep, I got that. My question is more about the books, mats, etc.

I'm pretty sure that everything else is the same.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
I note also that that maker is making Battletech scale mechs as well, at about Battletech prices and they are beautiful. IWM should consider buying his designs.

You do realize that Iron Wind Metals does not design the 'mechs? They simply turn the artwork provided by Catalyst into three dimensional miniatures.

I realize this. I was referring to his particular 3d designs. As far as I can tell IWM and he both appear to be working from the same 2d design, yet his execution looks better to me. Even more remarkable since he probably just has the picture in the TRO and whatever he might be able to find in other sourcebooks, and IWM probably gets more detailed drawings from Catalyst.

 Eilif wrote:

I realize this. I was referring to his particular 3d designs. As far as I can tell IWM and he both appear to be working from the same 2d design, yet his execution looks better to me. Even more remarkable since he probably just has the picture in the TRO and whatever he might be able to find in other sourcebooks, and IWM probably gets more detailed drawings from Catalyst.

Not in the least bit. They're using the 3d mech files in Mechwarrior Online (and Mechwarrior 4 for the Fafnir, Vulture, etc).

 judgedoug wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

Even more remarkable since he probably just has the picture in the TRO and whatever he might be able to find in other sourcebooks, and IWM probably gets more detailed drawings from Catalyst.

Not in the least bit. They're using the 3d mech files in Mechwarrior Online (and Mechwarrior 4 for the Fafnir, Vulture, etc).

Thanks for the explanation and setting me straight. That explains the differences in style! In that case I'm even more convinced that IWM should acquire some of those sculpts. As much as I love the classic designs (and I really do), the updated Mechwarrior online designs have a look that newer gamers would probably find more to their taste.

Of course an emphasis on the "Dark Age" designs would probably have roughly the same result as they also have an updated asthetic. I think IWM is slowly releasing more and more of the newer designs as they appear in TRO's.

I agree. I wish whatever licensing deals would get worked out so that IWM could produce the MWO designs. Can you imagine an Alpha Strike box set with plastic mechs of all the MWO mechs? It'd sell out in a heartbeat.

I was surprised when so many MWO 'Mechs looked better than the originals, considering the atrocity that was the MW4 'Mech designs. For example Hunchback. That's SWEET.

That's what happens when you hire a good designer (Alex Iglesias)

Seriously. I would buy every battlemech mini if they were modeled like the MWO designs.

I haven't played Battletech in a decade, at least, but cheap plastic minis and fast play rules would change that.

Is this new box set out yet, and what does it cost ?

Answered my own Question

$59.99 Not yet released

Adamsouza, the new box set and the fast play rules are different products (unfortunately).

The new box set contains the classic Battletech rules with a pile of miniatures, best for 4 mechs vs 4 mechs, or so.

Alpha Strike is a supplemental hardcover (or pdf) book with rules on how to play, best for 12-24 mechs vs 12-24 mechs per side.

On the plus side, Alpha Strike can be had for rather cheap via amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/BT-Alpha-Strike/dp/1936876760/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375977410&sr=8-1&keywords=alpha+strike

 Manchu wrote:
On the plus side, Alpha Strike can be had for rather cheap via amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/BT-Alpha-Strike/dp/1936876760/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375977410&sr=8-1&keywords=alpha+strike

Can't wait! We're playing the Saturday after it shows up in my grubby little hands.

Hopefully someone posts their thoughts on Alpha Strike. I was excited about the idea of a Battletech that went faster. Though I was hoping it they would have went a bit closer to Warmachine. Seems like the perfect game for that.

I 100% thoroughly enjoy Battleforce/Quickstrike, which is what Alpha Strike is based on.

KaryudoDS wrote:
Hopefully someone posts their thoughts on Alpha Strike. I was excited about the idea of a Battletech that went faster. Though I was hoping it they would have went a bit closer to Warmachine. Seems like the perfect game for that.

If you'd like a set of rules for sci-fi that accommodates mechs well and is similar to warmachine, you should check out Gruntz
http://www.gruntz.biz/
According to one review "The mechanic is 2d6 based and works the same way as Warmachine, roll 2d6+your models stat and compare the result with the opposing defensive stat Equal or higher gets you the hit/does some damage." Technically aimed at 15mm, but could be adapted to other scales.
Interesting note about Grunt and BT from the Gruntz author here:
http://gruntz15.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=disc&action=display&thread=485

The review of AS I linked to before is pretty thorough, but I also would like to see more.
http://www.playunplugged.com/2013/07/review-battletech-alpha-strike-pdf-version/
I'm eager to see some pictorial AAR's!

 judgedoug wrote:
Adamsouza, the new box set and the fast play rules are different products (unfortunately).

The new box set contains the classic Battletech rules with a pile of miniatures, best for 4 mechs vs 4 mechs, or so.

Alpha Strike is a supplemental hardcover (or pdf) book with rules on how to play, best for 12-24 mechs vs 12-24 mechs per side.

Thank you for pointing that out, but it's still fine by me.

I still get a pile of miniatures and rules for faster play. Just need to make 2 purchases to get it all.

I loved Battletech until I played the Mechwarrior Clix game. The Mechwarrior game was possibly too simplified, but I could get 4 games in a night, verses the 1 of CBT.

Just being able to play CBT in a faster manner, would be enough for me to be able to ressurrect a few old time players and convince them to fire up their mech hanger bays.

Alpha Strike retains most of the flavor of the Classic Battletech rules that Mechwarrior Clix lost. For example, comparing Alpha Strike to Battletech:

Mechs still have armor and internal structure points, but it's only one set for each armor and structure. Once armor is breached, damage is done to the structure.

When the structure takes damage, you can roll for criticals on a chart (which involve engine damage, ammo explosion, etc)

Mechs have a damage value at S, M, and L range. If they hit (based on their one skill value, 2d6 versus a to-hit#), they cause the damage to their target. The to-hit number starts at their skill value, plus 2 for medium, plus 4 for long, plus this and that for moving, etc. So a long range shot from a moving target to a moving target with cover is nigh impossible, but two assault mechs blasting each other at short range barely moving will be smashing each other to bits.

Some mechs have an overheat value (of 1, 2, or 3); this allows them to overheat their mech and icnrease their damage output by their overheat value, but it makes their mech hot - you mark their heat value on their card, and next turn they have another modifier to hit based on their overheat value. They spend a turn not shooting to cool off. If heat goes to more than 3, mech shuts down for a turn.

Some mechs have special stats, such that they might haveLRM's, so a portion of their damage at range can be shot at an enemy that is in LOS to a friendly but not to them. Or Autocannons, so a portion of their damage can be special autocannon munitions, etc. Some have CASE so an ammo explosioin critical won't auto destroy the mech, and so on.

Movement is all in inches and facings are based off the hex sides on the 'mech; you get bonuses for shooting a mech in the back.

Well, that's like half the rules right there. As you can see, more detailed than the Clix but wayyy easier and faster playing than normal Battletech.

All the thumbs up.

 judgedoug wrote:

Spoiler:

Alpha Strike retains most of the flavor of the Classic Battletech rules that Mechwarrior Clix lost. For example, comparing Alpha Strike to Battletech:

Mechs still have armor and internal structure points, but it's only one set for each armor and structure. Once armor is breached, damage is done to the structure.

When the structure takes damage, you can roll for criticals on a chart (which involve engine damage, ammo explosion, etc)

Mechs have a damage value at S, M, and L range. If they hit (based on their one skill value, 2d6 versus a to-hit#), they cause the damage to their target. The to-hit number starts at their skill value, plus 2 for medium, plus 4 for long, plus this and that for moving, etc. So a long range shot from a moving target to a moving target with cover is nigh impossible, but two assault mechs blasting each other at short range barely moving will be smashing each other to bits.

Some mechs have an overheat value (of 1, 2, or 3); this allows them to overheat their mech and icnrease their damage output by their overheat value, but it makes their mech hot - you mark their heat value on their card, and next turn they have another modifier to hit based on their overheat value. They spend a turn not shooting to cool off. If heat goes to more than 3, mech shuts down for a turn.

Some mechs have special stats, such that they might haveLRM's, so a portion of their damage at range can be shot at an enemy that is in LOS to a friendly but not to them. Or Autocannons, so a portion of their damage can be special autocannon munitions, etc. Some have CASE so an ammo explosioin critical won't auto destroy the mech, and so on.

Movement is all in inches and facings are based off the hex sides on the 'mech; you get bonuses for shooting a mech in the back.

I've got all my clix reabsed to 45mm hexes, so this makes me very happy.

Thanks for those rules explainations. Very helpfull.

Here's my initial review of Alpha Strike. Think I need to play it again to be sure, but it felt kinda bland to me.

http://minimodelgeek.blogspot.ca/2013/08/battletech-alpha-strike-review.html

Jbuckmaster wrote:
Here's my initial review of Alpha Strike. Think I need to play it again to be sure, but it felt kinda bland to me.

http://minimodelgeek.blogspot.ca/2013/08/battletech-alpha-strike-review.html

Great Review!
I hope I end up enjoying it more than you did, but it's great to see honest reviews from people with real experience with this genre of game.

I disagree heavily with the part about closing and forming a conga-line. If anything, all of my experience with the rules greatly reward mixed ranges (especially with spotting for LRM's, or Lights harassing Assaults). And our games have always had several nail-biting moments on whether a shot will finish off a mech or not. We also do alternating 'mechs for 12v12, and found it was pretty quick playing. Huge game in 2 hours.

We found the system really rewards tactically-minded players... our last game had 2 players on the Lyran side (very much acting like the Lyran Commonwealth), slowly marching their mechs in tight formations towards their opponents, who were playing FedSuns and moving through cover and spotting for LRM assists, and ambushing stragglers with light or jump capable mechs. The Lyrans were crushed.

We've also been playing scenario based missions. I want to next run a series of linked games for my group as a mercenary company versus me controlling the baddies in several scenarios.

I do hope you give the ruleset another try.

I have a feeling the conga-line would be related to our Forces and my limited models. I also prefer the battles in the main game where I'm forced to do crazy stuff because crits or similar have totally hosed my plans, so what I want from the game is likely not what other people want.

Hoping to give it another go sometime in the next Month. Still gotta play some DZC and get my Shadowrun game up and going.

Judgedoug and Jbuckmaster. I was curious to know how much terrain you used in your battles.

Even with small scale battles (we play Mech Attack and Panzer8 sci-fi in 10mm) we use alot of terrain, to the point where sometimes our boards can be a bit crowded. I've found that it really benefits both games.

With Mech Attack, which is a mech game that has alot of BT like elements in a very streamlined package (Jbuckmaster you might like it) I find that it can help cut down on the spirograph effect. With Panzer 8 sci-fi, a super-simple beer and pretzels game of massed combat, it really makes maneuvering a prime focus of the game rather than just shooting away at your opponent.

I try to cover the table in as much terrain as possible. I have several sets of the Epic 40k plastic buildings and I just bought about 50 1/300 resin buildings to add into the mix (for the undamaged look) and I'm probably going to pick up some more trees. I love lots of hills and cover since it's 1/300 ish; it doesn't make much sense to me if it's a barren playing field. We also pretty much play that if your mech is totally wide open is when there's no cover modifiers - so there were almost always be cover modifiers (one of Jbuckmaster's complaints about the scale differences). Only mechs hangin' out in the breeze will not get a cover bonus. I also like to vary up the skill a bit; making lance commanders have skill 3 and the company commander or an ace pilot with a skill 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But as an addendum, my plan for the campaign game will have the players starting as a merc unit with a pool of skill 4 people (perhaps a lance of 4 per player); as they suffer losses the mechs and pilots that survive get skill bumps and then by scenario 3 or so they'll have their actual pilot/mech that is the player's pilot/mech, hanging around skill 2 or 3. Then new npc's that they recruit will have varying skill levels, 3 to 5 - the better skilled, the more expensive to hire or retain. And then of course the contracts have to pay out to repair their mechs and such (good ol' Field Manual Mercenaries helps with that) I'm fairly excited to start running it as an every 3 weeks or so starting in about a month.

A campaign! I didn't even think about the fact that you could use some of the rules(not just the fluff) from CBT supplements for campaigning in Alpha Strike. What a great idea.

That's the kind of thing I'd love to get my group to do. I've got all the Mercenary handbooks and several dozen other sourcebooks so the material is there if I can wrangle up the interest.

Oh, I'm really excited but the prospect. It's something I've always wanted to do since I love the Battletech fiction but the CBT game rules proper have not lent themselves well to pick and and play games for a large gaming group that has varied interests. I've found the Alpha Strike rules are easy enough to learn that the players can be engaged in the roleplaying and campaign aspects without being bogged down in the minutiae.

Alpha Strike unit cards box set MSRP $15 at Gencon

The book that changes the rules from CBT doesn't have the cards for the changed models? I understand there are some cludgey work arounds posted last page but this seems to be a big oversight.

 warboss wrote:
The book that changes the rules from CBT doesn't have the cards for the changed models? I understand there are some cludgey work arounds posted last page but this seems to be a big oversight.

Big oversight? I think you mean $15 MSRP.

In all honestly though I'll probably pick a set of the cards up. $15 is pretty fair as long as they're nicely printed and either laminated or a standard size so I can slip 'em in sleeves.

 warboss wrote:
The book that changes the rules from CBT doesn't have the cards for the changed models? I understand there are some cludgey work arounds posted last page but this seems to be a big oversight.

Remember also that printable cards for most mechs are already free online in the Master Unit List.

From what I understand the printed rulebook has the stats in an appendix. The nice unit cards are all glossy laminated dry erase style cards for like 90 different mechs or something.

[sniffs out a Battletech thread and crawls out from the depths to post once again]

Another Introductory Box Set? I guess I might as well just hand Catalyst another $60 now, since I bought the other two. It's like Star Wars VHS/LD/DVD/BDs...I just can't resist each new edition of the same thing.

Anyways, I love CBT. Always have, always will.

As for the Alpha Strike rules "dumbing down" blah blah blah, the way I see it is this:
I will always have my old rules and my hex maps and my little cardboard cutouts with pictures of 'mechs that get slotted into those little black stand things. I can use the old rules where being in cover meant you got head-shotted 1 in 6 times or use the updated Total Warfare rules which fixed that. The Clix game, the Battleforce rules, and the Alpha Strike rules can never take those away from me. Lance on lance, 'mech on 'mech, Star League, Succession Wars, Clan Invasion, you name it, I can always play a good old game of CBT with my just as old gaming buddies.

So I'm hoping that these new rules will be good and will get more interest from the community, because the Battletech universe is awesome. Maybe I won't play the same rules as the new players do. But if the new rules increase the odds that I can discuss Free Worlds League politics or why Steiner scout 'mechs are so slow with new people, I'm all for it.

Regarding miniatures:
And while there have certainly been a lot of plastic/lead/pewter 'mechs painted to beautiful standards over the decades which I'm sure are awesome to play with, I don't really understand all the hate behind the cheap plastic ones from the previous two versions of the box set. Sure they were mostly crap, but you get two companies worth! And with very little effort, they became decent table top game pieces. They won't win any painting awards, but they do just fine, so I don't get the hate. It's not as if I cannot tell that one 'mech is a Trebuchet and the other is a Catapult here (nevermind that one 'mech is supposedly 10 tons heavier than the other, but hey, they were cheap!):


I will admit that the updated MWO design are very, very nice (gorgeous!), and it's a shame that new miniatures don't take advantage of them.

Nice use of Heroscape terrain

There are probably licensing issues between the videogame (which is licensed from Microsoft) and the tabletop game (licensed from Topps... I think). It would be lovely to get a 3039 or 3050 TRO update with MWO designs, but licensing that art is probably a headache unto itself.

I'm just happy Catalyst is doing some great design work on their new 'mechs (and a lot of their reseen and primitives look fan- -tastic. Hopefully as more modern sculpts for things like the primitive variants come out we will see the older sculpts phased out and the newer designs used as the base.

 adamsouza wrote:
Nice use of Heroscape terrain

Seconded. Kind of wishing I'd bought up some of the stuff before the LGS clearanced it off.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
There are probably licensing issues between the videogame (which is licensed from Microsoft) and the tabletop game (licensed from Topps... I think). It would be lovely to get a 3039 or 3050 TRO update with MWO designs, but licensing that art is probably a headache unto itself.

I'm just happy Catalyst is doing some great design work on their new 'mechs (and a lot of their reseen and primitives look fan- -tastic. Hopefully as more modern sculpts for things like the primitive variants come out we will see the older sculpts phased out and the newer designs used as the base.

It is new art commissioned for the videogame. It would be an odd license that eats up any new content that gets attached to it (Sort of like a MechWarrior GPL) So the license for the art, rests with the MWO devs and artist.

GBL wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:
There are probably licensing issues between the videogame (which is licensed from Microsoft) and the tabletop game (licensed from Topps... I think). It would be lovely to get a 3039 or 3050 TRO update with MWO designs, but licensing that art is probably a headache unto itself.

I'm just happy Catalyst is doing some great design work on their new 'mechs (and a lot of their reseen and primitives look fan- -tastic. Hopefully as more modern sculpts for things like the primitive variants come out we will see the older sculpts phased out and the newer designs used as the base.

It is new art commissioned for the videogame. It would be an odd license that eats up any new content that gets attached to it (Sort of like a MechWarrior GPL) So the license for the art, rests with the MWO devs and artist.

That was the same answer the CGL guys gave me on the Battletech forums when I asked about producing miniatures from the new MWO designs.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Nice use of Heroscape terrain

Seconded. Kind of wishing I'd bought up some of the stuff before the LGS clearanced it off.

Years ago, when I first bought Heroscape I did so with Battletech in mind. Once I got it we drifted away from battletech and just played Heroscape instead.

The master unit list website has gotten updated with like 4500 updated Alpha Strike card images.

http://www.masterunitlist.info/



I think I'll copy them into a word process, make them 3.5x2.5 and put them in card sleeves and use a dry or wet erase pen on them.

 frozenwastes wrote:


I think I'll copy them into a word process, make them 3.5x2.5 and put them in card sleeves and use a dry or wet erase pen on them.

Get them printed on 3.5x5 photos, glossy, and you won't need card sleeves. Dry erase works perfectly on true photographic paper. I use http://richmondcamera.photofinale.com (you need to install Silverlight) for 19 cent 3.5x5 and 4x6 prints.

Size matters. I can make them a deck of cards and have card holders already designed for them.

Making them pictures means I have to worry about other issues. It's also far more expensive to print on photo paper.

Just bought it. I was delaying the purchase to get the hardback, but a friend offered to print and bind it for me so I picked up the PDF.

Really looking forward to playing this with my club. We've got a bunch of rebased mechwarrior pieces that we use for 10mm gaming, so it should be a cinch to plug them into this ruleset. I'm sure they will also appreciate that most of their mechs and vehicles are already represented by BF cards!

 Eilif wrote:
Just bought it. I was delaying the purchase to get the hardback, but a friend offered to print and bind it for me so I picked up the PDF.

Really looking forward to playing this with my club. We've got a bunch of rebased mechwarrior pieces that we use for 10mm gaming, so it should be a cinch to plug them into this ruleset. I'm sure they will also appreciate that most of their mechs and vehicles are already represented by BF cards!

Take pics and post battle reports!

 judgedoug wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Just bought it. I was delaying the purchase to get the hardback, but a friend offered to print and bind it for me so I picked up the PDF.

Really looking forward to playing this with my club. We've got a bunch of rebased mechwarrior pieces that we use for 10mm gaming, so it should be a cinch to plug them into this ruleset. I'm sure they will also appreciate that most of their mechs and vehicles are already represented by BF cards!

Take pics and post battle reports!

You can count on it.

Most every game we play goes up on our blog (link in my sig), even if it's just a couple pics and brief overview. I won't be playing for a month or so as we're still in the midst of our summer Song of Blades and Heroes campaign, but I do plan on at least one battle report. My friend will be bringing me the printup of the rules this week, so I hope to have a pre-play review of the rules up sooner than that.

judgedoug wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:


I think I'll copy them into a word process, make them 3.5x2.5 and put them in card sleeves and use a dry or wet erase pen on them.

Get them printed on 3.5x5 photos, glossy, and you won't need card sleeves. Dry erase works perfectly on true photographic paper. I use http://richmondcamera.photofinale.com (you need to install Silverlight) for 19 cent 3.5x5 and 4x6 prints.

This is such a good idea.

There's also card maker software here:
http://btengineer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/alpha-strike-card-maker-update.html

So I can look at the Master Unit List, put the stats into the card maker and produce full colour images I can take to have printed as pictures anywhere that prints digital camera prints. Fantastic!

EDIT: It looks like the card maker can load directly from the MUL. Also, I found a local place that does 4x6 prints for $0.15 + tax. Now all I need to do is get someone with a digital camera to take pictures of my mechs so I can put them on the cards.

 frozenwastes wrote:

judgedoug wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:


I think I'll copy them into a word process, make them 3.5x2.5 and put them in card sleeves and use a dry or wet erase pen on them.

Get them printed on 3.5x5 photos, glossy, and you won't need card sleeves. Dry erase works perfectly on true photographic paper. I use http://richmondcamera.photofinale.com (you need to install Silverlight) for 19 cent 3.5x5 and 4x6 prints.

This is such a good idea.

There's also card maker software here:
http://btengineer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/alpha-strike-card-maker-update.html

So I can look at the Master Unit List, put the stats into the card maker and produce full colour images I can take to have printed as pictures anywhere that prints digital camera prints. Fantastic!

EDIT: It looks like the card maker can load directly from the MUL. Also, I found a local place that does 4x6 prints for $0.15 + tax. Now all I need to do is get someone with a digital camera to take pictures of my mechs so I can put them on the cards.

Wow, that looks excellent, thanks for the link!

ALSO: Make sure that the prints are on true photographic paper processed chemically (preferably with Ektacolor/RA4 developer), and NOT dye-sublimation. Dye-sub is lower quality and due to the heat process that affixes a thin layer of transparent film onto the paper, is not very durable. Most photo kiosks are dye-sub as it's basically a Windows/USB printer.

I was thinking of putting some transparent tape of adhesive clear vinyl over the armour and structure dots anyway. Though in the end, I might just fill a page with colour 3.5x2.5 images, get it printed locally and still put them in sleeves. We'll see.

If you do the 3.5x2.5, buy some Magic: The Gathering lands (could buy a hundred for probably around a dollar) and glue the printed images to the cards. It'll help.

I'll just slide the land in behind the print. No reason to glue it.

So I've played six games of Alpha Strike. Half were introductory games with 4 mechs vs 4 mechs. The other was more of a full game with a few lances per side.

My thoughts:

It is fast. The 4 vs 4 games took half an hour. The full size games less than two hours.

It feels like Battletech. It has the same interactive back and forth turn structure and the same attack roll with a target number.

It supports a fuller and more conventional approach to warfare. Units like vehicles and artillery work and work well without any real slow down.

If you're willing to familiarize yourself with the classic BT rules and the construction system and the conversion process to Alpha Strike, you can build pretty much anything for 6mm sci-fi. And that assumes that of the 4000+ unit cards on the Master Unit List, you can't find what you're looking for already. Programs like Solaris Skunkwerks can do the building simply and easily as well.

I have a bunch of 6mm sci-fi that I might pull out and try a more infantry and tank heavy game.

I like the abstract aerospace rules and the off board and on board artillery rules.

Thanks for that!
I've really been curious to hear from folks who have tried the game regarding complexity and playing time.

I've played 2 games so far. Rules are not very complex, but I think there is a big issue with balance between mechs. I had a my 19 pt atlas get owned by a 16 awesome.

This can be a simple fix by catalyst by allowing the community to review/balance the points system.

Overall fun game.

mrfantastical wrote:
I've played 2 games so far. Rules are not very complex, but I think there is a big issue with balance between mechs. I had a my 19 pt atlas get owned by a 16 awesome.

This can be a simple fix by catalyst by allowing the community to review/balance the points system.

Overall fun game.

Atlas is a brawler - most weapons are short range, best for infighting. 5/5/2 damage. Awesome has three primary weapons which are good at pretty much all range bands. 3/3/3 damage. The Atlas also has 2 more points of armor. So at long range the Awesome is better but would be destroyed quickly by an Atlas up close.

They really named a mech "Awesome"?? I anxiously await the Cowabunga mech.

 warboss wrote:
They really named a mech "Awesome"?? I anxiously await the Cowabunga mech.

yeah, like 30 years ago.

 judgedoug wrote:

 warboss wrote:
They really named a mech "Awesome"?? I anxiously await the Cowabunga mech.

yeah, like 30 years ago.

Well, the years have not reduced the corniness of this apparently '80s choice of names.

 warboss wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 warboss wrote:
They really named a mech "Awesome"?? I anxiously await the Cowabunga mech.

yeah, like 30 years ago.

Well, the years have not reduced the corniness of this apparently '80s choice of names.

so like the Ferret, Skink, Honest John, Super Sherman, Mae West, Wiesel... those are all real military vehicles.
even Macross has some ridiculous names like the Glamor Spider Bug and the Mom's Kitchen.

you could just refer to it as the AWS-8Q which is the "Awesome"'s model number.

 warboss wrote:

Well, the years have not reduced the corniness of this apparently '80s choice of names.

No no, just the timing of your joke, but rest assured that we have made it many times. To be fair, Battletech beyond maybe it's fiction wasn't terribly creative starting out. Half it's original mechs were lifted straight out of anime. Though I think naming mechs was done with a dart board and a keg due to volume.

 frozenwastes wrote:


It supports a fuller and more conventional approach to warfare. Units like vehicles and artillery work and work well without any real slow down.

I have a bunch of 6mm sci-fi that I might pull out and try a more infantry and tank heavy game.

I like the abstract aerospace rules and the off board and on board artillery rules.

These make me very happy, I have yet to use vehicles, infantry, artillery, etc in Quick-Strike/Battleforce. Very anxiously awaiting my hardcover Alpha Strike.

 judgedoug wrote:

mrfantastical wrote:
I've played 2 games so far. Rules are not very complex, but I think there is a big issue with balance between mechs. I had a my 19 pt atlas get owned by a 16 awesome.

This can be a simple fix by catalyst by allowing the community to review/balance the points system.

Overall fun game.

Atlas is a brawler - most weapons are short range, best for infighting. 5/5/2 damage. Awesome has three primary weapons which are good at pretty much all range bands. 3/3/3 damage. The Atlas also has 2 more points of armor. So at long range the Awesome is better but would be destroyed quickly by an Atlas up close.

Thanks didnt know the Atlas was meant for CC, no wonder I was out gunned.

mrfantastical wrote:

Thanks didnt know the Atlas was meant for CC, no wonder I was out gunned.

it also depends on the variant (different variants have slightly different loadouts), but yeah, the Atlas is a 100 ton monster, and a skilled pilot can put 5 pointsof hurt on any 'mech near him... usually enough to take down anyone in two salvos. While it's got a ton of armor it is a little vulnerable at long range so the classic tactic is to keep a light mech paired with your assault mech so when they get up close the light mech can dodge around assisting the assault mech by peppering enemy mechs with it's guns and also protecting the vulnerable rear of the assault. (or even spotting targets for the assault mech's indirect long range missile fire, if it has any)

Where are the conversion rules for Alpha Strike from Classic Battletech? Some of the stats seem off a bit.

-K

Korthu wrote:
Where are the conversion rules for Alpha Strike from Classic Battletech? Some of the stats seem off a bit.

-K

It's an incredibly complicated series of equations. I think someone has them posted somewhere on the official Battletech forums.

What is the actual problem? I know many modifications are made for certain things - such as any mechs with XL engines actually have less internal structure than those with Standard engines; damages at ranges are based on weapon damages divided by 10; things like that.

Stinger vs Locust; Stinger 1/1/0 while Locust 2/1/0. Same weapon load-out. The Stinger with 2 Med lasers has the same states exept its 1 point more expensive and has the energy weapon trait. I can eye ball changes but wanted to see how they came up with the stats themselves. Some of the old 3025 mech just don't feel right.

-K

Let's be honest about the points system:

It's just the Battletech BV2.0 points system divided by 100 and rounded appropriately. So that means you have the stuff statted out for one game, but the points system is based on how it performs in another game.

It's probably thought of as a good guide that will work most of the time, but it's very, very breakable. Just like in classic Battletech, plus now you're using it for a different game.

I would not recommend a 40k or Warmachine/Hordes approach to force building for either Battletech or Alpha Strike. If people go into it with the idea of making a broken force, they'll probably succeed. You have 4500+ units to choose from, then narrow them down to your era/technology base and then hunt for optimized choices.

You can break it if you want, but if you use it as a general guide, it should work. I built two 50 point demo lances and have played both and won and lost with both yesterday night. I gave each one a light, 2 mediums and a heavy and put a veteran pilot in the heavy. The end result was a very even matchup.

Now imagine I took that same 50 points and bought 20 2 point vehicles with indirect fire and 10 1 point fast spotting vehicles.





Things are going to breakdown unless you do some sort of force design beyond just "spend your points on whatever."

Korthu wrote:
Stinger vs Locust; Stinger 1/1/0 while Locust 2/1/0. Same weapon load-out. The Stinger with 2 Med lasers has the same states exept its 1 point more expensive and has the energy weapon trait. I can eye ball changes but wanted to see how they came up with the stats themselves. Some of the old 3025 mech just don't feel right.

-K

Damage is based on heat - and heat takes into account jumping iirc. So the Stinger will generate heat while the Locust won't, meaning the Locust does more damage.

Korthu wrote:
Stinger vs Locust; Stinger 1/1/0 while Locust 2/1/0. Same weapon load-out. The Stinger with 2 Med lasers has the same states exept its 1 point more expensive and has the energy weapon trait. I can eye ball changes but wanted to see how they came up with the stats themselves. Some of the old 3025 mech just don't feel right.

-K

I found a few different stingers and locust variants with different weapon loadouts, so I can't comment on the specifics as you didn't list the model numbers you are comparing (though they are pretty similar). Which two variants have the exact same weapon load out?

It's based on adding up possible weapon damages at different ranges and then some adjustments are made. Like if the mech doesn't have so many turns worth of ammo, it gets a damage downgrade. If it has heat issues, it can get a damage downgrade.

3025 mechs feel right on the table top, even if there are some stat discrepancies. The Stinger STG-3R is better than the STG-3G because it's just not worth it to pay an extra point for ENE on something that is likely to not have to worry about taking multiple critical hits (ENE means you have no on board ammo to explode on a crit).

Alpha Strike is also a different game than original battletech. It's simply not going to feel the same. Some designs that are total crap in one game are going to be great in the other. Other mechs will just stop making sense.

Korthu wrote:
Stinger vs Locust; Stinger 1/1/0 while Locust 2/1/0. Same weapon load-out. The Stinger with 2 Med lasers has the same states exept its 1 point more expensive and has the energy weapon trait. I can eye ball changes but wanted to see how they came up with the stats themselves. Some of the old 3025 mech just don't feel right.

-K

which variants? the base STG-3R and LCT-1V are both 4 points; their only difference is the locust has a 16" move and the stinger has a 12" jump. (not trying to be snarky, there's a billion variants)

 frozenwastes wrote:
Let's be honest about the points system:

It's just the Battletech BV2.0 points system divided by 100 and rounded appropriately. So that means you have the stuff statted out for one game, but the points system is based on how it performs in another game.

It's probably thought of as a good guide that will work most of the time, but it's very, very breakable. Just like in classic Battletech, plus now you're using it for a different game.

I would not recommend a 40k or Warmachine/Hordes approach to force building for either Battletech or Alpha Strike. If people go into it with the idea of making a broken force, they'll probably succeed. You have 4500+ units to choose from, then narrow them down to your era/technology base and then hunt for optimized choices.

You can break it if you want, but if you use it as a general guide, it should work. I built two 50 point demo lances and have played both and won and lost with both yesterday night. I gave each one a light, 2 mediums and a heavy and put a veteran pilot in the heavy. The end result was a very even matchup.

Now imagine I took that same 50 points and bought 20 2 point vehicles with indirect fire and 10 1 point fast spotting vehicles.

Good points. Battletech has always been a system that is easy to break. It's a system that really needs scenarios to be engaging for the long haul.

Put simply, Battetech or Alpha Strike are not good systems for those who can't get out of the 40k/WM headspace of crafting an army soley based on the abilities of the units and their cost-effectiveness points-wise. You have to have the willingness to talk to your opponent, decide on a scenario, work together to figure out what kind of forces would logically exist in such a battle and then play it out. Forces are usually based on fluff and what a given faction would have access to. Luckily BT has an encyclopedic amount of fluff detailing what units had access to what kinds of hardware. There's also dozens of scenario books with scenarios detailing "historical" battles and the units that were involved.

Basically it's best to let the fluff and scenario determine the units and then rely on generalship (rather than list building) to win the day. It also helps if you're willing to fight battles that are imbalanced knowing that sometimes you will loose. There's alot of those kind of battles in BT history.

40k/WM competetive style players can still engage in deathmatch or arena style games with tricked out mechs, but that's not really the focus of BT and AS.

Alpha Strike does have a bit of wonkiness in the point system.

Half of it is that it was already present in BV2 so things that are bad under BV2 aren't suddenly much better when divided by 100 and used in a new system. The rounding can simply make this more apparent because it is more granular. For an example of this, we have the Fafnir. The initial version, the -5 is 26 points for 10 armour, 8 structure and a 5/6/2 shooting profile with no OV.

It has a contemporary variant, the -5B. For 26 points you have 10 armour, 8 structure and a 5/6/4 shooting profile with no OV. It is better in every way for the same cost.

Why? Well, because the original HGR is pants and only gets worse with rounding. At close range, its individual shot raw-damage makes no real difference in AS. Because for the saved weight, the -5B can pack enough additional weapons to make up the difference in terms of raw damage. But because the -5B packs normal gauss rifles and an ER large laser, it is a much better sniper than the -5. Thus for no loss at close range firepower (especially in AS) it packs a lot of extra heat at long range.

This gets sillier once we can use the "fixed" version of the original model, -5X. For 26 points, you get the same armour and structure but with a 5/6/5 shooting spread. And this is mainly because the iHGR is a right beast that doesn't suffer from range bracket problems on a weapon that has all the drawbacks of a sniping weapon saddled to horrible damage drop-off. It is a sniper-range AC22.

There are likely many other examples of similar weirdness. And on the whole the difference between the -5B and -5X aren't so horrid. But it really outlines why the -5 is bad in CBT and why rounding for AS only makes its problems worse.

But that is fairly easy to spot and nicely controlled by making sure to set engagement eras (if you set a battle during the FedCom Civil War or slightly after, the -5X wont exist as a choice).

But Alpha Strike really breaks if you ever let players start designing custom units for it. This is bad enough in CBT, but AS can really see some nasty stuff built to take care of the new cases it creates.

But for all that the Alpha Strike tends to be fairly balanced so long as you use a relative mix of canon units. A few units will be a few points over, some will be a bit under. But across a whole company (reinforced) it should even out unless people take some of the few canon units that AS treats really well (haven't really looked for these yet, though I am amused that the Hellstar isn't quite the monster it is in CBT now that it doesn't threaten four potential 1-hit kills a turn). At the very least all things being equal, it is no less balanced than CBT and player skill will still play a larger role in most cases.

And of course, this is to say nothing of scenario-based play where you don't use a point system to balance things but do it via mission objectives and eyeballing the opposing forces (something CBT was always good at). Just run off and grab some background material (hopefully with a TO&E listed) and play out the scenarios. Because AS scales up really well, you can play some of the more iconic (and large) battles without having to put a weekend aside.

 warboss wrote:
They really named a mech "Awesome"?? I anxiously await the Cowabunga mech.

You've obviously never played a game with an Awesome. Naming it probably came from their first playtest experience. Awesomes are AWESOME (especially in 3025).

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Alpha Strike does have a bit of wonkiness in the point system.

Half of it is that it was already present in BV2 so things that are bad under BV2 aren't suddenly much better when divided by 100 and used in a new system.

So is a partial quickie solution to just instead keep the first decimal then?

 warboss wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Alpha Strike does have a bit of wonkiness in the point system.

Half of it is that it was already present in BV2 so things that are bad under BV2 aren't suddenly much better when divided by 100 and used in a new system.

So is a partial quickie solution to just instead keep the first decimal then?

Nah, I should have put that while it doesn't make it better, it really doesn't hinder at all either. BV2 is a high-sum system and often times one will be hard pressed to really understand what a >100 point difference will even mean on a unit. Since it is achieved by a byzantine series of calculations that are based on a complex set of assumptions (and many times they are not really accurate assumptions), you end up getting a lot of drift and error as you go through them. So units will have messy costs like 1732 or 2459. Rounding these or dividing them by 100 doesn't really change much, and in fact I actually kind of prefer it.

Keeping decimal places wont make the system any more accurate though. I mean, the three Fafnir variants will still basically be the same cost (with the -5B being the priciest, the -5 being the middle and the best one, the -5X being cheaper than the others; all by less than 50 points of course). The only major difference is that while using BV2 and its set of (already innacurate) assumptions, AS basically abstracts a lot of considerations out and takes the already innacurate BV cost of a mech, rounds it off and then applies a lot of game-layer changes that may vastly alter how well it operates.

In CBT you have a lot of interplay going on with things like the heat curve, high-damage weapons as opposed to low-damage multi-hit weapons and a bunch of other things. This tends to remove edge cases and makes some marginal or over-specialized designs a bit worse for wear when their edge cases no longer exist at the Alpha Strike layer.

So it is a two-fold thing. BV is already skewed and the changes in AS make a lot of the assumptions of BV a bit less true due to abstraction.

A true fix to AS's point system is not using BV. But honestly, as I said, it isn't a huge issue at the full game level unless someone is taking a lot of the (very rare) super-efficient canon units or making custom designs. Most of the canon designs are fairly middle of the road and taking a mix of them will mean a good game one either side.

Hell, you can probably get a fairly good game out of using random assignment tables for an era (a cool suggestion was to randomly roll for a certain number and then fill in the rest of the points with chosen units to normalize things a bit).

Either way, the point system is rough and ready enough to eyeball things within reason. With Battletech, the point system is better used as a guideline than the holy writ it is in other games. This does mean it gets better with experience but it definitely has a bit of a learning curve to it (one of the downsides that still plagues BTech).

Either way, I think Alpha Strike is definitely still a great little game. I just hope, down the line, it gets its own point system. At the very least it would be a lot easier to make than the BV system. Just apply it after simplifying stats and you have very few variables to work with.

I think the points system works fine if you stick to the small selection of mechs in the Alpha Strike books. And as they publish more era specific supplements, they too will probably have small selections that if you stick to, everything will be balanced.

The problem is that such an approach sucks if you want to field anything else or play in another era. And it's contradictory to their provision of 4500+ stat blocks for free on the Master Unit List.

The most obvious problem with BV2 converted to Alpha Strike points is that it's a points system made for another game entirely. Imagine, for example, if you took a 40k codex, divided the points by 100 and used that as a basis for Epic:Armeggon army lists.

From the actual games I've played so far, the points system sort of works as long as you approach the game game as something you are setting up together with your opponent and not as a "I build my army, you build yours and then we fight" like it's 40k or Warmachine or something.

Well, yeah, sticking to a given era probably works out pretty well no matter what. Maybe even using the Random Assignment Tables as a guide or "army list" of sorts.

But honestly, Battletech has always been more of a scenario-based game ala Rogue Trader and Stargrunt II to use another couple of 80's contemporaries. Point systems were seen as either optional or unneeded back then. And while BV was an improvement over tonnage and BV2 is an improvement of BV; you can still likely achieve the best balance by organizing a scenario based on historical TO&E's or by getting a GM/Ref to come up with something.

Battletech came from a time when scenario play was all the rage. That is why you originally only had rough balancers. They were more useful for someone design a scenario around a rough balance using both force size/composition as well as mission objectives.

But again, I'd honestly say that while Alpha Strike isn't super well balanced, it also isn't so bad that using the point system is unworkable. It works well enough for new players (who wont have the system mastery to know how to exploit it) and for veterans (who have the mastery to spot pitfalls and avoid them). It also helps that player skill matters quite a bit in Battletech so given two roughly equally costed forces, the better player will tend to win even if they have a handicap.

Either way, bottom line, don't let grognard talk of imbalance scare you off of Alpha Strike. It is a wonderful intro to Battletech and I can see it becoming a great new line of development. It's balance issues are really no worse than most other minis games that exist (and seriously, play any game long enough and even the smallest things in an otherwise balanced system will scream out at you... I have similar rants for Infinity, and that is a game that I actually rank as "good enough" in terms of balance).

The nice thing about AS is that so long as you have the Master Unit List open and thumb through a couple variants it is REALLY easy to tell when you shouldn't take a given variant. In cases where it isn't obvious then it is probably alright.

And of course, Alpha Strike has some nice effects on gameplay as well. Fast lights are an excellent choice for cheap harassers if you can stick them in cover whereas in CBT they tend to get swatted fairly easily unless they are very careful.

All in all, despite what I may sound like, Alpha Strike is probably my favourite new Battletech release in years and I can't wait to see more stuff for it. If it ever gets its own Tech/Tactical supplement with a new costing system and other goodies then I may well bow down to it as my favourite way of playing Battletech.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
All in all, despite what I may sound like, Alpha Strike is probably my favourite new Battletech release in years and I can't wait to see more stuff for it. If it ever gets its own Tech/Tactical supplement with a new costing system and other goodies then I may well bow down to it as my favourite way of playing Battletech.

Me too.

I've played it a handful of times already and the thought of going back to a 4 hour slog playing classic has become less appealing. They captured the feel of BT and it resolves a lot faster and allows for larger forces and better integration of aerospace and conventional military assets into a given scenario.

frozenwastes wrote:I think the points system works fine if you stick to the small selection of mechs in the Alpha Strike books. And as they publish more era specific supplements, they too will probably have small selections that if you stick to, everything will be balanced.

The problem is that such an approach sucks if you want to field anything else or play in another era. And it's contradictory to their provision of 4500+ stat blocks for free on the Master Unit List.

There are already many sourcebooks detailing the units avaialble in other eras. TRO's, Scenario Packs, Sourcbooks, etc. They're not going to be perfect for Alpha Strike, but stick with the base versions of the mechs from the respective eras and you should be fine.

Ronin_eX wrote:Well, yeah, sticking to a given era probably works out pretty well no matter what. Maybe even using the Random Assignment Tables as a guide or "army list" of sorts.

But honestly, Battletech has always been more of a scenario-based game ala Rogue Trader and Stargrunt II to use another couple of 80's contemporaries. Point systems were seen as either optional or unneeded back then. And while BV was an improvement over tonnage and BV2 is an improvement of BV; you can still likely achieve the best balance by organizing a scenario based on historical TO&E's or by getting a GM/Ref to come up with something.

Agreed. It just takes a bit more of a collaborative mindset. Even if the force lists in BT scenarios or sourcebooks arent' perfect for AS, they at least provide a neutral third party reference for what to use.

I think it just requires getting out the "perfectly fair and balanced" mindset (something that doesn't really exist in 40k anyway) and accepting that war is unbalanced, certain scenarios are going to have a slant, and it's the job of the general to make the most out what they have in a given situation. Raids against a superior foe, fighting retreats, holdouts against all odd's, assaults on heavily defended positions, etc. These can be the stuff of really exciting and engaging games. Historical players already get this, and if more sci-fi players to too, then that can only be a good thing.

 Ronin_eX wrote:


Battletech came from a time when scenario play was all the rage. That is why you originally only had rough balancers. They were more useful for someone design a scenario around a rough balance using both force size/composition as well as mission objectives.

I think that's actually one thing that bugged me that simply wasn't an issue with 40K and maybe it's gotten better but I remember looking through my 3rd Ed book, or the compendium maybe and not really finding direct guidance on how to just set up and play. Which I mean WH40K scenarios are often ambiguous as far as army sizes go thought the rulebook has some guidance on subject. While I remember the Compendium having BV's but not necessarily saying much about using them. Oddly enough that's one thing that got me to play MWA. They butchered some of the designs, and the plot, but the game itself was designed guided you into playing a game that could simply work competitively AND worked really well with scenarios (until WK got lazy and stopped making those).

Still think I'll have to check out AS though of course.

FYI there's an open playtest of the new points values calculations for the upcoming Alpha Strike companion.

http://bg.battletech.com/?p=5411

Thanks for that! Downloading it now.

The re-print of the introductory set is now (27th feb 2014) up for pre-order (which presumably means they're on the way)




http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=3296

you can also pick up 2 sets and get an extra set of minis (same as in the box) for free

http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=3297

If there are two people in the UK who are interested in getting their sets from battlecorps, I certainly wouldn't mind chipping in for the 'extra' set of minis. I would quite like to replace the ones I got from the previous introductory box set