Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I got the beginner boxed set not that long ago and I've been going through the rules, remembering how crunchy it was in the past! I've certainly been getting flashbacks to how much book keeping and modifying I had to do when I played the older starter (the one with the pile of cheapo mechs I had a hard time telling apart), it might be a bit too much for my lizard brain, even if G.A.T.O.R. is a thing now! 😅

I saw the set also mention Alpha Strike as being an easier(?) counterpart to the main game itself, is this true? I couldn't find anything in-depth on Alpha Strike on Sarna or the like, so veterans of the Inner Sphere, help an Urbie pilot out here.

They made "Alpha Strike" specifically to be much faster to run and easier to have a dozen robots per side in but still at broadly the same scale. It's not as granular, for example it doesn't matter wether any given mech has specifically a PPC or an AC but rather the game tracks the overall level of firepower the mech has at specific range bands. Another obvious difference is that Battletech is played on a hex grid while Alpha Strike is just played on a table, the normal Warhammer way.

Both use the same miniatures. All of the new model packs put out by Catalyst have info cards so they can be used for Alpha Strike as well. Lots of people who play Classic Battletech buy one or more of the Alpha Strike box just because it's got a lot of minis in it.

Some people mostly play CBT but use the Alpha Strike ruleset when their campaign features a large battle just because it can be run in less than multiple weekends.




I guess it's kind of like if you imagine that Games Workshop sold both 2nd edition 40K and something like the One Page Rules or other fan-made simplified rule set.

 BrookM wrote:
So, I got the beginner boxed set not that long ago and I've been going through the rules, remembering how crunchy it was in the past! I've certainly been getting flashbacks to how much book keeping and modifying I had to do when I played the older starter (the one with the pile of cheapo mechs I had a hard time telling apart), it might be a bit too much for my lizard brain, even if G.A.T.O.R. is a thing now! 😅

I saw the set also mention Alpha Strike as being an easier(?) counterpart to the main game itself, is this true? I couldn't find anything in-depth on Alpha Strike on Sarna or the like, so veterans of the Inner Sphere, help an Urbie pilot out here.

It's incredibly simple... too simple for my tastes personally despite my growing interest in lighter rules as I get older but it's obviously popular with tons of other players as an official alternative to CBT which swings completely in the opposite direction. I checked it out for a game and unfortunately it wasn't for me either just like CBT that I regularly revisit every 5-7 years to see if my tastes have changed. The big thing for me was that all your weapons are simplified and combined into a single attack/damage value at a particular range bracket and you no longer have individual or even groups of weapons which was a dealbreaker for me personally. It's the tabletop equivalent of keying all your weapons in old Mechwarrior to a single keyboard button and pressing it over and over. The game I played had a variety of mechs both sizes and eras but only used IIRC the original core Alpha book and I don't know if it's changed or been updated/expanded upon since though. The pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction from the massively crunchy CBT rules and I wish it were instead about halfway between where it currently is and where CBT has always been on the crunchy/abstracted scale. YMMV.

I have found that combat in Alpha Strike is much improved if you use the alternative damage rules. Instead of a Mech doing "4" damage at medium range, you roll 4D6 and each pair had to hit the target number. Different colors of dice for reach pair helps to roll them all at once.

It helps stop each attack feeling like an Alpha Strike (so to speak) where once successful attack roll can simply delete lighter weight units in one hit. It feels much more like several weapons systems being shot at once.

Sometimes I wonder that if people find Alpha Strike to be too simplistic, maybe they aren't using some of the rules that give it depth. You can give units various Special Pilot Abilities, units that have autocannons or LRM/SRM systems can have alternate ammo that functions differently, etc. When using combined arms you have to deal with vehicles being more fragile like in Classic Battletech, etc.

It's definitely more gamey and streamlined than the super-simulation of Classic, but man, have fun with playing a game of Classic where each side might be fielding something like 8 mechs, 4 tanks/hovercraft, a couple of helicopters, and also making flights overhead by an aerospace fighter or two, all taking a whole day to play a game. Alpha Strike does that in like, two hours.

There are some really good videos on Alpha Strike by Ash Barker of Guerilla gaming on Youtube, with good explanations, and good banter. Two of his videos directly deal with the contents of the Alpha Strike boxed set.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_RS_CRVVg&t=683s

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I have found that combat in Alpha Strike is much improved if you use the alternative damage rules. Instead of a Mech doing "4" damage at medium range, you roll 4D6 and each pair had to hit the target number. Different colors of dice for reach pair helps to roll them all at once.

Are those alternative rules in the original core book or a later supplement? Though I don't completely understand the rule/explanation, I suspect it would have improved my first impression just from the gist of it.

What do you mean by pairs? It's been several years since my one and only intro game (of several dozen mechs for the 6 players roughly iirc) so I'm more than a bit fuzzy. I do remember the flat damage number and wasn't a fan of turning a half dozen or more weapons into that single stat for each range bracket. Doesn't rolling 4d6 with each die having to hit a target number mean your average damage output is less? Do you rely on just memory to pair up the weapon systems into groups of dice or is that just optional narrative flavor added by a player?

You can play Alpha strike on hex maps as well. I’ve used it to do remote play as well. As both players can have the same map and can use coordinates to make sure both players see the same thing.

 warboss wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I have found that combat in Alpha Strike is much improved if you use the alternative damage rules. Instead of a Mech doing "4" damage at medium range, you roll 4D6 and each pair had to hit the target number. Different colors of dice for reach pair helps to roll them all at once.

Are those alternative rules in the original core book or a later supplement? Though I don't completely understand the rule/explanation, I suspect it would have improved my first impression just from the gist of it.

What do you mean by pairs? It's been several years since my one and only intro game (of several dozen mechs for the 6 players roughly iirc) so I'm more than a bit fuzzy. I do remember the flat damage number and wasn't a fan of turning a half dozen or more weapons into that single stat for each range bracket. Doesn't rolling 4d6 with each die having to hit a target number mean your average damage output is less? Do you rely on just memory to pair up the weapon systems into groups of dice or is that just optional narrative flavor added by a player?

As I understood it, if a mech does 4 damage from a single hit... the alternative rule is to call it 4 rolls to hit of 1 damage each. (so 4 rolls of 2d6 doing 1 damage each). Less insta kills on smaller mechs in the games I've played but slows up play by a fraction.

Many thanks for the feedback everybody and the excellent link, so it's either CRUNCH or very lite, no in between!

You can compare the BattleTech Quick-Start Rules and the Alpha Strike Quick-Start Rules to see some of the differences between the two rules sets.

Welll.... out of the box, mech on mech, yeah, AS is almost too simple. Where it shines is in large scale engagements, with supporting units added in. If you want a Star of Clan mechs dropping elementals while their Aerospace fighters streak by overhead, and the IS deploys a Lance or two backed up by conventional infantry to spot for artillery, while still being able to finish in a few hours, it's the game for you.

Nothing's ever going to be as detailed and cinematic as Battletech, and it's still very much the go to for mech duels.

BrookM wrote:Many thanks for the feedback everybody and the excellent link, so it's either CRUNCH or very lite, no in between!

Welcome to the game. As people have been saying, there are good points to both sides.

One of the things that makes Alpha Strike easier is the lack of subtle and variable nuances, i.e. the Large Laser and Medium Laser have different ranges, different Heat scales, different Damage scales, etc., in Classic Battletech, while Alpha Strike puts all their Damage in to how effective it would be in X range band, and applies Damage there.

Some of the base numbers between GATOR and SATOR are a little bit different, but the concept stays the same, so it's good for learning that. Speaking of which, someone locally made an Excel sheet to print out to help with those, so I made it a PDF for others. It helps with people who can't do GATOR or SATOR in their head (holy crap that's a lot of charts!), or are still learning.

Ghaz wrote:You can compare the BattleTech Quick-Start Rules and the Alpha Strike Quick-Start Rules to see some of the differences between the two rules sets.

Quoting for emphasis. These are always a good start if you haven't gotten the boxes and want to try out the rules. They don't have everything (these days, NO book has everything, particularly for Classic), but good for getting feet wet.

As a side note, if you want to look up different units and play them with Alpha Strike, there is the Master Unit List which has a list builder (and card printer) for Alpha Strike under the Force tab.

It also has a Classic List builder, but that one is only useful for building a list where the pilot's skills will change. There are other things which can add to a unit's overall Battle Value, but aren't listed individually that it can't handle. Those are a bit advanced for beginners, but can be a lot of fun (for you, not as much for your opponent) once you have the basics down.

Gitzbitah wrote:Welll.... out of the box, mech on mech, yeah, AS is almost too simple. Where it shines is in large scale engagements, with supporting units added in. If you want a Star of Clan mechs dropping elementals while their Aerospace fighters streak by overhead, and the IS deploys a Lance or two backed up by conventional infantry to spot for artillery, while still being able to finish in a few hours, it's the game for you.

Pretty much. It's designed to take a lot of units and play them quickly. In our local campaign, we use if for when a company is called to the field. I will note that it is a LOT easier to run Aerospace here than it is with Classic. A LOT.

Gitzbitah wrote:Nothing's ever going to be as detailed and cinematic as Battletech, and it's still very much the go to for mech duels.

Well, not in Battletech, any way. Starfleet Battles is a game that makes Classic Battletech seem quick and light.

It's been mentioned before, but I'd emphasize that the point of Alpha Strike is as much larger battles as it is the simplified rules that facilitate them.

If you've played classic Battletech you know that a reasonable game tops out at about a lance vs lance and sometimes that can be a slog. Alpha Strike on the other hand is really only tactically interesting with about 10 units per side, it gets better from their , and battles with 10+ units per side still often resolve faster than lance vs lance Battletech games.

I do much prefer the simpler rules of AS, but they aren't the point, the point is larger engagements at the around the Company level.

A bit of history that will shed light on the abstract nature of the game. The AS rules are taken from the "Battleforce" hex based game which was designed for each token to represent a whole unit of fighters. There are even some extra small miniatures designed for those who wanted to replace their chits. It was adapted to single miniatures on 3d terrain and included in the Strategic Operations manual before being properly spun off as it's own game.

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/BattleForce

All this to say those who love the Battletech mechanics and crunch might never be satisfied with AS, but the abstractions are deliberate and necessary for the size of game AS is designed to facilitate.

 Eilif wrote:
If you've played classic Battletech you know that a reasonable game tops out at about a lance vs lance and sometimes that can be a slog. Alpha Strike on the other hand is really only tactically interesting with about 10 units per side, it gets better from their , and battles with 10+ units per side still often resolve faster than lance vs lance Battletech games.

All this to say those who love the Battletech mechanics and crunch might never be satisfied with AS, but the abstractions are deliberate and necessary for the size of game AS is designed to facilitate.

Do you (or anyone else here who has played both) feel like there is enough design space/player potential for an official BT ruleset somewhere in between the two both in terms of model count (6-12 per side) and complexity?

 warboss wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
If you've played classic Battletech you know that a reasonable game tops out at about a lance vs lance and sometimes that can be a slog. Alpha Strike on the other hand is really only tactically interesting with about 10 units per side, it gets better from their , and battles with 10+ units per side still often resolve faster than lance vs lance Battletech games.

All this to say those who love the Battletech mechanics and crunch might never be satisfied with AS, but the abstractions are deliberate and necessary for the size of game AS is designed to facilitate.

Do you (or anyone else here who has played both) feel like there is enough design space/player potential for an official BT ruleset somewhere in between the two both in terms of model count (6-12 per side) and complexity?

I don't think an official supported rulest is feasible, but there are options.

1) I've mentioned this before but for years I've used the indie "Mech Attack!" ruleset instead of classic Battletech. It retains BT elements such as varied weapons, heat, and a damage grid, but in a more abstracted form. Complexity wise it fits halfway between the Standard BT rules and Alpha Strike. It's easy to represent most BT mechs with the game's build mechanic.

2) For those wanting a simpler game of actual Battletech, you can somewhat limit the complexity by playing the "Introductory" level rules and sticking mostly with a Succession era level of technology.

Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I'm just trying to admittedly Goldilocks the situation in an official capacity. I've played a bunch of other mech rules but I've never broken into BT for various reasons over the decades despite my genre interest.

 warboss wrote:
Do you (or anyone else here who has played both) feel like there is enough design space/player potential for an official BT ruleset somewhere in between the two both in terms of model count (6-12 per side) and complexity?

Not really. While it seems we lose a lot going between the two (and we do), much of that "a lot" is very interconnected.

At most, we might see where it's Alpha Strike Multiple Attack Dice Rolls with Armor and Structure over several places, much like the Record Sheet, but with much smaller numbers.

That's about it.

 warboss wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I'm just trying to admittedly Goldilocks the situation in an official capacity. I've played a bunch of other mech rules but I've never broken into BT for various reasons over the decades despite my genre interest.

I'd definitely give it a shot. It's not my cup of tea, but allot of folks really like it and it's been remarkably stable over the decades. It's sort of a benchmark game that every gamer should try at least once.

Also you can try it for free. The starter rules and a fair number of record sheets are available here:

https://bg.battletech.com/downloads/

 Eilif wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I'm just trying to admittedly Goldilocks the situation in an official capacity. I've played a bunch of other mech rules but I've never broken into BT for various reasons over the decades despite my genre interest.

I'd definitely give it a shot. It's not my cup of tea, but allot of folks really like it and it's been remarkably stable over the decades. It's sort of a benchmark game that every gamer should try at least once.

Also you can try it for free. The starter rules and a fair number of record sheets are available here:

https://bg.battletech.com/downloads/

I've definitely tried both and really wanted to like them but neither scratch an itch for me ruleswise so far. I truthfully half-joke that I try to get into it every 5-7 years but no luck so far since my first attempt at GenCon '94 or any of the half dozen times since!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Do you (or anyone else here who has played both) feel like there is enough design space/player potential for an official BT ruleset somewhere in between the two both in terms of model count (6-12 per side) and complexity?

Not really. While it seems we lose a lot going between the two (and we do), much of that "a lot" is very interconnected.

At most, we might see where it's Alpha Strike Multiple Attack Dice Rolls with Armor and Structure over several places, much like the Record Sheet, but with much smaller numbers.

That's about it.

Thanks and fair enough. They're definitely on opposite ends of the crunch/model count spectrum so I can see why most fans wouldn't necessarily support a third middle ground option that steps potentially on both their toes.

 warboss wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I'm just trying to admittedly Goldilocks the situation in an official capacity. I've played a bunch of other mech rules but I've never broken into BT for various reasons over the decades despite my genre interest.

I'd definitely give it a shot. It's not my cup of tea, but allot of folks really like it and it's been remarkably stable over the decades. It's sort of a benchmark game that every gamer should try at least once.

Also you can try it for free. The starter rules and a fair number of record sheets are available here:

https://bg.battletech.com/downloads/

I've definitely tried both and really wanted to like them but neither scratch an itch for me ruleswise so far. I truthfully half-joke that I try to get into it every 5-7 years but no luck so far since my first attempt at GenCon '94 or any of the half dozen times since!

You've definitely given it the old college try!

In that case, I'll just suggest Mech Attack again. It really does feel like the Battletech universe but faster. Ironically, the damage grid system is lifted from another FASA game, Centurion.

If you do decide to give it a go, PM me and I'll send you PDFs of the cards we made for it and Battletech stats.