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.

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 agree with Doug, Catalyst's current books are really lovely in terms of production values but cracking into them for the rules really turns me off. I used to believe that the balance between accessibility and depth of play was a zero sum game ... and then along came X-Wing, exposing that concept for a total myth or really just an elitist prejudice. I'm not saying that BT should be boiled down to X-Wing but rather that designing accessible mechanics is not "dumbing down" a game. There's a difference between simplicity and elegance.

There's also the old question of what drives a table top gaming product line, rules or miniatures? BT is vulnerable either way but it seems to me that BT suffers more in the latter case. I can fathom devotion to a certain ruleset. Devotion to the current BT models, or at least the ones I have seen, is harder to imagine. Furthermore, I reckon new customers would be more willing to struggle with the learning curve if the miniatures were worthwhile.

 Manchu wrote:

There's also the old question of what drives a table top gaming product line, rules or miniatures? BT is vulnerable either way but it seems to me that BT suffers more in the latter case. I can fathom devotion to a certain ruleset. Devotion to the current BT models, or at least the ones I have seen, is harder to imagine. Furthermore, I reckon new customers would be more willing to struggle with the learning curve if the miniatures were worthwhile.

There's a direct correlation - Battletech, at it's core, is a chit-based game that is played on a hex-grid. Miniatures were always secondary to the rules. There's been no attempt to reign in the scale creep (with many releases in the past 8 years being 1/240 to 1/200 scale instead of 1/300 or 1/285) simply because miniatures do_not_matter for Battletech. They absolutely would matter if the core game was a miniatures game, but it's not. Miniatures rules are tacked on to the base game. As a result, the game has always suffered from absurd mech designs and even worse miniature sculpts.

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

Gitzbitah wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:


I absolutely appreciate the coolness of going company on company, and recognize that it is impractical with the standard Battletech rules. But to take away the intense drama of mech on mech combat and still calling it Battletech would be like replacing the Mechwarrior video games with Mech Assault.

I'll never forget playing a regiment vs regiment game versus the wonderful woman who became my wife.

Game took weeks but was sooooo worth it.

 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.