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.

AduroT wrote:No hexes?!

There is no need, the core rules include the rules for using 3d terrain

.2"= 1 hex
.simplified facings
.more fluid movement as you can turn up to a full hex facing or just a little if you need it(it uses the same amount of MP)
.a larger play area
and of course-it looks really good.

I stopped using hex maps decades ago and never looked back.

Post error ignore-

I think you posted this in the wrong thread... I don't see anything Battletech in this.

Yeah half asleep will fix it asap

ComStar Battle Level II - Crockett, Flashman, Guillotine, Lancelot, Crab & Mongoose

So we managed to get a quick little game in, had to do some proxies since one of the players forgot to to bring his mechs.

Turned into a bit of a pincer 3 way battle.

I was wondering if anyone here still plays older versions of Battletech? My go-to version is the Battletech Compendium: Rules of Warfare, which is firmly set in the Clan Invasion era of the game and is connected to MechWarrior 2nd Edition, BattleSpace and the animated TV show (what can I say, I was a 90’s kid...). I don't actually play Total Warfare when I run the game.

That`s the last edition published in spanish, meaning it's the one we usually play so that the english-avert can read too.

Rakshasa. Templar. Atlas II. Dragon Fire.

Not 'Mechs you see every day.

KommanderKong wrote:
I was wondering if anyone here still plays older versions of Battletech?

Given that BTech is almost completely the same now as it was back then, just with some small refinements and clarifications, what would be the point?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Rakshasa. Templar. Atlas II. Dragon Fire.

Not 'Mechs you see every day.

KommanderKong wrote:
I was wondering if anyone here still plays older versions of Battletech?

Given that BTech is almost completely the same now as it was back then, just with some small refinements and clarifications, what would be the point?

Brevity? The current lineup of books is... daunting.

Also, as you said, given the actual differences, in many cases there's not much of a point to buy the new ones.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Rakshasa. Templar. Atlas II. Dragon Fire.

Not 'Mechs you see every day.

KommanderKong wrote:
I was wondering if anyone here still plays older versions of Battletech?

Given that BTech is almost completely the same now as it was back then, just with some small refinements and clarifications, what would be the point?

Well yes i love the dragon fire, and our davion heavy guards player almost always has a templar, the comstar player forgot his mechs so he was using stand ins for the black knight and others.

As for the rules, yes total warfare is the basic set we use with a few small differences.

.optional rules from tac ops-
.ghost imaging for ECM (thats what the extra marker dice was for)
.alternate ammo types
.rapid fire machineguns
.fire as you bear(no declare fire phase for speed of play)
.forced withdrawl rules(also for speed of play).

Other optional rules-
.ammo explosion rules
.max tech level 3 damage charts for vehicles-TW main rules note they nerfed the vehicle damage chart on purpose to make mechs the focus of the game and recommend using the old charts if you want vehicles to be a bit more resilient...so we do because heavy metal pro has the options.

One of the best rules changes/improvements was for the way AMS uses ammo.

Our next match i am going to toss some swords of light at him with a C3 heavy lance. i am giving some of the new plastics some love....but i will have a shugenja(C3 master) in there, not a pretty mech or one you see often, but i like it.

KommanderKong wrote:
I was wondering if anyone here still plays older versions of Battletech? My go-to version is the Battletech Compendium: Rules of Warfare, which is firmly set in the Clan Invasion era of the game and is connected to MechWarrior 2nd Edition, BattleSpace and the animated TV show (what can I say, I was a 90’s kid...). I don't actually play Total Warfare when I run the game.

Pardon me as I am a relative newbie, but isn't that kind of the same as restricting games to a specific era (like Succession Wars-only)? Considering the rules haven't changed much in 30 years.

Also with the BattleMech Manual and latest Total Warfare, there is the Enhanced Flamer rule which allows them to do both damage and add heat to the target. Total Warfare also changed how shooting over partial cover works: instead of using the punch table, all leg hits are nullified instead.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:
I was wondering if anyone here still plays older versions of Battletech? My go-to version is the Battletech Compendium: Rules of Warfare, which is firmly set in the Clan Invasion era of the game and is connected to MechWarrior 2nd Edition, BattleSpace and the animated TV show (what can I say, I was a 90’s kid...). I don't actually play Total Warfare when I run the game.

Pardon me as I am a relative newbie, but isn't that kind of the same as restricting games to a specific era (like Succession Wars-only)? Considering the rules haven't changed much in 30 years.

Not quite. You can still play 3025 with Total Warfare, but you can't play IlClan (with all the new no-longer-experimental/advanced gear) with 3rd or 4th Edition. The Clan Invasion started in 2nd edition along with all the Star League gear, so you would need TRO: 2750 or 3050 to use any of that. That's unlike GW where you really can't go back to using Armor Facing rules with 40K 9th or ranks in Age of Sigmar.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:
I was wondering if anyone here still plays older versions of Battletech?

Given that BTech is almost completely the same now as it was back then, just with some small refinements and clarifications, what would be the point?

AegisGrimm wrote:Pardon me as I am a relative newbie, but isn't that kind of the same as restricting games to a specific era (like Succession Wars-only)? Considering the rules haven't changed much in 30 years.

It reaaally depends upon how you define "not changed that much." In a broad sense, every edition since 2nd is pretty much the same (1st Edition is a bit wonky but I can see the argument that it is similar enough to count as the same). In a narrower sense, no, they are not the same... there are lots of little differences in each edition.

I should clarify though: the primary reason I play BC:ROW is NOT because I prefer the "differences" of that edition over the "differences" of Total Warfare. I play it mostly because I'm a nostalgia gamer... if I didn't have my old 90's games, I wouldn't game at all... I'd take up a different hobby, maybe hiking or something? I'm into the older versions primarily because they are a total retro experience for me and take me right back to the 90s when I play them.

But that doesn't mean BC:ROW doesn't have things to recommend itself. Here are some interesting features:

1) BC:ROW is basically Battletech 3rd Edition. 3e was a boxed set that only had the Level 1 rules in it and was actually set in 3025. BC:ROW is the "complete" version of the game and adds Level 2 to the mix and updates the timeline to the end of the Refusal War (3057). This was a very interesting time in general, with the Refusal War, the Chaos March and Battle of Coventry (basically the Falcon's attempt to start up the invasion again).
2) It is connected to the cartoon show and the Mechwarrior II computer game from Activision, both of which were huuuuuge influences on me. These things even get supplements for BC:ROW.
3) It has nice, simplified rules for aerotech and artillery which were never reprinted in later editions. (I mean, there are simplified aerotech rules in later editions, but they are not the same as THESE simplified aerotech rules.)
4) It still had the Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 rules distinctions (which I like).
5) It had the old punch location table for attacks made at hull-down 'Mechs (I preferred these rules)
6) It was designed to support both MechWarrior 2nd Edition and Battlespace (my favourite iterations of those rules).
7) The rules are shorter... much much shorter. I don't know if they are simply written more concisely or if the font is smaller or something, but Total Warfare is an enormous book in comparison. It's closer in size to the Battletech Manual but covers the complete game (including the construction rules and a mini TRO).
8) I prefer the handrawn black and white artwork and clean design over the colour backgrounds and Photoshop art of the newer editions.
9) It's supported by the Tactical Handbook, which has rules and equipment that was never reprinted.
10) If I recall, infantry work differently (but I don't remember how TW handles this so I can't be certain)

I actually owned Total Warfare... I ended up dumping it on eBay for a pretty penny because I realized it was physically preventing me from playing Battletech. The books were enormous, way longer than they needed to be, I found them ugly and uninspiring... they were just killing my interest in the game. I picked up my old copy of BC:ROW from my shelf, dusted it off, and fell in love with Battletech again. That's why I play BCROW

KommanderKong wrote:
It reaaally depends upon how you define "not changed that much."

I think we define it in the sense that BTech's rules haven't changed that much across its entire life.

KommanderKong wrote:
1) BC:ROW is basically Battletech 3rd Edition. 3e was a boxed set that only had the Level 1 rules in it and was actually set in 3025. BC:ROW is the "complete" version of the game and adds Level 2 to the mix and updates the timeline to the end of the Refusal War (3057). This was a very interesting time in general, with the Refusal War, the Chaos March and Battle of Coventry (basically the Falcon's attempt to start up the invasion again).
2) It is connected to the cartoon show and the Mechwarrior II computer game from Activision, both of which were huuuuuge influences on me. These things even get supplements for BC:ROW.

Yeah but... nothing about the rules stops you from doing that with the Total Warfare rulebook, or even the more concise BattleMech Manual. If anything this seems like an imposition you've placed upon yourself to use an older source of the rules simply because it's an older source.

KommanderKong wrote:
3) It has nice, simplified rules for aerotech and artillery which were never reprinted in later editions. (I mean, there are simplified aerotech rules in later editions, but they are not the same as THESE simplified aerotech rules.)

Fair enough I suppose.

KommanderKong wrote:
4) It still had the Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 rules distinctions (which I like).

Distinctions that don't really mean anything. I mean it's BTech - you can play with as much of it or as little of it as you please.

KommanderKong wrote:
5) It had the old punch location table for attacks made at hull-down 'Mechs (I preferred these rules)

You are the first person I've ever heard say that. Hull Down is something you do to protect yourself. The original partial cover rules made it easier to head shot you, which makes no sense. It made cover a detriment, rather than an advantage. Surely you can see why this is one of the few major changes the rules have experienced in 20+ years.

KommanderKong wrote:
6) It was designed to support both MechWarrior 2nd Edition and Battlespace (my favourite iterations of those rules).

I have no comment here as the BTech RPG has never interested me, and, against type (given my love of all things naval combat), I actually don't like BTech capital ships. So I have nothing to add here.

KommanderKong wrote:
7) The rules are shorter... much much shorter. I don't know if they are simply written more concisely or if the font is smaller or something, but Total Warfare is an enormous book in comparison. It's closer in size to the Battletech Manual but covers the complete game (including the construction rules and a mini TRO).

Total Warfare is an enormous book, I'll give you that. So is the Tech Manual. Both are attempting to cover all the rules for all the main unit types and all the construction rules for said unit types. Those aren't strictly necessary to play, so much so that they straight up made the BattleMech Manual to alleviate that problem.

KommanderKong wrote:
8) I prefer the handrawn black and white artwork and clean design over the colour backgrounds and Photoshop art of the newer editions.

Ok, but, that seems like an odd reason to use older rules to me.

KommanderKong wrote:
9) It's supported by the Tactical Handbook, which has rules and equipment that was never reprinted.

Can you elaborate on this for me?

KommanderKong wrote:
10) If I recall, infantry work differently (but I don't remember how TW handles this so I can't be certain)

I think I've used infantry in one game about 8 years ago, so I can't comment here.

KommanderKong wrote:
I actually owned Total Warfare... I ended up dumping it on eBay for a pretty penny because I realized it was physically preventing me from playing Battletech. The books were enormous, way longer than they needed to be, I found them ugly and uninspiring... they were just killing my interest in the game. I picked up my old copy of BC:ROW from my shelf, dusted it off, and fell in love with Battletech again. That's why I play BCROW

Despite owning the TW book, I found that the book I used the most when actually playing games was the rulebook that came with the starter boxes (be it 4th Ed, or the one after that, or even the most recent one) as they're the most succinct set of rules that contains all the things that we need to look up the most (water hex rules, some terrain effects, water hex rules, critical hit effects, water hex rules and also water hex rules).

Water hexes are annoying!

As far as the “total retro experience” theme here goes, there’s not a thing wrong with playing Battletech out of an older iteration of a rulebook. I mean, there’s nothing wrong with doing that for any decades-old game (or game system). But I will say, with Battletech (unlike, say, D&D) the actual design itself, as it is currently still published, has truly not changed much at all. And this is where we stop talking about some particular gamer’s idiosyncratic sense of nostalgia and we start talking about what I think must now be recognized as one of Battletech’s core features: as a game that has been extensively developed over the course of thirty plus years it is nonetheless radically coherent across its entire lifespan so far. Unlike just about every other game or game system with a similar lifespan of active development, Battletech has proven extremely reliable in those terms. Even if I did not like Battletech as a game, I would still hold it in reverence for that achievement alone.

KommanderKong wrote:9) It's supported by the Tactical Handbook, which has rules and equipment that was never reprinted.
10) If I recall, infantry work differently (but I don't remember how TW handles this so I can't be certain)

Out of curiosity, have you checked out the Tactical Operations books? I have found a lot of the updated rules for a lot of things in the Tactical Handbook in those tomes, as well as a whole bunch more.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:
5) It had the old punch location table for attacks made at hull-down 'Mechs (I preferred these rules)

You are the first person I've ever heard say that. Hull Down is something you do to protect yourself. The original partial cover rules made it easier to head shot you, which makes no sense. It made cover a detriment, rather than an advantage. Surely you can see why this is one of the few major changes the rules have experienced in 20+ years.

I think it's a matter of opinion based on whether one spends more time shooting at someone using Partial Cover or spending more time using Partial Cover. If you don't use Partial Cover much at all, I could see why using the old rules is much better.

H.B.M.C. wrote: I actually don't like BTech capital ships. So I have nothing to add here.

You've sparked my curiosity. What do you not like about BT Capital Ships? Aesthetics, Construction, rules, or a combination?

Personally, I never played BattleSpace when I had it. Too busy with the Mechs, and the more realistic movement style was intimidating. However, setting up a spreadsheet to do the heavy lifting of calculations was oddly satisfying.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Water hexes are annoying!

In many ways, yes.

 Manchu wrote:
As far as the “total retro experience” theme here goes, there’s not a thing wrong with playing Battletech out of an older iteration of a rulebook. I mean, there’s nothing wrong with doing that for any decades-old game (or game system). But I will say, with Battletech (unlike, say, D&D) the actual design itself, as it is currently still published, has truly not changed much at all. And this is where we stop talking about some particular gamer’s idiosyncratic sense of nostalgia and we start talking about what I think must now be recognized as one of Battletech’s core features: as a game that has been extensively developed over the course of thirty plus years it is nonetheless radically coherent across its entire lifespan so far. Unlike just about every other game or game system with a similar lifespan of active development, Battletech has proven extremely reliable in those terms. Even if I did not like Battletech as a game, I would still hold it in reverence for that achievement alone.

Is that an achievement though? Chutes & Ladders has that, and so does Monopoly.

Neither are as complex or in-depth as BTech.

They've resisted the temptation to throw the UrbanMech out with the bath water, as certain other companies appear to do every 3 years or so.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:
1) BC:ROW is basically Battletech 3rd Edition. 3e was a boxed set that only had the Level 1 rules in it and was actually set in 3025. BC:ROW is the "complete" version of the game and adds Level 2 to the mix and updates the timeline to the end of the Refusal War (3057). This was a very interesting time in general, with the Refusal War, the Chaos March and Battle of Coventry (basically the Falcon's attempt to start up the invasion again).
2) It is connected to the cartoon show and the Mechwarrior II computer game from Activision, both of which were huuuuuge influences on me. These things even get supplements for BC:ROW.

Yeah but... nothing about the rules stops you from doing that with the Total Warfare rulebook, or even the more concise BattleMech Manual. If anything this seems like an imposition you've placed upon yourself to use an older source of the rules simply because it's an older source.

I think you missed my meaning though, to be fair. Of course, any edition of Battletech can be used to play any era... you just need the proper TRO and any rulebook and you're good to go. Occasionally, there are era-specific gear rules you need to look up, but other than that you can get by with any rulebook and any TRO.

But BC:ROW is steeped in that late Invasion era. It has the storyline of 3057 written on nearly every page of the rulebook, from the introduction "The Story So Far..." to the Wolfnet dispatches that feature in the margins, to the mini-TRO at the back that features many of the iconic Mechs of the TV-show. BC:ROW is dyed in 3057. TW is much more generic in comparison.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:
4) It still had the Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 rules distinctions (which I like).

Distinctions that don't really mean anything. I mean it's BTech - you can play with as much of it or as little of it as you please.

I suppose, but I like the distinction. It's a matter of organizing material... if I want to play a simplified game, I'll bring the thin booklet from the 3e box set and maybe I won't even use pilots... just a basic 6+ to hit at medium range and so on. That's great for quick games, for large convention games and so on, as the little 3e booklet is very easy to reference. If I want a more advanced scenario, I'll break out BC:ROW. That's kind of my core for gaming. If I'm running the RPG though, I'll gradually introduce Level 3 rules as special things the players find, pulling from various sources like the Tactical Handbook or the Unbound adventure. Players cannot expect to get Level 3 whenever they want because it is literally something that is not in the rulebook... that's all behind the DM's screen and introduced at points appropriate to the campaign.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:
5) It had the old punch location table for attacks made at hull-down 'Mechs (I preferred these rules)

You are the first person I've ever heard say that. Hull Down is something you do to protect yourself. The original partial cover rules made it easier to head shot you, which makes no sense. It made cover a detriment, rather than an advantage

True, you have a better chance to hit the head, but also a better chance to miss the attack overall. I'll admit this breaks down at very, very high Mechwarrior skill levels (which can absorb the +3 to hit for the partial cover), but for the vast majority of situations with normal pilots, it actually doesn't make sense for the attacker to use partial cover. I suspect that the rule was changed mainly because those fringe cases of very low to-hit numbers were getting more and more common (due in part to special rules, weapons and equipment that gave bonuses becoming more common in later TROs).

H.B.M.C. wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:
6) It was designed to support both MechWarrior 2nd Edition and Battlespace (my favourite iterations of those rules).

I have no comment here as the BTech RPG has never interested me, and, against type (given my love of all things naval combat), I actually don't like BTech capital ships. So I have nothing to add here.

Oh you're missing out, Battlespace is wonderful. You get the real feel that you are chewing through a ship's hull, knocking out compartment by compartment as you go. It's incredibly visual and cinematic and the vector rules are simply the best I've ever encountered. It's one of my all time favourite space battle games.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:
7) The rules are shorter... much much shorter. I don't know if they are simply written more concisely or if the font is smaller or something, but Total Warfare is an enormous book in comparison. It's closer in size to the Battletech Manual but covers the complete game (including the construction rules and a mini TRO).

Total Warfare is an enormous book, I'll give you that. So is the Tech Manual. Both are attempting to cover all the rules for all the main unit types and all the construction rules for said unit types. Those aren't strictly necessary to play, so much so that they straight up made the BattleMech Manual to alleviate that problem.

Right, but BC:ROW covers a lot more than the Battletech Manual and is about the same thickness. If I'm reaching for a table-side reference, it's BC:ROW.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:
8) I prefer the handrawn black and white artwork and clean design over the colour backgrounds and Photoshop art of the newer editions.

Ok, but, that seems like an odd reason to use older rules to me.

Yeah, I get that, but honestly I find it is quite inspiring to look at that stuff, especially when I'm prepping a scenario. It's also just a lot cleaner layout and easier to read during games... the black text on white background is very easy on the eyes.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:
9) It's supported by the Tactical Handbook, which has rules and equipment that was never reprinted.

Can you elaborate on this for me?

Charistoph wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:9) It's supported by the Tactical Handbook, which has rules and equipment that was never reprinted.
10) If I recall, infantry work differently (but I don't remember how TW handles this so I can't be certain)

Out of curiosity, have you checked out the Tactical Operations books? I have found a lot of the updated rules for a lot of things in the Tactical Handbook in those tomes, as well as a whole bunch more.

Yep I owned TacOps and got rid of it with my other TW books (I think that is why I was able to sell the lot for so high). Since I no longer own it, I cannot be super accurate with my remembrances, but I seem to remember some random things like the Computer Voice Circuit didn't feature in the later books (this was one of the things that tied the computer game to the TV show to the tabletop game for me). It also had a neat little campaign system that gave you a framework for linked scenarios (there was probably an equivalent somewhere in the TW series of books, but I cannot remember where that would be or how it would have differed from the THB rules). There were also rules for fieldworks, fortifications, different types of bunkers and so on... I forget if those ever featured in TW but I don't seem to recall seeing them. There were also rules for SLDF Neurohelmets and other Mechwarrior gear items, which were always some fun pieces of "loot" to give to the players in a campaign when they discover a small cache of Lostech.

But again, I'm not here to say that BC:ROW has MORE rules than the TW series of books (TacOps, StratOps etc.). It clearly doesn't... it has fewer rules. I am thus certain that there are MORE special gear items and equipment in TW than in BC:ROW or 3rd Edition more generally. It is more the case that I am happy with the "state of the art" of Battletech technology that existed by the mid-90's and the 3057 to 3067 timeline. I like the game being grounded in a particular period as this gives the game more flavour for me and it just so happens to a favourite era of mine and an excellent one for setting an RPG campaign. The mid-90's is a great point in Battletech publication history... it has (IMHO) the best version of the RPG tied into the best version of the tabletop game (cleanest, most minimalist, steeped in a setting) tied into the best version of the space battles rules, the TV-show and the video game. It's like a whole multi-media experience. If I had to play TW, I probably just wouldn't... I'd do something else with my time. I don't like ATOW, I don't get any feels from the timeline-neutral positioning of the rules, I don't like the big books nor their layout and design or the new style of art, I am definitely not a fan of the current Aerotech rules (nor the bowlderized version of Battlespace in them that removes the best features of Battlespace) and so on and so forth. I'm not judging others for liking the newer games... in fact I would fully expect new players would have nostalgia for the version they started with and if that means TW, then they should prefer TW. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they found the 2nd Edition of the RPG to be clunky, the TV-show to be cheesy, the old video games to be laughably primitive and the black and white artwork of BC:ROW to be amateurish. But it is what I came up on in the 90's and it is what still works for me... it all comes together as a glorious, complete experience.

Also a side question... did TW have rules for enhanced imaging and the Clan Mechwarrior tattoos? I forget honestly. There are nice rules for that in MW2e (I think in the Companion book).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
As far as the “total retro experience” theme here goes, there’s not a thing wrong with playing Battletech out of an older iteration of a rulebook. I mean, there’s nothing wrong with doing that for any decades-old game (or game system). But I will say, with Battletech (unlike, say, D&D) the actual design itself, as it is currently still published, has truly not changed much at all. And this is where we stop talking about some particular gamer’s idiosyncratic sense of nostalgia and we start talking about what I think must now be recognized as one of Battletech’s core features: as a game that has been extensively developed over the course of thirty plus years it is nonetheless radically coherent across its entire lifespan so far. Unlike just about every other game or game system with a similar lifespan of active development, Battletech has proven extremely reliable in those terms. Even if I did not like Battletech as a game, I would still hold it in reverence for that achievement alone.

Is that an achievement though? Chutes & Ladders has that, and so does Monopoly.

I would say that is an achievement, whether for Monopoly or Battletech or Chutes & Ladders. It means these games have achieved the status of "classic" games, they are entered into the canon of gaming history because it is understood that any major change to them would be met with a great deal of backlash. You could argue (rightfully so in my opinion) that Monopoly (e.g.) is a terrible game and doesn't deserve to be considered a classic and get that same treatment (never changing rules because it is considered a "timeless" classic), but you cannot deny giving Monopoly credit for nevertheless being widely considered a classic and treated as such. I hate Dickens' writing and I'll happily dispute the quality of Oliver Twist, but I'll give credit where credit is due.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Also a side question... did TW have rules for enhanced imaging

are you referring to protomechs?

In that case they are ballistic/gunnery 2+( should add the piloting uses the ballistic skill for checks but since they cannot fall down as "infantry" there are only a few special places a skill check is required) but every time they take internal damage they take a pilot hit as they "feel" every bit of internal damage the protomech takes. as if it was to their own bodies


We do not use the BV system for casual play as it is meaningless outside of organizing structured events. all pilots are standard vets 4/5 for IS and 3/4 for clan with the unit commander being an elite with one better stats.

The critical hit system and the chance for pilot kill is more than enough to balance things out. we like to focus more on thematic force elements......if a lyran force had the options in say the fedcom civil war to take a RAC 5 or a heavy gauss/AC 20 /gauss rifle variant of a mech chassi we already know which one the davion and the steiner side is going to take.

I mean "steiner scout lance" is a meme for a reason .

 Nurglitch wrote:
Is that an achievement though?

Do you mean, how can not doing something be considered an achievement?

I think here we are actually talking about doing something rather than not doing something. It could be framed as resisting the urge that publishers of many other long-running game systems give into, to fundamentally re-work the game design (under whatever rationale). This might also be framed as having abiding confidence that the game’s identity and success are well and truly a matter of its original basic design. In either case or both cases, the result is that Battletech has been extensively developed without really changing.

KommanderKong wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

KommanderKong wrote:9) It's supported by the Tactical Handbook, which has rules and equipment that was never reprinted.

Out of curiosity, have you checked out the Tactical Operations books? I have found a lot of the updated rules for a lot of things in the Tactical Handbook in those tomes, as well as a whole bunch more.

Yep I owned TacOps and got rid of it with my other TW books (I think that is why I was able to sell the lot for so high). Since I no longer own it, I cannot be super accurate with my remembrances, but I seem to remember some random things like the Computer Voice Circuit didn't feature in the later books (this was one of the things that tied the computer game to the TV show to the tabletop game for me). It also had a neat little campaign system that gave you a framework for linked scenarios (there was probably an equivalent somewhere in the TW series of books, but I cannot remember where that would be or how it would have differed from the THB rules). There were also rules for fieldworks, fortifications, different types of bunkers and so on... I forget if those ever featured in TW but I don't seem to recall seeing them. There were also rules for SLDF Neurohelmets and other Mechwarrior gear items, which were always some fun pieces of "loot" to give to the players in a campaign when they discover a small cache of Lostech.

But again, I'm not here to say that BC:ROW has MORE rules than the TW series of books (TacOps, StratOps etc.). It clearly doesn't... it has fewer rules. I am thus certain that there are MORE special gear items and equipment in TW than in BC:ROW or 3rd Edition more generally. It is more the case that I am happy with the "state of the art" of Battletech technology that existed by the mid-90's and the 3057 to 3067 timeline. I like the game being grounded in a particular period as this gives the game more flavour for me and it just so happens to a favourite era of mine and an excellent one for setting an RPG campaign. The mid-90's is a great point in Battletech publication history... it has (IMHO) the best version of the RPG tied into the best version of the tabletop game (cleanest, most minimalist, steeped in a setting) tied into the best version of the space battles rules, the TV-show and the video game. It's like a whole multi-media experience. If I had to play TW, I probably just wouldn't... I'd do something else with my time. I don't like ATOW, I don't get any feels from the timeline-neutral positioning of the rules, I don't like the big books nor their layout and design or the new style of art, I am definitely not a fan of the current Aerotech rules (nor the bowlderized version of Battlespace in them that removes the best features of Battlespace) and so on and so forth. I'm not judging others for liking the newer games... in fact I would fully expect new players would have nostalgia for the version they started with and if that means TW, then they should prefer TW. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they found the 2nd Edition of the RPG to be clunky, the TV-show to be cheesy, the old video games to be laughably primitive and the black and white artwork of BC:ROW to be amateurish. But it is what I came up on in the 90's and it is what still works for me... it all comes together as a glorious, complete experience.

It could be that you just looked for those things in the wrong place (or maybe CGL hadn't yet updated a system when you did have them)? The Computer Voice Circuit is Mechwarrior Gear, so wouldn't be found in Total Warfare or Tactical Operations, but possibly in Mechwarrior: Destiny. Tying Campaigns together would be in Campaign Operations, and so on. That's one advantage of coming in and resetting the works is that they can be put in cohesive packages.

KommanderKong wrote:Also a side question... did TW have rules for enhanced imaging and the Clan Mechwarrior tattoos? I forget honestly. There are nice rules for that in MW2e (I think in the Companion book).

This might be answered by using the same answer above. Total Warfare, the Technical Manual, and Tactical Operations are focused on the Battletech level of play, not the Mechwarrior level of play.

 Nurglitch wrote:

Is that an achievement though? Chutes & Ladders has that, and so does Monopoly.

Ignoring the unrelated family game references...

I think for wargames -where extensive revisions are very common-such continuity is an accomplishment and one with real benefits. Just a few aspects...
1. It shows the quality of the core original game that the authors do not feel the need to reinvent the game with successive editions.
2. It reflects the same quality that the players have not demanded such changes.
3. It reflects a certain amount of respect for the players that the moderate developments have kept nearly all supplements (besides rules supplements) ever published still playable. Compare that to games that require a player to rebuy their army books every edition.
4. The stability of supplements means that the writers can instead explore both new timeline events and take a deeper dive into the universe setting.

You all know that I'm not a big fan of the BT rules. However, I definitely respect them for what they are and how they achieved their aim so well as to be so similar today. I especially appreciate how this foundation allowed relatively small writing teams over decades to create a massive amount of coherent, still useable, mostly-non-repetitive material for the setting I so enjoy.

I often speculate what would have happened if FASA had sold the entire IP to a single company instead of breaking it up among so many different buyers.

If it had stayed true as it has today with solid rules and a mostly intact lore (original dark age nonsense aside) what kind of juggernaut it could have been compared to what GW has become over roughly the same time period.

Considering it is the one war gaming IP that easily rivals GW in fan loyalty, faction loyalty, longevity, depth of lore and cross platform spread.

 Eilif wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

Is that an achievement though? Chutes & Ladders has that, and so does Monopoly.

Ignoring the unrelated family game references...

I think for wargames -where extensive revisions are very common-such continuity is an accomplishment and one with real benefits. Just a few aspects...
1. It shows the quality of the core original game that the authors do not feel the need to reinvent the game with successive editions.
2. It reflects the same quality that the players have not demanded such changes.
3. It reflects a certain amount of respect for the players that the moderate developments have kept nearly all supplements (besides rules supplements) ever published still playable. Compare that to games that require a player to rebuy their army books every edition.
4. The stability of supplements means that the writers can instead explore both new timeline events and take a deeper dive into the universe setting.

You all know that I'm not a big fan of the BT rules. However, I definitely respect them for what they are and how they achieved their aim so well as to be so similar today. I especially appreciate how this foundation allowed relatively small writing teams over decades to create a massive amount of coherent, still useable, mostly-non-repetitive material for the setting I so enjoy.

Pretty much exactly how I feel.

+1

liking the rules or not is personal preference, but having stable rules over such a long time is an achievement

 Nurglitch wrote:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Well, I would not call it exactly a fallacy, and also I don't think it fits the case.

Thing is, Battletech rules have changed over the years. I was even a clicky game, for a time. But the original rules, with small tweaks, have proven to be much more resilient and enduring. Even when the game changes into other systems, like in the case of MW: DA or AS, the original rules chug on unfazed.

So I would not equate it with "Every time that rooster crows, the sun comes up, so the rooster makes the sun go up". More like "even though Battletech as a franchise has been through a lot of changes, the original rules endure". That doesn't seem to be a logical fallacy.

Well that's why there is "classic" battletech and then everything else

.clicky game
.card game
.video game
.online video games
.apocalypse scale simplified game
.RPG

We are back to the fact that something like 6 different companies own parts of the IP.