Battletech - new starter sets coming soon

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.

**DarkTraveler777**

Yuck. $20-25 for those lance packs is too much.

**AegisGrimm**

MiniatureMarket has them for around 7 dollars per lance pack. I thought of getting several for games of Mech Attack.

**Albertorius**

Elbows wrote:
Yep, that's another issue. Oh, and originally I believe the Lance Packs were like $20-$25.00.

Eye watering for soft-plastic minis.

IIRC they were $19.95 MSRP for 4 Primaris-sized minis with no assembly required and some AS cards. The plastic was of the boardgame sort but a fair deal harder, and retained the details of the minis quite well.

Dunno, for a tad more of what you needed to spend for an X-Wing painted small ship ($20 now on 2nd ed), you got an unpainted (but completely assembled) full lance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Modock wrote:
They really look ancient.

I mean, they're the original 'mechs from the 80s redone as closely as possible to avoid getting sued, so...

**Gitzbitah**

I love that Catapult sculpt! It looks like the old cardboard standee brought to life.

Spoiler:

I may have to paint mine up like that. That old starter was my first Battletech experience.

**AndrewGPaul**

I think I prefer the metal model (the first one, if there's been more than one); that plastic one looks a little overweight and stubby.

**MrDwhitey**

I've never seen those particular standees before and frankly love them. I'd like the new models to be like those!

Though I am perfectly happy with the ones we're getting.

**H.B.M.C.**

AndrewGPaul wrote:
I think I prefer the metal model (the first one, if there's been more than one); that plastic one looks a little overweight and stubby.

No it does not...

**judgedoug**

Malika2 wrote:
Is it just me or has Battletech really failed to keep up with the times? I mean, it's not as if these models are bad or anything, but they don't really look to fit the 2018 standard. I mean...compared to the upcoming Adeptus Titanicus models these look like something from the 90s. :(

Piloted mechs based on military science fiction is somehow "dated" compared to.. walking gothic castles on stubby legs wielding chainsaws?
That's like saying United States Colonial Marines look dated compared to space-laser-Napoleonics Vostroyans...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siygess wrote:
Loving that Thunderbolt. Hopefully CGL will have a release date to announce for GenCon.

They'll be available for sale at GenCon with worldwide release right after.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Elbows wrote:
Their lance packs (which started at some absurd price and eventually dropped substantially) were laughable quality for the money you paid.

Battletech dropped off my radar for a few years, but are you talking about the $9.99 lance packs? What were they priced at before? At $10 for 4 plastic `Mechs the lance packs are a steal and perfect for inexperienced modelers since they were all single piece models. Quality was fine from the packs I picked up.

It's not a Battletech NEWS thread without someone bringing up old Battletech plastics every page, just like it's not a Middle-earth NEWS thread without someone bringing up how twelve years ago GW raised the price on the infantry boxes.

Amusingly, regarding the Alpha Strike Lance Packs with the 4 plastic mechs, the plastics are a higher quality - crisper and with better detailing - than the IWM metal casts of the same 'mechs (that cost $10-$15 each). I wound up replacing most of my metals with those plastics, as they are more durable and paint up better. Selling the four metal mechs meant the four plastics were paid for and I had spare cash, and now, a 'mech can fall over without a random gun flying off.

**Gitzbitah**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
AndrewGPaul wrote:
I think I prefer the metal model (the first one, if there's been more than one); that plastic one looks a little overweight and stubby.
No it does not...

LoL! The Fatapult! Though it's positively slender next to the Fatlas.

**hobojebus**

It's just a shame clan mechs didn't get some Alphastrike packs.

**DarkTraveler777**

hobojebus wrote:
It's just a shame clan mechs didn't get some Alphastrike packs.

Definitely a missed opportunity. The two premium plastic Clan `Mechs provided in the last starter set were quite nice. Lance or Star boxes of similar quality miniatures would have been an insta-buy for me.

**judgedoug**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
hobojebus wrote:
It's just a shame clan mechs didn't get some Alphastrike packs.

Definitely a missed opportunity. The two premium plastic Clan `Mechs provided in the last starter set were quite nice. Lance or Star boxes of similar quality miniatures would have been an insta-buy for me.

Sales of the other releases weren't great enough to continue, so there were no additional sets ordered. Not a missed opportunity if the opportunity was to lose more money.

However, CGL has dropped hints about a 3050 box with plastic clanners if the new starter set sells well.

**DarkTraveler777**

judgedoug wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
hobojebus wrote:
It's just a shame clan mechs didn't get some Alphastrike packs.

Definitely a missed opportunity. The two premium plastic Clan `Mechs provided in the last starter set were quite nice. Lance or Star boxes of similar quality miniatures would have been an insta-buy for me.

Sales of the other releases weren't great enough to continue, so there were no additional sets ordered. Not a missed opportunity if the opportunity was to lose more money.

Oh come on, Doug. It was a missed opportunity. Why did the initial sets need to be all IS designs? It was a missed opportunity to not release plastic Omnis when a not insignificant percentage of the player base are Clan players.

And so this doesn't devolve into an economics 101 lesson, I understand that stymied sales prevent additional releases in any product line. However, an initial box or two of Clan designs wouldn't have been a bad idea. That was the missed opportunity.

**insaniak**

judgedoug wrote:

Piloted mechs based on military science fiction is somehow "dated" compared to.. walking gothic castles on stubby legs wielding chainsaws?

The concept isn't the issue, it's the execution that makes them look dated. That's partly down to the design, and partly down to the scale only allowing for so much detail... but is also, I expect, deliberate. If they updated the designs too heavily, people would be complaining that it doesn't look like Battletech.

So yes, these look dated. But that's not necessarily a problem... they also look like Battletech, which is cool in its own, campy way.

**Chillreaper**

Gitzbitah wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
AndrewGPaul wrote:
I think I prefer the metal model (the first one, if there's been more than one); that plastic one looks a little overweight and stubby.
No it does not...

LoL! The Fatapult! Though it's positively slender next to the Fatlas.

The Fatlas is my favourite official version! The only version of it that's better is my MWO print.

**hobojebus**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
judgedoug wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
hobojebus wrote:
It's just a shame clan mechs didn't get some Alphastrike packs.

Definitely a missed opportunity. The two premium plastic Clan `Mechs provided in the last starter set were quite nice. Lance or Star boxes of similar quality miniatures would have been an insta-buy for me.

Sales of the other releases weren't great enough to continue, so there were no additional sets ordered. Not a missed opportunity if the opportunity was to lose more money.

Oh come on, Doug. It was a missed opportunity. Why did the initial sets need to be all IS designs? It was a missed opportunity to not release plastic Omnis when a not insignificant percentage of the player base are Clan players.

And so this doesn't devolve into an economics 101 lesson, I understand that stymied sales prevent additional releases in any product line. However, an initial box or two of Clan designs wouldn't have been a bad idea. That was the missed opportunity.

Especially given that alpha strike is supposed to be clan vs IS.

Not that I need more mechs I have close to a cluster of clan wolf mechs, most over 20 years old I used to buy them when we went to Florida on holiday, young hobo was thrilled to get them after discovering the game through Mechwarrior 2.

Good times.

**BrianDavion**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Elbows wrote:
Their lance packs (which started at some absurd price and eventually dropped substantially) were laughable quality for the money you paid.

Battletech dropped off my radar for a few years, but are you talking about the $9.99 lance packs? What were they priced at before? At $10 for 4 plastic `Mechs the lance packs are a steal and perfect for inexperienced modelers since they were all single piece models. Quality was fine from the packs I picked up. Much better quality than the anemic 2007 starter set plastics and worlds apart from the 1992 "pearl-swirl" minis (those were bad).

Elbows wrote:
I like Battletech, always have. It's just a love-hate relationship at times. I want their minis and models to be fantastic. I want to see a big sweet-ass multipart plastic Leopard kit, etc. What I get from Battletechis too often an "almost" product. I recently sold off my rather decent Battletech forces because I just didn't like the minis. I'd like to see a price/quality that brings me back.

Yeah. Hard to disagree, post-FASA Battletech has been a roller coaster ride and I honestly think the game would be better off out of Catalyst Game Labs control. There have been too many set backs and a lot of internal drama with Catalyst that I just don't find them to be good stewards of the license.

Still, being stuck with CGL, this move is the first step in potentially building Battletech back up into something. For years now the main boxed set has been OOP, map sets have been OOP, game rules have been OOP, but all of those crucial basic elements to get a game into players hands are being addressed. With luck, maybe enough people will buy in and eventually consistent, higher quality products will roll out the door.

I am not holding my breath because Battletech seems cursed at times, but if there was ever a moment when Battletech could take off this is it. The Hairbrained Schemes game along with MWO have opened up the fan base. We just need to get some of those computer game players over to the table top.

It doesn't help that the game was without a line developer for awhile, Herb left and they didn't assign anyone to the thing, Randell kinda took it over, but I've had the impression the games been basicly treading water since MWDA's last novel wcame out as they tried to figure out "where to from here?" their answer isn't IMHO a very good one from what I've heard

**Heartland**

Don't quite get what you guys are saying about those 'Mechs looking dated... :-)

Are you talking technical quality of the sculpts, or the designs themselves? Or both?

**Malika2**

judgedoug wrote:
Malika2 wrote:
Is it just me or has Battletech really failed to keep up with the times? I mean, it's not as if these models are bad or anything, but they don't really look to fit the 2018 standard. I mean...compared to the upcoming Adeptus Titanicus models these look like something from the 90s. :(

Piloted mechs based on military science fiction is somehow "dated" compared to.. walking gothic castles on stubby legs wielding chainsaws?

Im not talking about the concept of mechs, just their design. It would be asif GW would simply make the exact same designs for Titanicus like they did in the late 80s. Im not criticising the concept, just the execution.

**Albertorius**

Malika2 wrote:
judgedoug wrote:
Malika2 wrote:
Is it just me or has Battletech really failed to keep up with the times? I mean, it's not as if these models are bad or anything, but they don't really look to fit the 2018 standard. I mean...compared to the upcoming Adeptus Titanicus models these look like something from the 90s. :(

Piloted mechs based on military science fiction is somehow "dated" compared to.. walking gothic castles on stubby legs wielding chainsaws?

Im not talking about the concept of mechs, just their design. It would be asif GW would simply make the exact same designs for Titanicus like they did in the late 80s. Im not criticising the concept, just the execution.

Just for the record... but you can't say that this:

...and this:

are the same exact designs any more than you can say that this:

and this:

Are the exact same design. I mean, yes, they kind of are... but feth no.

**Malika2**

Conceptually the same, but improved execution. It's not as if that RT era model and more current version are exactly the same. So whilst thr basic concept is the same, the design has been improved upon. That's something that hasn't really happened in Battletech.

**Albertorius**

Malika2 wrote:
Conceptually the same, but improved execution.

So exactly like the TBolt above then, except the resedigned TBolt shows more differences.

It's not as if that RT era model and more current version are exactly the same. So whilst the basic concept is the same, the design has been improved upon. That's something that hasn't really happened in Battletech.

Actually, the design of those two beakies above is almost exactly the same, down to the positioning of the torso cabling and excepting the boltgun... so they are much, much more similar between them than those two Thunderbolts or any other of the redesigned 'mechs are to the original ones, except on the execution part, where the new beakie is clearly way sharper.

I would personally call them both "improved execution over essentially the same design", but alright then.

That said, I will clearly concede that up until now, while the Tech readouts' designs have improved and evolved over the years, the IWM miniatures and the older Starter boxes and AS lance packs have not (particularly acute in the case of IWM). But the designs shown for these new starters have clearly improved over the original designs, IMHO, in much the same vein as those beaky SMs have.

I still like the newest starter box/lance packs 'mechs, but yes, they are very much 80s minis. Then again, I also like Oldhammer stuff, so...

**Heartland**

Albertorius wrote:

Actually, the design of those two beakies above is almost exactly the same, down to the positioning of the torso cabling and excepting the boltgun... so they are much, much more similar between them than those two Thunderbolts or any other of the redesigned 'mechs are to the original ones, except on the execution part, where the new beakie is clearly way sharper.

I would personally call them both "improved execution over essentially the same design", but alright then.

I guess there are other 'Mechs that showcases the evolutionary process more than the Tbolt perhaps. The original Locust with its spindly little legs versus the beefier and more "military" version seen in the latest artwork/minis, for example. Overall the aestethic has moved a lot towards current military hardware, which is good for BT considering its style and background.

But yeah, BattleTech is/was kind of like the future of the 80s, in the same way as Fallout is the future of the 50s. And 40K is the future of...I dunno...a 80s heavy metal band? :-)
However, while I love all three, in most ways I would consider BattleTech the least goofy future of those three!

**AndrewGPaul**

Hopefully with these new "reseen" or whatever they're calling them, they can get away from the oddities that resulted from them being pilfered from other settings; the Griffin and Battlemaster having massive cockpit spaces compare to the cramped confines of the Marauder and Thunderbolt. Or the Locust's "machne guns" looking suspiciously like three individual weapons.

One thing that always bugged me was that it seemed like the guys who drew the pictures never talked to the people who wrote the words. I mean, the Warhammer, Archer and Longbow are basically identical from the waist down, yet designed by three different manufacturers, while the BattleMaster and Marauder are apparently badge-mates. Hopefully tweaking the designs can make things somewhat more "joined up".

As an aside, have actual dimensions for the 'Mechs ever been published? The only "real" numbers ever published are the speed and mass, and even they're derived from game abstractions. I mean, the miniature for the 20-ton* Locust is much bigger than a quarter of the size of an 85-ton BattleMaster.

(pedant: given that BattleTech apparently uses metric mass units, it should be tonnes

)

**judgedoug**

Malika2 wrote:
Conceptually the same, but improved execution. It's not as if that RT era model and more current version are exactly the same. So whilst thr basic concept is the same, the design has been improved upon. That's something that hasn't really happened in Battletech.

I guess I'm missing something: I don't understand what you're saying. If anything, the Anthony Scroggins redesigns of the og Battletech mechs represent a significant improvement versus Space Marines, which still look like goofy watermelon head hamfist midget monks. Unless you mean Primaris marines, in which case, yes, Primaris marines look orders of magnitude better than normal marines, but still not much of a significant departure from the original Rogue Trader designs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Oh come on, Doug. It was a missed opportunity. Why did the initial sets need to be all IS designs? It was a missed opportunity to not release plastic Omnis when a not insignificant percentage of the player base are Clan players.

And so this doesn't devolve into an economics 101 lesson, I understand that stymied sales prevent additional releases in any product line. However, an initial box or two of Clan designs wouldn't have been a bad idea. That was the missed opportunity.

Possibly, but honestly I'd rather have Scroggins or Iglesias redesigns anyway. While I really enjoyed the plastic Lance Packs replacing my metals, I'd rather have plastic redesigns replacing my metals

**Ghaz**

Malika2 wrote:
judgedoug wrote:
Malika2 wrote:
Is it just me or has Battletech really failed to keep up with the times? I mean, it's not as if these models are bad or anything, but they don't really look to fit the 2018 standard. I mean...compared to the upcoming Adeptus Titanicus models these look like something from the 90s. :(

Piloted mechs based on military science fiction is somehow "dated" compared to.. walking gothic castles on stubby legs wielding chainsaws?

Im not talking about the concept of mechs, just their design. It would be asif GW would simply make the exact same designs for Titanicus like they did in the late 80s. Im not criticising the concept, just the execution.

These are retcons. These are what these 'mechs always looked like in-universe, for the real-life purpose of removing any licensed images from the BattleTech line. The 'new' designs are from the Project Phoenix technical readout and do look considerably different from the Unseen.

Spoiler:

**Dice Monkey**

Ghaz wrote:

These are retcons. These are what these 'mechs always looked like in-universe, for the real-life purpose of removing any licensed images from the BattleTech line. The 'new' designs are from the Project Phoenix technical readout and do look considerably different from the Unseen.

They look considerably worse than the Unseen, It's as bad as Mark Gibbons concept art for Nagash vs Gary Morely's execution.

**judgedoug**

Ghaz wrote:
Malika2 wrote:
judgedoug wrote:
Malika2 wrote:
Is it just me or has Battletech really failed to keep up with the times? I mean, it's not as if these models are bad or anything, but they don't really look to fit the 2018 standard. I mean...compared to the upcoming Adeptus Titanicus models these look like something from the 90s. :(

Piloted mechs based on military science fiction is somehow "dated" compared to.. walking gothic castles on stubby legs wielding chainsaws?

Im not talking about the concept of mechs, just their design. It would be asif GW would simply make the exact same designs for Titanicus like they did in the late 80s. Im not criticising the concept, just the execution.

These are retcons. These are what these 'mechs always looked like in-universe, for the real-life purpose of removing any licensed images from the BattleTech line. The 'new' designs are from the Project Phoenix technical readout and do look considerably different from the Unseen.

what? Project Phoenix stuff was a bad attempt to give the "unseens" facelifts back in uhh.. 2003. fifteen years ago. In-universe, they appear in 3085 and don't replace anything, they are newly manufactured (basically) with 3085 era appropriate equipment and whatnot.

These new plastic mechs are yes retcon designs for the mechs Battletech used from various animes of the late 1970's and early 1980's, lovingly done by Anthony Scroggins.

To put it in 40k terms;

old design from an anime: Rogue Trader Dreadnought
new redesign for the same 'mech: Current Space Marine Dreadnought
'project phoenix' mech that shares the same name as an 'older' one: Primaris Dreadnought

while people still use Rogue Trader dreadnoughts, the design was retconned with the current Dread; they're the same thing in the game. the Primaris dread is a newly manufactured thing and doesn't replace anything. same with the unseen versus redesigns, and project phoenix mechs.

**AegisGrimm**

I actually find the mechs from Battletech perfectly fine, especially the more modern designs/redesigns.

Its the rules that I find to be horribly dated. Its all great if a player is already a fan of the BT mechanics, but I personally find that as a player viewing things from a situation where I would have to learn the rules from scratch, as well as also teach any opponents those rules, that I can find games that can encompass mech-on-mech combat with more streamlined rules.

The Battletech rules are (for me) in the same family as Full Thrust, Star Grunt, etc. Rules that 'feel' very 80's.

**Ghaz**

Yes. From an in-universe standpoint, the Project Phoenix 'mechs are the 'new' designs even if their artwork is fifteen years older that the Classics (i.e. the new artwork which is replacing the Unseens). The Classics are retcons for the Unseens, as the Classics are now what the Unseens always looked like in-universe. No one ever said that the Project Phoenix 'mechs replaced the Classics just that they were 'new' designs.