BattleTech: Clan invasion Kickstarter live.

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.

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

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I love it! Thanks guys. It really is wild how much Battletech is just a buffet of crazy that can be drawn on, with the game morphing into a different animal depending on a group's tastes.

One of the jokes for the original Tactical Operations book was "We've got a rule for that!" because they just had so many options for adding things to the game.

That's also why the BattleMech Manual is such a good book, as it's touted as 90% of the rules people use 90% of the time. In other words, it's a book just for 'Mech combat (no tanks, infantry, etc.), and includes a lot of the common things from Tac Ops/Strat Ops/etc. that are just in general use despite being optional rules (like 'Floating Criticals').

My fav rule comes from Strategic Operations, describing the rules for how the velocity of space craft can impact the damage potential of physical munitions:

StratOps wrote:Players who want more realism from Units crossing each other at substantial percentages of light-speed (as might happen mid-transit in systems with large stars) are encouraged to resolve combat by dropping record sheets into cross-cut shredders simultaneously. The record sheet that is shredded the slowest wins the engagement though, obviously, it is destroyed in the process.

**Orlanth**

Dakka, I answered the character questionnaire back in April and chose to forgo my unique character in return for $75 pledge credit.
Nothing happened.

Then a couple of weeks back I was asked to resubmit info and again asked for pledge credit. I contacted CrowdOx and Catalyst both for information, and was ignored by both, then and again now.

I was not a Kickstarter backer but backed via CrowdOx, my package still included the same benefits.

Anyone know how I can redeem my pledge credit before the door shuts. I want to buy more BattleMechs with it while I still can.

No filthy contractions were used in this post.

**Alpharius Walks**

Does your pledge show a "donation" amount or similar in crowdox? I forget the exact verbiage but that is the credit in the pledge manager until used.

Given that pledges are currently closed they may also not be working as heavily on that until it reopens.

**Bob Lorgar**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

StratOps wrote:Players who want more realism from Units crossing each other at substantial percentages of light-speed (as might happen mid-transit in systems with large stars) are encouraged to resolve combat by dropping record sheets into cross-cut shredders simultaneously. The record sheet that is shredded the slowest wins the engagement though, obviously, it is destroyed in the process.

That is an awesome part of the book. I might be tempted to argue that instead of simultaneous shred-dropping, you should instead do it in initiative order.

**Orlanth**

Alpharius Walks wrote:
Does your pledge show a "donation" amount or similar in crowdox? I forget the exact verbiage but that is the credit in the pledge manager until used.

Given that pledges are currently closed they may also not be working as heavily on that until it reopens.

No it doesn't, though I had a good look. This is the closest I have got to getting some workable help.

**Gitzbitah**

I'm in the same boat Orlanth, although I haven't even gotten as far as the character survey yet, despite several emails requesting it.

As I understand it, we've both very much missed our window for Wave 1. I plan to email again once they reopen. CGL really have terrible crowdox/kickstarter pledge integration. If they do another one I'm prioritizing hitting the pledge level I'll eventually want in the actual kickstarter.

**BrianDavion**

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I love it! Thanks guys. It really is wild how much Battletech is just a buffet of crazy that can be drawn on, with the game morphing into a different animal depending on a group's tastes.

Meanwhile, GW games ship with three ways to play, two of which are immediately villified, and the third still isn't an agreed upon "good" way to play. LOL

I've commented a few times that the Battletech player base is basicly the player base GW WISHES 40k had. the compeitive tourny types are pretty quiet and the bulk of the player base is intreasted in basicly in telling stories with their units.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I love it! Thanks guys. It really is wild how much Battletech is just a buffet of crazy that can be drawn on, with the game morphing into a different animal depending on a group's tastes.
One of the jokes for the original Tactical Operations book was "We've got a rule for that!" because they just had so many options for adding things to the game.

back when it first came out I was in an IRC channel some of the designers came in, it was almost a game to find random gak that happened in the novels and ask them if Tac ops had a rule for that (the answer was ALWAYS "yes")

**NewTruthNeomaxim**

@BrianDavion The older I get, the more I appreciate getting off of the tournament hamster-wheel, and as you say, playing games the way GW wishes its fans did.

I've been writing an editorial just this morning about the games that last, and what they do and don't tend to contain. An answer I keep coming back to is "width and depth", and an ability to engage with the game at any level.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking of the never-ending rabbit-hole of depth for those so inclined... I literally just learned that Total Warfare doesn't have all the rules for Battlemechs? I assumed that was a given, but someone just told me about Floating Criticals from the Battlemech Manual???

Does anyone happen to know what the main ommissions are from Total Warfare, or at least the widely known ones? I'm trying to decide if I need that book while a couple are in stock.

**Orlanth**

Gitzbitah wrote:
I'm in the same boat Orlanth, although I haven't even gotten as far as the character survey yet, despite several emails requesting it.

As I understand it, we've both very much missed our window for Wave 1. I plan to email again once they reopen. CGL really have terrible crowdox/kickstarter pledge integration. If they do another one I'm prioritizing hitting the pledge level I'll eventually want in the actual kickstarter.

I didn't care about getting wave 1, it will mean double shipping and most of my purchases are wave 2.

**niall78**

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

Speaking of the never-ending rabbit-hole of depth for those so inclined... I literally just learned that Total Warfare doesn't have all the rules for Battlemechs? I assumed that was a given, but someone just told me about Floating Criticals from the Battlemech Manual???

Does anyone happen to know what the main ommissions are from Total Warfare, or at least the widely known ones? I'm trying to decide if I need that book while a couple are in stock.

Battletech has nearly an infinite variety of optional and advanced rules that are built upon Total Warfare that effect even pure mech combat. Mainly the advanced rules books Tactical Operations and Strategic Operations. The game is as deep as you want it to be - need to have mechs fighting in zero-g on the hull of a space station while exposed to high radiation from a nearby neutron star? Yeah there's rules for that.

This link might help : https://bg.battletech.com/books/core_rulebooks/

**BrianDavion**

Battletech has some differing rules "levels" that it's worth noting.
From Sarna.net:

Quick Start Rules
Classic BattleTech Introductory Box Set, this is a partial rules set and does not include Heat Sinks and any other rules that may be too complex for beginners.

Basic Rules
Published in the Classic BattleTech Introductory Box Set, This level of play is only the most basic of the rules sets and does not include Infantry, or Combat Vehicles.

Standard Rules
Total Warfare is the book that the Standard Rules are published in. The Standard Rules are the level of rules that are used in most Tournaments and Official Games. The Standard Rules are primarily the Tournament Legal Rules from the Rules Level 2 System.

Tech Manual While Construction and Custom 'Mechs are not part of the Standard Rules Set, This is the book that contains the construction rules that were used to build the Canon Tournament Legal Units.

Advanced Rules
Advanced Rules Equipment is in production "in universe" but have rules too complex for Tournament Play. This has a very rough correspondence to Rules Level 2 Equipment that was too complex for Tournaments.

Tactical Operations contains the advanced rules and equipment that deal with or are useful on the Tactical Level of game play.

Strategic Operations contains the advanced rules and equipment that deal with or are useful on the Strategic Level of game play

Experimental Rules
Experimental Rules Equipment is being prototyped or has gone out of production. There is a very rough correspondence to Rules Level 3 Equipment. They are also considered rare and exotic technology which are considered to be not for use for Standard & Tournment game play.

Tactical Operations contains the experimental rules and equipment that deal with or are useful on the Tactical Level of game play.

Strategic Operations contains the experimental rules and equipment that deal with or are useful on the Strategic Level of game play.

A lot of the varient rules you're thinking of like floating crits are classed as advanced rules, but it's common to use them anyway (until codiified floating crits was proably one of the most common house rules in the game). Battletech players do NOT have a "I GOTTA PRACTICE FOR THE TOURNY!" mindset, so it's pretty common for people to use advanced and experimental rules.

If you JUST wanna use floating criticals though I can sum it up for you VERY easily.

So when you roll to hit and roll snake eyes. you get a critical hit role. even if there is still armor on the location. in standard rules for battletech this is ALWAYS resolved against the center torso. Floating criticals makes this a little more intreasting by having you first roll against location for the Through armor critical (hence forth called TACs) so you can potentially get a TAC on an arm, leg, left torso, etc, even if you're rolling REAAAALLY lucky the head (it's happened to me before)

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

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Speaking of the never-ending rabbit-hole of depth for those so inclined... I literally just learned that Total Warfare doesn't have all the rules for Battlemechs? I assumed that was a given, but someone just told me about Floating Criticals from the Battlemech Manual???

Does anyone happen to know what the main ommissions are from Total Warfare, or at least the widely known ones? I'm trying to decide if I need that book while a couple are in stock.

They're not omissions. Total Warfare is the complete rules for BattleTech. Everything else adds onto that.

The BattleMech Manual exists for those that want to just play 'Mechs, without any of the extra stuff (vehicles, aerospace, battle armour, infantry, etc.), and thus includes many of the additional optional rules from Tac Ops/Strat Ops/etc. that most people use.

**Nurglitch**

Is there a standard tournament system?

**petrov27**

I assume the Total Warfare book with the Atlas and blue background is the latest/current version? Or is there a new version pending with all the kickstarter etc activity going on in the past year or two maybe?

**Platuan4th**

Nurglitch wrote:
Is there a standard tournament system?

Not really, more like a general acceptance of which rules to use(and even then, not really). Most events at cons and the like tend to be specific scenarios, campaigns, historical events, etc. rather than tournaments. The game is focused more on the setting than tournament play like 40K and the like.

**NewTruthNeomaxim**

petrov27 wrote:
I assume the Total Warfare book with the Atlas and blue background is the latest/current version? Or is there a new version pending with all the kickstarter etc activity going on in the past year or two maybe?

That is definitely the newest edition.

**Grinshanks**

I found this guide extremely helpful as a complete novice in understanding what/where the rules are across the books and how to approach Battletech.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/general-discussion/you-bought-the-box-set-and-are-ready-to-expand-your-bt-experience-now-what/?PHPSESSID=nv0rc05tsf5s5hmg2dgkaj00tp

**niall78**

TW is probably the purest form of BT for competitive play.

When you start adding extra rules - especially fluff type rules - you're can start to unbalance the Battle Value points system.

**Orlanth**

Battle Value is inherently unbalanced. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. BV is formulaic because it needs to be to account for the customisation and construction rules.

However the weapons themselves are also formulaic which doesnt help actual balance. Even so some elements of construction cannot be accounted for yet have an influence in play, such as armour distribution and heat balance.

Fluff rules are necessary to rebalance the game. I like how the Battletech computer game quietly upped the damage of autocannon, so that we now have the AC-6, AC-8, AC-12 and AC-20 in the range brackets of the originals.

I can see this being fair even with no changes to BV because autocannon are inherently inferior due to mass and ammo vulnerability.

**BrianDavion**

Orlanth wrote:
Battle Value is inherently unbalanced. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. BV is formulaic because it needs to be to account for the customisation and construction rules.

However the weapons themselves are also formulaic which doesnt help actual balance. Even so some elements of construction cannot be accounted for yet have an influence in play, such as armour distribution and heat balance.

Fluff rules are necessary to rebalance the game. I like how the Battletech computer game quietly upped the damage of autocannon, so that we now have the AC-6, AC-8, AC-12 and AC-20 in the range brackets of the originals.

I can see this being fair even with no changes to BV because autocannon are inherently inferior due to mass and ammo vulnerability.

dude, the AC 10 is the greatest weapon ever developed and you will NEVER convince me otherwise!

**Albertorius**

Federats don't count on AC worthiness discussions

**Nurglitch**

I have occasionally wondered what the writers of Battletech were thinking with some of the weapon stats and mechanics. Especially considering Centurion.

**niall78**

Orlanth wrote:
Battle Value is inherently unbalanced. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. BV is formulaic because it needs to be to account for the customisation and construction rules.

However the weapons themselves are also formulaic which doesnt help actual balance. Even so some elements of construction cannot be accounted for yet have an influence in play, such as armour distribution and heat balance.

Fluff rules are necessary to rebalance the game. I like how the Battletech computer game quietly upped the damage of autocannon, so that we now have the AC-6, AC-8, AC-12 and AC-20 in the range brackets of the originals.

I can see this being fair even with no changes to BV because autocannon are inherently inferior due to mass and ammo vulnerability.

BV works very well as a general guide for balance in both the highly competitive environment and narrative/rpg or GM'd campaigns.

I helped run numerous online servers running campaign BT utilising MegaMek for the games. Highly competitive enviorments where balance was key and BV worked great. Of course it isn't foolproof - it takes no account of the map been played - but it does the job.

Fluff rules - while great in a non-competitive setting - break BV in a competitive setting. Say something simple like bonuses and negatives for different weight classes on piloting rolls for damage falls. Great in theory - an assault should be harder to knock over with hits than a light. But you've now given a huge uncounted BV bonus to heavy mech players over light players. So although we could play BT online with every optional rule turned on - most of the fluff rules were discarded for breaking balance.

**BrianDavion**

Nurglitch wrote:
I have occasionally wondered what the writers of Battletech were thinking with some of the weapon stats and mechanics. Especially considering Centurion.

how so? Centurion's a solid machine. keep in mind Battletech's writers don't design mechs to be optimized nesscarily. also autocannons where a loooot better back in the days of single heat sinks

**totalfailure**

Indeed, many of the early Battletech designs were flawed, as the game designers tried to match the appearance of the mostly ‘borrowed’ from anime Mech designs. This generally resulted in over-gunned Mechs with too few heat sinks and far too little armor to even think about being anywhere near where actual shooting was going on...

**Nurglitch**

BrianDavion wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I have occasionally wondered what the writers of Battletech were thinking with some of the weapon stats and mechanics. Especially considering Centurion.

how so? Centurion's a solid machine. keep in mind Battletech's writers don't design mechs to be optimized nesscarily. also autocannons where a loooot better back in the days of single heat sinks

Not the Centurion Battlemech, the game Centurion that FASA also produced.

**Ghaz**

Nurglitch wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I have occasionally wondered what the writers of Battletech were thinking with some of the weapon stats and mechanics. Especially considering Centurion.

how so? Centurion's a solid machine. keep in mind Battletech's writers don't design mechs to be optimized nesscarily. also autocannons where a loooot better back in the days of single heat sinks

Not the Centurion Battlemech, the game Centurion that FASA also produced.

The confusion lies in the fact that Centurion is a part of the Renegade Legion setting and is not a BattleTech game

**BrianDavion**

Ghaz wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I have occasionally wondered what the writers of Battletech were thinking with some of the weapon stats and mechanics. Especially considering Centurion.

how so? Centurion's a solid machine. keep in mind Battletech's writers don't design mechs to be optimized nesscarily. also autocannons where a loooot better back in the days of single heat sinks

Not the Centurion Battlemech, the game Centurion that FASA also produced.

The confusion lies in the fact that Centurion is a part of the Renegade Legion setting and is not a BattleTech game

Battletech is FAR from perfect, but as a game it's been around awhile, and hasn't really changed much, part of that is because the core fundamentals are so strong. I do like how movement and terrain can effect hit chances etc. it really enchourages manuver etc. I mean speed's hardly a subsisute for armor, but I've taken down much heavier mechs by using my mobility intelligently.

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

And when you're a Savannah Master, speed is about all you've got.

**BrianDavion**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And when you're a Savannah Master, speed is about all you've got.

not true, you've also got pluck, wit and an intense desire to get into a better anything!