Results 1 to 9 of 9
Thread: Battletech-New or Old?
-
2012-04-23, 07:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Location
- NSW, Australia
- Gender
Battletech-New or Old?
I'm buying a set of battletech soon and I was wonder if there was much difference between the 2nd-3rd edition and the more recent 25 years endition... Please help explain the difference.
Thanks"The leaves rustle and you look up to see... (Insert Selected Creature(s))!
What do you do?
...
Well then, roll for initiative!
A (::) to Gnomish Wanderer for the awesome avatar.
-
2012-04-23, 09:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Gender
Re: Battletech-New or Old?
If you are talking about the introductory box set... its almost impossible to find the older versions. I'm not even sure the 25th Anniversary one is still in production. I'm not sure exactly which version each of the intro box sets are, so I'm going to assume the 3rd edition was the most recent before the 25h Anniversary, in which case it has pretty much all the same stuff but the Anniversary one has a Thor and Loki test production run of the new high quality plastic line they are talking about developing. It might also have a bit more fluff in it but I'm not sure.
-
2012-04-24, 10:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Battletech-New or Old?
Rules-wise? Not much difference. Battletech has managed to stay relatively static with its rules over 25 years. Now, new toys keep getting added, but the old toys still work like they're supposed to.
-
2012-04-24, 12:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
-
2012-04-24, 02:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Derby, UK
- Gender
Re: Battletech-New or Old?
As I recall, one of the more recent version attmepted to toine down pulse lasers to act more scatter-y like or something, and/or not cumulative with targeting computers (all of which I completely ignored as unecessary - Battletech is fun, but is waay slow at the best of times, it certainly doesn't need slowing more! We never bothered with the torso-twist phase and require mandatory salvo fire in our games; heck, at the last count, I was bolting on the action sequence from Manouver Group with moderate sucess, so you may all freely call me heathen for sulling the purity of the game with house rules...!)
-
2012-04-24, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Location
- Toledo, Ohio
- Gender
Re: Battletech-New or Old?
There are a few rules that changed. The most important is that partial cover used to give +3 to the TN, but caused hits on the Punch table (thus, if you do hit, there's an increased chance of head shots). Now it only gives +1, but leg hits do no damage.
-
2012-04-24, 06:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Battletech-New or Old?
minor rule changes; but newer versions have more complete tech lists.
-
2012-04-25, 07:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Indianapolis
- Gender
Re: Battletech-New or Old?
I don't believe I have ever played with anybody who explicitly declared torso twists; they just get figured in as a matter of course when you're considering possible fire arcs. Only time it makes any practical difference is if you might want to split-target between two possibilities that are spread far enough apart that twisting toward one will remove the other from your fire arcs..which is a niche enough corner case that I don't think anybody really cares.
-
2012-04-25, 08:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Location
- NSW, Australia
- Gender
Re: Battletech-New or Old?
Thats cool, thanks people. Seeing as not much has changed I''l go with the 25 year edition.
thanks again"The leaves rustle and you look up to see... (Insert Selected Creature(s))!
What do you do?
...
Well then, roll for initiative!
A (::) to Gnomish Wanderer for the awesome avatar.