153 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Moncai Icaza, on 03 April 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

I think you are missing the point Pht for a game to survive it needs to make money now as a long term player i will assume you have your mechs already most of the TROs, record sheets, rule books and such so how to keep catalyst in business even if the hardcore players buy every new product to come out it won't be enough in the long run.

How do you know how many people are leaving and joining the game and otherwise buying stuff for the TT game?

If you don't know, (and really, you can't - none of us outside of the guys that maintain the IP get to see the financial reports, so we DON'T KNOW) than it is entirely possible that new people are getting "in" at a rate to replace those who may be leaving.

Quote

new players need to come in and scaring them away with extremly detailed rules and requires you to use two books (a TRO and a mech sheet book [which you need to photocopy for each mech unless you have lamanted ones or are reusing from an earlyer game]) beyond the basic rules just to chose a force.

So, "extremely detailed" ... would that be in your opinion, or by a valid objective measure? Besides which, you're saying, basicallly, that all new players are being scared off - yet again, something else you don't know and can't know.

We all have a bad habit of presuming above our knowledge and wisdom...

Quote

...why would someone as an AVERAGE wargamer with no information on the lore chose mechwarrior over say Hordes or dust (GW with there own gouging store in every town aside)

Average? Defined how? By what valid standard? Why leave GW and their gouging out of consideration? ... Why *wouldn't* someone chose mechwarrior?

I already addressed the visual stuff, and IMO, that's what pulls people in at first when they see it.

Quote

so i ask you and all the "Battletech should never be changed" crowd...

This is a straw man. I already agreed that the visuals could use an update, and that they could probably benefit from giving other options in the starter set.

Edited by Pht, 03 April 2012 - 03:01 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Quality of the minis is what really concern me... have bought the starter box... was a dumb decision. I thought - well 26 new minis - including the Thor an Loki...after open the box i was crying...the only thing that was worth the money were loki and thor and i was little bit exited about the starter books...although i had already those informations in different rule books

But what pissed me really of was the quality of the 24 starter miniatures - i had no problems when the box would have cost 50% more but the quality of the minis would have been better. maybe i would have payed the double price....even the starter minis in the city tech box had 100% better quality....
some mechs had spare parts glued together by a what - a morron? The Thor was allready assambled again with thick glue that erased some of the incredible details...
Do you know what happend next...i had taken my bone saw and my hobby knife cut through legs and arms... and actually i remodel the torso oft the awesome, the dragon, and the catapult. when finished the Atlas, the Jenner comes next...

[Leitwolf]

Karl Streiger, on 04 April 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

Quality of the minis is what really concern me... have bought the starter box... was a dumb decision. I thought - well 26 new minis - including the Thor an Loki...after open the box i was crying..

I´m still crying, when I see it. So, why should they produce the Starter Box for old fans?

1. To earn more money
2. Because they are the ones, how buy it. Other one don´t know what Battletech is (in germany)
3. Becouse old fans would promote it at conventions.
4. In my case, I am 500 km away from home, without any material...
5. Many old fans sells their stuff, after they think BT is dead.

This are my 5 cents....

[Jagermeister2]

Pht, on 03 April 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Wait, you quit playing the game and you are here complaining?!???

Wait... Yes! What's the point? I quit because the game is too slow and dated for me. Many other people did the same, for similar reasons. Only illustrates my point, don't you think?

Pht, on 03 April 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

... and it's perfectly fine that you don't like the speed of it. The question is, what sane reason is there to change the game that goes beyond one man's opinion?

Well, I stated some of my arguments above. Besides, there is no reason to keep BT as it is just because you say so...

Pht, on 03 April 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Or, say, spending a half an hour deciding whether to move a pawn or not in a chess game ... a game which obviously is on it's way towards death, because it requires thought too... (/sarcasm)

Try playing BT with 16 Mechs per side. You will find chess is a much faster game...

Pht, on 03 April 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

I don't mind at all if the core game has a smaller following. That does not bug me at all - as long as the game is produced, I would expect it to continue to have just what it has now - a small but very devoted - "hardcore" following, willing to stay with it for years.

A very small player base that hardly gets bigger, if at all. Even if you don't care, Catalyst or whoever owns the BT license should care about
attracting new players.

Pht, on 03 April 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Yes, and lemmings follow each other to their death too... speaking of bad and invalid reasons...

They don't, really.

Pht, on 03 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

How do you know how many people are leaving and joining the game and otherwise buying stuff for the TT game?
If you don't know, (and really, you can't - none of us outside of the guys that maintain the IP get to see the financial reports, so we DON'T KNOW) than it is entirely possible that new people are getting "in" at a rate to replace those who may be leaving.

Well, I'll give you some facts. I know that the number of active BT players has dropped drastically in Germany over the last decade. There are hardly any presentations at conventions, very few traders to get stuff from and the number of fights of registered players on our online portal has greatly decreased. In fact, when we still did presentations at conventions 2 or 3 years ago, many people would say "Oh, Battletech. I used to play that, but it's just too slow" Of the 20 people who used to play BT in our old unit, I know not one person who still plays BT. At least 10 still play other wargames, though.

I'd like to see you answer Moncai Icaza's question: How would you bring new players in and get old players back? I don't think the visuals are the problem, I really believe it's gameplay.

Edited by Jägermeister, 04 April 2012 - 11:54 AM.

[Leitwolf]

Yes. And we fly to the Salute at the end of the month... let me think... I guess there are no BT-Promoters too, and It´s the biggest TT-Convention in Europe. We will tell you!

[rolling thunder]

Karl Streiger, on 04 April 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

Quality of the minis is what really concern me... have bought the starter box... was a dumb decision. I thought - well 26 new minis - including the Thor an Loki...after open the box i was crying...the only thing that was worth the money were loki and thor and i was little bit exited about the starter books...although i had already those informations in different rule books

But what pissed me really of was the quality of the 24 starter miniatures - i had no problems when the box would have cost 50% more but the quality of the minis would have been better. maybe i would have payed the double price....even the starter minis in the city tech box had 100% better quality....

I got my box set this morning,i was having problems identifiying the 24 minis.I assumed wrongly that the miniature would be low quality because they would be the same plastic minis that were sold in the 80s - 90s. How wrong was i they were even worse,the minis need some serious clean up before reglueing & painting. To put it bluntly ,they look like they were gifts out of a Christmas Cracker & the plastic they are made from is appalling.
The Thor was glued together & stuffed in the box resulting in the arm being bent ready to break{it has been salvaged} but the Loki was ok & in kit form.I hope the Loki & Thor are the first of many high quality plastic Mech Models.The rest of the box set was everything i expected so i can't complain.
I'm still of the belief that the weapons ranges are the only things which need changing otherwise i'm happy with being able to choose which technology time frame to play in.

Edited by rolling thunder, 04 April 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Sidney]

Jägermeister, on 04 April 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Well, I'll give you some facts. I know that the number of active BT players has dropped drastically in Germany over the last decade. There are hardly any presentations at conventions, very few traders to get stuff from and the number of fights of registered players on our online portal has greatly decreased. In fact, when we still did presentations at conventions 2 or 3 years ago, many people would say "Oh, Battletech. I used to play that, but it's just too slow" Of the 20 people who used to play BT in our old unit, I know not one person who still plays BT. At least 10 still play other wargames, though.

That's all well and good- I lived in the Netherlands for two years. According to the gamers I spoke with and played with there, they didn't like Battletech. They preferred Warrhammer40k.

Because of the gameplay? Yes... the gameplay was 'too GERMAN'

Clearly, the problem isn't the gameplay. It's Germany.

Or... it could be in the past decade...

-FASA went out of business
-Battletech was in limbo for several years as its licence and Intellectual Property changed hands not once, but several times. The propery transitioned from FASA to Wizkids (whcih also went out of business) to Topps. The licence went from FASA to Wizkids, to FanPro (a German company) to Topps to Catalyst (an American company)
-Financial difficulties. Not only was FASA involved in a significant lawsuit with Harmony Gold 15 years ago that still lingered (the so-called 'Unseen' issue) but there was Wizkids as mentioned, and, one of the owners of Catalyst Game Labs was accussed of siphoning significant amount of funds...
-To the point that Catalyst was unable to pay their writers...

This is, of course, not mentioning the issue in regards to tabletop games having a greater and greater difficulty due to eletronic games...

Despite all this, however, CGL is a growing company- Battletech being their main 'bread and butter'. One wonders if the player base was dwindling, as you suggest, how the company would be not only viable, but continuing to grow no?

They also are producing many more sourcebooks and gaming materials for Battletech all the time- once again, something that shouldn't be happening if the player base wasn't growing.

I don't doubt that you're seeing smaller playerbases at conventions, especially considering a decade ago was when everything hit the fan (FASA closed in 2001). The early 2000s looked, for a time, like Battletech *was* dead and has only started to regain its footing.

Case in point: Microsoft scrapped MW5 and the Mechassault lines. This year we're now expecting not just one, but *THREE* Battletech themed video games. (Mechwarrior Online, obviously, but there's also Battletech Tactics which is another F2P game that appears to be the *actual* board game being developed, and a MechCommander-like game being developed for the iPad and Android phones)

I would think that the numbers you're seeing is a result of the licence changing hands- and the products shifting from a german company focus to an American company.

In North America, Battletech is alive and kicking. I don't know how focused CGL is focused on Germany like Fanpro was (I doubt it's even close to the same) but give it time. You'll see support for it trickle back into Germany soon enough, I'm sure.

Also- if you're looking for 'faster' gameplay, have you tried "Battleforce"? The rules have been updated and republished in Strategic Operations

[Karl Streiger]

after two hasseroeder premiums ... i'm not able to write in understandable englisch but i will made a try.
I have spend last year some money to take closer look to other skirmish games. We don't have to argue that the rules of w40k are the worst - not shooting into a group of meele fighters? SpaceMarines have armor - tyranids have not why couldn't i use a flammer?

How would look a larger scenario: 12 vs 12 or even bigger:
You don't spent the whole evening with moving all units...that you make something to eat - drink another beer and after that the shooting starts and that last till dawn. Then you make something for breakfast and roll if necessary for pysical combat.

So the movement of BT isn't a problem other games use similar movement rules. It is hardly possible to make it more simple.
As writen before one thing to get some action is to move and shot with a single unit then take the next.

The main problem is the shooting and the damage system.
For example:
You wan't to shoot at a Anubis with Stealth Armor with ER-PPC, LBX20, LRM and LargePulseLaser unsing a targeting computer, range is 6, LOS with a single light wood hex and the unit is standing in a small forrest - after some movement. (let say target moved 6 you used walking speed -

So you start calculating Cover and WeaponRange and Modifers for the Weapon And Speed of the Target and...
It isn't hard to calculate it is hard to get all numbers and you have to calculate 4 times...maybe you can take the PPC and modify only the bonus for other weapns.. +2 for LRM, +2 for LBX, +-0 for PulseLaser...

Now what about some other rolls:

• Are the Target & Tracking System able to lock on the target -> based on size(weight), heat, cover, ECM, Stealth...
  
• Are you able to hit the target
  
  • You miss
    
  • You hit but you are not able to exeed the BAR - reduce armor
    
  • You hit and the damage factor of you weapon exeed the damge -> roll for critical and reduce armo
• Roll for hitlocation - see what part of you mechs is damaged (damage could be light,medium heavy...for example you may hit the ammunition storrage but it need a heavy hit do let it explode, other hits damage the ammunition feed or make it impossible to use it any longer.

How to calculate the BAR: i think about the formula: probability of hit location from this arc * with points of armor - should include rating for internal structure and FusionType, GyroType etc.



Resulting in a BAR value - for example a first test resulting in BAR of 34 for a Atlas and about 41 for a Archangel,
Jaegermech and Wolfhound had same BAR (first had better internal structure, second had better armor)
BAR rating differs from ARC to ARC. It is really easy to damage a Mechs rear resulting in a higer critical damage per hit.

Heat should be uneffected. Maybe i would even think about using the Solaris 7 rules to have a RoF of different weapons - you can spend RoF for more damage or more precision. But you ammunition run dry quiete faster and heat rises faster too

So only some suggestions, not really balanced but when i'm able to do this in half a week...hm my bottle is empty...

Sidney, on 04 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

Also- if you're looking for 'faster' gameplay, have you tried "Battleforce"? The rules have been updated and republished in Strategic Operations

A step in the right direction, but at least you need some one to play with, and like battlespace the quick cards seem somewhat of little bit to linear - cant actuall say never played a single game battleforce...
But when i'm able to have my loved epic battles of battalion size i'm happy

Edited by Karl Streiger, 04 April 2012 - 12:40 PM.

[Karel Spaten]

Sidney, on 04 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

Also- if you're looking for 'faster' gameplay, have you tried "Battleforce"? The rules have been updated and republished in Strategic Operations

I genuinely want to play and like Battleforce and Quickstrike, but it's a matter of learning another ruleset, buried in a book of advanced rules that I'm not going to otherwise use... and intended (in the case of Quickstrike) for play with miniatures that are not only expensive but frequently awful to look at.

Why would I do that to myself when I can just play a GW game?

[Leitwolf]

Karl Streiger, on 04 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

after two hasseroeder premiums ... i'm not able to write in understandable englisch but i will made a try.

OKAY!!! JETZT LIEG ICH VOR LACHEN AM BODEN!!!! PROST!!!!!!!!!!!! Um nicht zu sagen, wir saufen den Met bis keiner mehr steht
Okay.... ENGLISH! I like the other part of the post too...

And before I play Battlespace... I use Full Thrust!

Edited by Leitwolf, 04 April 2012 - 01:08 PM.

[Jagermeister2]

Sidney, on 04 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

That's all well and good- I lived in the Netherlands for two years. According to the gamers I spoke with and played with there, they didn't like Battletech. They preferred Warrhammer40k.
Because of the gameplay? Yes... the gameplay was 'too GERMAN'

I don't really get your point - could you explain what makes the game German? Is that because FanPro had the license and some dutch people don't like Germany? I don't think FanPro ever changed the gameplay?

Sidney, on 04 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

In North America, Battletech is alive and kicking. I don't know how focused CGL is focused on Germany like Fanpro was (I doubt it's even close to the same) but give it time. You'll see support for it trickle back into Germany soon enough, I'm sure.

That's interesting to hear. I can only say that in Germany, the game is pretty much dead from what I see. I doubt if more support and new products will change that.

As for all the issues with licensing, I agree that they certainly did not help the game.

@ Karl: Prost! Ich hol mir auch erstmal ein Bier!

Edited by Jägermeister, 04 April 2012 - 01:14 PM.

[Leitwolf]

Oh, i give them time... and i see what they do! You know the Quickstart-Rules from CGL? The german version looks this:
http://www.battletec...startregeln.pdf

Look only at the layout and the artwork... THERE ARE UNPAINTED MECHS!!! And WOW! Yes, I show the player the material and put it over another... crap!!! The english version has flufftext and colored RecordSheets... I´m still crying! And need my eyes...

[Moncai Icaza]

Pht, on 03 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

How do you know how many people are leaving and joining the game and otherwise buying stuff for the TT game?

If you don't know, (and really, you can't - none of us outside of the guys that maintain the IP get to see the financial reports, so we DON'T KNOW) than it is entirely possible that new people are getting "in" at a rate to replace those who may be leaving.

while i dont know the figures the finacal report are published and i could get them within a few weeks as could anyone for a small fee and a letter the things i said were based upon my opinion, the opioins of those i have talked to from most of the gaming clubs in my area, the product placement and shelf space in the gameshops i have visited over the years. this is not the only place i talk BT and mechwarrior the Dark age was the only few months in the last 15 years we have played battletech in our club even with people who really like the background

Pht, on 03 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

So, "extremely detailed" ... would that be in your opinion, or by a valid objective measure? Besides which, you're saying, basicallly, that all new players are being scared off - yet again, something else you don't know and can't know.

We all have a bad habit of presuming above our knowledge and wisdom...

yes detailed in my experience i have played dust at-43 confrontation all workshop games bar inquisitor, dreadfleet and gorkamorka, anima tactics, space crusade, battle masters, warmachine, full thrust, monsterpocalypse, mage knight, mech clicks and probably a few others i cannot remember plus alot of RPs, boardgames and CCGs and i feel the only things that give me more of a headache rules wise are some of the older RP games namely Rifts and AD&D (thank god they got rid of the THAC0) and that i think may be part of the problem BT is almost part RP with the detail.

as for people being scared off see above.

Pht, on 03 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Average? Defined how? By what valid standard? Why leave GW and their gouging out of consideration? ... Why *wouldn't* someone chose mechwarrior?

I already addressed the visual stuff, and IMO, that's what pulls people in at first when they see it.

new visuals are no good if like my FLGS they dont stock the minis and all the books are placed spine out on a shelf crammed in next to an rp when your competitors have racks of minis shiny boxes and demos run instore.

visuals do draw people in but so do other people that play, how its displayed in store, retailer confidence and willingness to demo. If as a store owner you could run 3 quick games of anima tactics @ 10 miniutes each or 1 half hr game of mechwarrior which would you choose?

i personally would go to the thing that is gonna give me bigger sales and that would be the game i feel would bring people backand has a bigger market share.

Pht, on 03 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

This is a straw man. I already agreed that the visuals could use an update, and that they could probably benefit from giving other options in the starter set.

Not a straw man but an honest question how would you as catalysts owners increase your market share and restore customer confidence in your product? How would you generate the interest to get the impulse buy and to get retailers to support your game above others?

while a loyal customer base needs to be considered so does drawing new players in as it is they that need more things to get going new forces, rulebooks, fluff books etc.. things you already have and while it is a little cliche to say you don't have to buy the new stuff you should be able to feel important to catalyst as customers while the game evolves and moves forward i understand that but is it really a good idea to stagnate a game for the old guard? while i feel streamlining would be the best benefit to the system rather than an overhall only market research and playtesting would say if this is true or feasable.

and the reason i left GW out of this is they have a big advantage in that they have their own chain of stores that sell nothing but warhammer and the like. if you took those out though they still have a huge market share as it tends to be "what your mates are likley to play"

[Pht]

Jägermeister, on 04 April 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Wait... Yes! What's the point? I quit because the game is too slow and dated for me. Many other people did the same, for similar reasons. Only illustrates my point, don't you think?

....You're complaining about a game that you no longer play that you don't like, trying to get it changed from what others, who still do enjoy playing it ....

The conclusions would not be civil to post, I think.

Quote

Well, I stated some of my arguments above.

Arguments which I responded to. Did you notice? If you did, why haven't you interacted with them?

Quote

Besides, there is no reason to keep BT as it is just because you say

It's simple, really - why change a game which even you admit still has a following of people who enjoy playing it, as it is? Especially when there are already alternative rulesets built from the same lore to provide faster gameplay?

Quote

Try playing BT with 16 Mechs per side. You will find chess is a much faster game...

The TTr's are not appropriate for engagements of that size. That's why we have battleforce. Speaking of chess, some people play chess at a speed of one move per day...

Quote

A very small player base that hardly gets bigger, if at all. Even if you don't care, Catalyst or whoever owns the BT license should care about attracting new players.

I have no idea if BT is dying off in germany, and it would suck if it did, but you, nor I, nor pretty much anyone else, has any idea if the player base (in total, across the globe) is shrinking or growing.

Quote

They don't, really.

The point still remains that somethings not right just because everyone else is doing it.

Quote

Well, I'll give you some facts. I know...

Mit welchen Mitteln wissen Sie das?

Blame Google nach dem schrecklichen Deutsch übersetzen.

Quote

There are hardly any presentations at conventions, very few traders to get stuff from and the number of fights of registered players on our online portal has greatly decreased. In fact, when we still did presentations at conventions 2 or 3 years ago, many people would say "Oh, Battletech. I used to play that, but it's just too slow" Of the 20 people who used to play BT in our old unit, I know not one person who still plays BT. At least 10 still play other wargames, though.

Wie funktioniert dieser Anstieg über dem anekdotischen?

Quote

I'd like to see you answer Moncai Icaza's question: How would you bring new players in and get old players back? I don't think the visuals are the problem, I really believe it's gameplay.

I already answered it: put the quick-strike and/or battleforce system(s) into the starter set, along with the older system.

Edited by Pht, 05 April 2012 - 10:23 AM.

[Pht]

Moncai Icaza, on 04 April 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

while i dont know the figures...

So, in other words, you can't even say if they're making more or less profits, much less wether there are more or fewer players.

Quote

yes detailed in my experience i have played dust at-43 confrontation all workshop games bar inquisitor, dreadfleet and gorkamorka, anima tactics, space crusade, battle masters, warmachine, full thrust, monsterpocalypse, mage knight, mech clicks and probably a few others i cannot remember plus alot of RPs, boardgames and CCGs and i feel the only things that give me more of a headache rules wise are some of the older RP games namely Rifts and AD&D (thank god they got rid of the THAC0) and that i think may be part of the problem BT is almost part RP with the detail.

Which leads to the question, how do you know what you consider to be extremely detailed is considered the same by all other new players? Yes, your post did take in all of them.

Quote

new visuals are no good if like my FLGS they dont stock the minis and all the books are placed spine out on a shelf crammed in next to an rp when your competitors have racks of minis shiny boxes and demos run instore.

visuals do draw people in but so do other people that play, how its displayed in store, retailer confidence and willingness to demo. If as a store owner you could run 3 quick games of anima tactics @ 10 miniutes each or 1 half hr game of mechwarrior which would you choose?

i personally would go to the thing that is gonna give me bigger sales and that would be the game i feel would bring people backand has a bigger market share.

Funny.... the stores that I've seen around here that sell BT stuff don't cram them into a shelf spine out, and they have racks of shiny BT minis up.

Maybe you should pick on your local store owners?

You seem to again be presuming that speed=good, with the 3 quick games vs 1 question.

I guess that would make click-tech dark-age games even better?

"Bigger sales" - profit margins are what matters, not gross sales.

Quote

Not a straw man...

It is a straw man. You set my side of the argument up as something it was not... "never change battletech," when I clearly had already said the visuals and starter box setup could use changes.

If you had meant only the BT rules for the tabletop, you should have posted that.

Quote

...but an honest question how would you as catalysts owners increase your market share and restore customer confidence in your product? How would you generate the interest to get the impulse buy and to get retailers to support your game above others?

I already answered that.

[Karel Spaten]

Pht, on 05 April 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

You seem to again be presuming that speed=good, with the 3 quick games vs 1 question.

I guess that would make click-tech dark-age games even better?

I think "what was wrong with MW:DA?" is an important question. I don't know, since I didn't play it, but games like Heroclix are still successful. Fast playing, pre-painted miniatures games clearly have a niche. Why did MW:DA fail? Is it that they alienated the existing fanbase while not building a new one? Does that suggest that the existing fanbase (or at least, enough of them) don't want a fast playing game?

[Leitwolf]

......... I think, we need more Hasseröder, before we answer Pht ....
MAN! The point is, that we love the Battletech background story. Look at us. We are still loyal rasalhague mechpilots. But we hate, that BT dosen´t take all of it´s potential, to be a great game. THEN we will play it again... maybe... and maybe other old fans.

[lyonn]

From a new TT players perspective here's my thoughts. My background is GW games, MW video games and Battletech books.

Turns take too long to complete with more than a few mechs using the quick start rules. This means that there's no way to have a match lasting under a 1 or 2hrs with a pleasing amount of mechs. So without a large chunk of time you can't play.

I'd like to see a mobile/web app that encompasses all the record sheets and maths to speed up rounds. Playing B'tech with the aid of tablet (iPad etc) which can handle all the dice rolls, ammo, heat, damage, modifiers etc was make the game far less taxing.

From a rules/lore side of things its a mess. They'd be wise to revise all their rules and trim the fat where needs be. They also need to start laying down more canon facts Mech heights 25year example of how they fudge such simple things.

Theirs no excuse for the poor quality miniatures they are still pushing. While GW has many flaws I was shocked how far they have come since I used to play their games. The detail of their miniatures are excellent they come with multiple variations of assembly and everything is in good quality plastic. When I bought some B'tech miniatures its mostly the same wonky odd sized stuff I was buying in the 80's. There's some hope in the new plastic loki/thor but until there's a large scale role out across the range B'tech is still behind the market.

[Leitwolf]

Thank you Lyonn for this post! Its nice to have a neutral perspective of a BT-newcomer! :-)

[Jagermeister2]

Pht, on 05 April 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

....You're complaining about a game that you no longer play that you don't like, trying to get it changed from what others, who still do enjoy playing it ....The conclusions would not be civil to post, I think.

Point is, I'd like to play again if they would change the game. I still don't see why I should not post my opinion. I'll say once again, play the old rules as long as you want, I still think there is a market for a "new" BT ruleset. I don't believe it is going to happen anyway.
Maybe we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. This would be a more appropriate discussion for a Catalyst forum, anyway.