judgedoug wrote: I don't know about you but I plan on only putting one option on a pod
if I'm not mistaken, unless one wished to make a 'Frankenmecha' for the Malcontents, each Artillery pod is only supposed to have one option.
Personally, I have 12 of them coming, but only plan to keep 8, so to keep my options open I'm thinking I'll magnetize them. That way I can have a standard squad (4 Light, 2 Heavy) and a Support card pair of them of my choice (Light, Heavy or Tesla), or 1-4 support cards of choice (8 Lights one game, 8 heavies the next), etc.
8 magnets and 24 little metal pieces (or 32 magnets if I just go with those) and some sand paper to roughen things up and keep them aimed as I like should do it, and I think I've got just the right size of rare earth magnets to do it too.
Planning to do the same thing with the Experimental Phalanxes (of which I'll have 4, but would need between 8 and 24 magnets to do) as well. The FPA/MPA remain to be seen, both in terms of how difficult it'll be for their options, and how much I care about playing the Zentraedi side by the time those figures arrive.
I've talked with Amazon Payments (about the Defiant Games Hardsuits KS, I got duped into backing that one.. ) and they said that they are more than willing to work with your Credit Card company on reversing the charges. So if you are looking for a refund, contact your Credit Card company and explain to them the situation that the product you paid for has not been delivered in the time frame initially given, and they will most likely issue a refund.
Alpharius wrote: wufai - you seem to be stating things in terms of absolutes which really don't exist.
Do you have a dog in this fight?
Sorry if I have offended anyone, I have to learn to respect the fact everyone is entitled to their opinions.
I don't even know what 'have a dog in this fight?' means? can someone please explain?
I guess I was a bit saddened to know a lot of people don't share my view of kickstarter. I backed this Robotech thing becuase I like the concept and wish PB would succeed, I really didn't expect much, just a very very very slim hope the game would be great and take off so us wargamers will have another option to try instead of the same old GW and PP. I completly expected delays in this projects, since the initial estimate of Dec 13 is intended for just reaching 100% funding, of course there would be delays with the level of backers and funding and promises of new models recieved. I didn't follow Robotech kickstarter updates too much until recently. So I guess I didn't understand the 'promises' made by PB eariler. But I alreadly have a good sense with the production and logistic issues of this company I won't expect anything from them until Chrismtas 2014.
I support them becuase I know PB is trying to produce their first 'wargame', unlike Mantic and Reaper, they really don't know anything about the process of making minitures. So of course they will make a lot of promises they can't keep. They are just normal dudes like us who try to venture into a new project but don't understand what they are getting into. Basically most of the companies I backed run into this problem. Kingdom death, Relic Knights, heck, even Reapers whom made all the right moves and fulfilled their promise to start shipping on March I didn't get my package until July just due to the amont of backers they need to ship to. I followed that Kickstarter very closely and reaslied how hard it really is to undergo a miniture project on that scale. I can definetly tell you PB will proboly break a few more promises before you see your minitures before Dec 2014 or even 2015.
Still I'm glad I can be a part of PB's kickstarter to make Robotech a reality (and I get a lot of models, I admit too I didn't do it out of sheer goodwill) even though it has been delayed. Again, I really don't understand the logic of asking for a refund. PB has invested all the money into making the project already, if refunds are freely given back how could they possibily continue on with the project? its either the money has been spent towards the project or will halt the project due to lack of funds?
Just how 'invested' are the forum posters who wants a refund? Honestly I'm not in too deep becuase I know when backing, PB is not a miniture company so I never held high expections of their quality or realiability. I just got myself a Battlecry and a Battlefoam bag. I was thinking of the SDF1 resin but last minute I got cold feet and dropped that order. Perhaps that's why I'm not too concern of the delays?
wufai wrote: I don't even know what 'have a dog in this fight?' means? can someone please explain?
Whether or not you have 'skin in the game', or any sort of vested interest either way.
You said your a backer, so yeah, you do.
But sometimes people just like to play "Devil's advocate", and even with good intentions, it can get obnoxious.
since the initial estimate of Dec 13 is intended for just reaching 100% funding, of course there would be delays with the level of backers and funding and promises of new models recieved.
Yeah, see, this would hold more water if they hadn't, literally the day after the campaign ended, shot themselves in the foot with the "maybe we'll even deliver in November, possibly October!" quote. Not only did that heighten hopes that they were even further along than they said, but combined with the "factory slot 45 days after the campaign ends" statement, it shouldn't be unreasonable to have taken that as a promising sign. It's bullgak to say "oh, they just expected 70k! They totally didn't account for all the extra models they added!" We had no way of knowing that. If they had said "guys, thanks, this is amazing, but man, so many models, this might take an extra 6 months, see you in June!" it'd be another story. But they didn't. They doubled down on 'the derp'.
I didn't follow Robotech kickstarter updates too much until recently.
Then, to be blunt, you have no idea why we're frustrated. Because some of us DID follow the updates, and for months, and months, and months, they and the PB weekly newsletters have been waxing at length about how far along they were, and how much work they've been putting in, and everyone in the office loves it, and you're going to love it, on and on and on and on and on.
they really don't know anything about the process of making minitures.
Which is why they had ND on hand, who supposedly DO have experience with miniatures.
So of course they will make a lot of promises they can't keep. They are just normal dudes like us who try to venture into a new project but don't understand what they are getting into.
No. Wrong. Bad. See me after class. Starting a new business venture is risky, but part of that venture is assessing those risks, researching potential pitfalls, and building in contingencies, in terms of both time and money. This is a reason to be understanding, but that does not absolve PB of their responsibilities.
Again, I really don't understand the logic of asking for a refund. PB has invested all the money into making the project already, if refunds are freely given back how could they possibily continue on with the project? its either the money has been spent towards the project or will halt the project due to lack of funds?
We have no idea how much this may or may not be the case. They have roughly 2 dozen more models to deliver on. If they blew through 1.4 million just designing and making the first dozen, they done feth'd up bad. As in, someone needs to take the reigns from them, because they can't be trusted with a butter knife, let alone the funding from 5.5k backers.
Just how 'invested' are the forum posters who wants a refund? Honestly I'm not in too deep becuase I know when backing, PB is not a miniture company so I never held high expections of their quality or realiability. I just got myself a Battlecry and a Battlefoam bag. I was thinking of the SDF1 resin but last minute I got cold feet and dropped that order. Perhaps that's why I'm not too concern of the delays?
Some of them are in for a couple hundred, at least one is in for $1,500. If they have the funds to spare, getting those backers off their case and repurposing those figures for retail, Gencon or other sales basically doubles their money. If they don't, then again, they've screwed up even more badly than most of us assume.
Personally, I'm in for about $700 out of the $1,500 me and my friends backed for. We've not given up, but they and I are tired of the lies, or the incompetence, or whatever combination of both it is that has caused them to get to this point.
If you're not bothered, that's great. But as I said before, if you really don't understand the frustration, start from Page 1 of this thread and read forward. See the backers who joined despite Palladium being involved. The reluctance that was overcome by Ninja Division's smooth campaign, and the concern that erupted after it became clear that it was the PB show. The weeks and months of waiting to even see a hint of progress, despite having been told that all was great and coming along and... oops, delivery date slid back another 2 months!
Seriously, you say you don't get it, but the answers are here, across 130 pages of fine reading material.
Alright Forar, thanks for that clarification. I guess those who followed daily on this project will be fustruated by the info PB gave.
I personally only look at PB updates whenever there is info on the bag involved. I didn't pay any attention to the rules or progress of the models at all until the last update with photos of the sprue.
and again sorry to those whom I offeneded through my opinion.
I personally only look at PB updates whenever there is info on the bag involved. I didn't pay any attention to the rules or progress of the models at all until the last update with photos of the sprue.
Out of curiosity, why would you not pay attention to the two primary pieces of the game.....
jacobus wrote: Maybe I'm so frustrated with them nothing will make me happy, but I thought the reasoning for the massive part counts was so the models would offer variations in poses. If this is the case, then why are the legs one piece? Also, I'm counting between 25-30 parts per artillery pod. Am I wrong on this? If I were building one or two for an army, I might be cool with that, but jeez. That's between 150-175 parts just for those six sprues.
I don't know about you but I plan on only putting one option on a pod, so that reduces the part count considerably.
Looks like:
body
rear hatch
two legs
two feet
two thrusters
two ball joint particle guns
two ball joint smaller guns
one artillery connector
then your choice of small missiles, big missiles, or big ass particle guns
So about 13 base parts for a, what, 60mm tall model? Plus the artillery piece option. That's about the same size as a Tau suit, right?
It's actually 15 (there's two separate hip joints), and then either 1 (Particle Cannons) or 6 extra (Rocket Pods are three pieces per pod). So 16-21 pieces. With regular Regults coming in at 15 + base + optional flight stand.
And it may be equivalent to a GW miniature, but there are a lot of miniatures out there that have similar detailing, are of a similar size, and come in less than half that number of components. In addition, a significant number of those connections are small, and load bearing. While the plastic has little weight, there's the issue of handling, that anything short of plastic weld glues (which have their own problems) will stress during standard play.
I personally only look at PB updates whenever there is info on the bag involved. I didn't pay any attention to the rules or progress of the models at all until the last update with photos of the sprue.
Out of curiosity, why would you not pay attention to the two primary pieces of the game.....
its because I have a predetmined expectication of the game, its going to be a skirmish game with game pieces. I already know the quality of the model won't be GW quality and the rules will not be execllent on their first try. I am still basing the assumption that the models and rules will be to a standard I saw on their kickstarter videos. I'm pretty confident in the end I can get the models to look decent, even if I have to spend extra work modelling and painting. if the rules can maintain something similiar I saw on their demo I'm OK with the too.
The bag however I never had any real assuarance on what the end product would look like. They didn't have the specifics during the Kickstarter except it will be a bag from Battlefoam. I like battlefoam and already own a 720. I was hoping against hope that this bag can fit the foam from my 720. I started really looking into the updates again when PB showed off the final design of the bag. It seems like a rebranded 432 to me and was extra happy the foam included will fit all the content of the battlecry (which is the only thing I ordered) and the cuttings seems like a good size for other minitures gaming as well ala warmahordes. The quality of the bag is there too... its more in line with the PACK line then their economy line.
The cost of the bag through the kickstarter saved me quite a bit in terms of shipping and retail cost over a custom 432.
Your reasoning is confusing to me. You were more concerned about the battlefoam bag, of which you already have an example of, than the rules or the minis you were pledging for? Whaaaaaa?
I like how now, from the same starting date (good comparison since DZ ran at the same time), Mantic is set to have delivered two waves of Deadzone, all of Mars Attacks!, and all of or one wave if they're splitting it of Dreadball Xtreme, in the same time that Palladium will possibly get two waves of RRT out. That's some real quality work from Palladium right there.
NTRabbit wrote: I like how now, from the same starting date (good comparison since DZ ran at the same time), Mantic is set to have delivered two waves of Deadzone, all of Mars Attacks!, and all of or one wave if they're splitting it of Dreadball Xtreme, in the same time that Palladium will possibly get two waves of RRT out. That's some real quality work from Palladium right there.
That's why I get so frustrated when I get told "Kickstarters are ALWAYS late.". Yeah, not if they're reasonably managed. I initially wasn't going to go in for DBX (getting it slower over time via retail), but the reliability of Mantic convinced me otherwise.
And honestly, at this point, it's quite conceivable that Mantic will have delivered on EVERYTHING before we see anything from Palladium. Because at the moment, we're looking at 4 months, if they start production today. Production run, pack and ship to port, customs, ship lee time (ships can sometimes wait a week or more before being fully loaded), ship transport time, customs USA edition, transport to Michigan, unpacking, box assembly, quality control for obvious defects, shipping to backers/Euro distribution point. Assuming nothing goes wrong. Because we all know that PB are blessed against Murphy's Law.
Which they can't do, because only one sprue is apparently approved. And the Veritechs, undoubtedly the most iconic and important miniature in the entire franchise, still hasn't seen pre-production prototype "Any day now" is apparently a euphemism for "We have no f'n idea", based on prior knowledge. And we don't know how much of all this has to get re-passed up the chain to Harmony Gold, and if there are any changes they have (because them sticking their noses in at this point wouldn't be unprecedented, apparently), I can easily see (though admittedly don't expect) a post November delivery for Wave 1. All it takes is a couple of significant delays in the timeline, and PB performing to par, and it's possible. After all, they were saying in September they could still make December, November they could still make February, and their webstore still says "Spring 2014". So I'm not expecting any knowledge of timelines from them.
I have to agree that the most worrying thing at the moment is the lack of information about the Veritechs - apart from that exploded model they posted a while back. Yes the update was appreciated and the artillry pod sprue layout came from nowhere and to be fair was better than I expected and allayed some fears but these are dare I say the "key" models to the whole project
I will be happy enough if the next update give us the layout for the three versions but I know it is not likely. Get a feeling that they might rush into production without giving backers any sightof what is on the sprues and simply commit to it to use the booked factory time, meet the contract with HG and have something to show (or sell) at GenCon.
This is the risk with KS's so I will have to live with it, but compared to others which also are running late the handling and willingness to work and communicate with your customers (who have already put the money in) is second rate.
At a rough count, Wave One contains 12 different figures.
They've shown us a test run of sprues for 1.
Yeah, Morgan's layout against needing to see progress on 11 more, I'm not feeling confident.
The "Gencon Suicide Pact" to have product on hand by August looms, but if it becomes clear they're going to miss it no matter what, I can definitely see them dropping all the pressure and just letting things take however long they take.
Hell, the next big target would be Winter to get a stab at some of that sweet retailer cash, which would buy them another 3 months or so. Also, a lot of ire, but hey, if they're gonna get that anyway...
Some of the players realized that the Star Wars miniatures game and Tactics were the same scale. So they got to talking about conversions and playing both together and we looked at some quick conversions. Here are some stats for anyone interested. I think I will make up some stat cards for these this coming weekend if I have time so if you think they are off, feel free to give your 2 cents. Attached are some of the Tactics units for comparison.
I personally only look at PB updates whenever there is info on the bag involved. I didn't pay any attention to the rules or progress of the models at all until the last update with photos of the sprue.
Out of curiosity, why would you not pay attention to the two primary pieces of the game.....
Possibly, like me, he got into the KS because he likes the show?
I only went in for the character pieces as I'm a modeller more than a gamer and would love the SDF-1 sitting in my room. So I went in for the single characters, and they are certainly not going to be coming in wave 1, so I don't believe they will be in the USA, never mind with me in blighty, before the end of the year.
I know that the SDF-1 was stated to be in resin, and therefore could be being worked on independantly of the IP 'sprues' of the basic craft, but there has been absolute butkiss in the way of news about it - or any of the other characters. So I have to assume that there is no progress on any of them, and I am being punished for not wanting to spend a lot more on a skirmish game I'd probably never play. Therefore I am not interested in core squadrons of Zentradi or Veritechs, I want Roy Fokker, Khyron, The SDF-1, and all the other KS only specials that I pledged for.
PB scored big time with me for saying that I only had to pay once for shipping, not adding the shipping cost to each and every model I ordered, but I am also prepared for the standard ultimatum of "Either we'll ship your order only when every last part is complete, (sometime in 2020) or you can pony up an additional $15 shipping on each and we'll send them as soon as they become available to UK pledgers whose surnames begin with a "W".
/
wufai wrote: I don't even know what 'have a dog in this fight?' means? can someone please explain?
Whether or not you have 'skin in the game', or any sort of vested interest either way.
You said your a backer, so yeah, you do.
But sometimes people just like to play "Devil's advocate", and even with good intentions, it can get obnoxious.
since the initial estimate of Dec 13 is intended for just reaching 100% funding, of course there would be delays with the level of backers and funding and promises of new models recieved.
Yeah, see, this would hold more water if they hadn't, literally the day after the campaign ended, shot themselves in the foot with the "maybe we'll even deliver in November, possibly October!" quote. Not only did that heighten hopes that they were even further along than they said, but combined with the "factory slot 45 days after the campaign ends" statement, it shouldn't be unreasonable to have taken that as a promising sign. It's bullgak to say "oh, they just expected 70k! They totally didn't account for all the extra models they added!" We had no way of knowing that. If they had said "guys, thanks, this is amazing, but man, so many models, this might take an extra 6 months, see you in June!" it'd be another story. But they didn't. They doubled down on 'the derp'.
I didn't follow Robotech kickstarter updates too much until recently.
Then, to be blunt, you have no idea why we're frustrated. Because some of us DID follow the updates, and for months, and months, and months, they and the PB weekly newsletters have been waxing at length about how far along they were, and how much work they've been putting in, and everyone in the office loves it, and you're going to love it, on and on and on and on and on.
they really don't know anything about the process of making minitures.
Which is why they had ND on hand, who supposedly DO have experience with miniatures.
So of course they will make a lot of promises they can't keep. They are just normal dudes like us who try to venture into a new project but don't understand what they are getting into.
No. Wrong. Bad. See me after class. Starting a new business venture is risky, but part of that venture is assessing those risks, researching potential pitfalls, and building in contingencies, in terms of both time and money. This is a reason to be understanding, but that does not absolve PB of their responsibilities.
Again, I really don't understand the logic of asking for a refund. PB has invested all the money into making the project already, if refunds are freely given back how could they possibily continue on with the project? its either the money has been spent towards the project or will halt the project due to lack of funds?
We have no idea how much this may or may not be the case. They have roughly 2 dozen more models to deliver on. If they blew through 1.4 million just designing and making the first dozen, they done feth'd up bad. As in, someone needs to take the reigns from them, because they can't be trusted with a butter knife, let alone the funding from 5.5k backers.
Just how 'invested' are the forum posters who wants a refund? Honestly I'm not in too deep becuase I know when backing, PB is not a miniture company so I never held high expections of their quality or realiability. I just got myself a Battlecry and a Battlefoam bag. I was thinking of the SDF1 resin but last minute I got cold feet and dropped that order. Perhaps that's why I'm not too concern of the delays?
Some of them are in for a couple hundred, at least one is in for $1,500. If they have the funds to spare, getting those backers off their case and repurposing those figures for retail, Gencon or other sales basically doubles their money. If they don't, then again, they've screwed up even more badly than most of us assume.
Personally, I'm in for about $700 out of the $1,500 me and my friends backed for. We've not given up, but they and I are tired of the lies, or the incompetence, or whatever combination of both it is that has caused them to get to this point.
If you're not bothered, that's great. But as I said before, if you really don't understand the frustration, start from Page 1 of this thread and read forward. See the backers who joined despite Palladium being involved. The reluctance that was overcome by Ninja Division's smooth campaign, and the concern that erupted after it became clear that it was the PB show. The weeks and months of waiting to even see a hint of progress, despite having been told that all was great and coming along and... oops, delivery date slid back another 2 months!
Seriously, you say you don't get it, but the answers are here, across 130 pages of fine reading material.
Very reasonable replies to wufai's statements.
It has been abundantly proven that "overly optimistic' or not, they really had lied to us on the progress which is the main reason for getting my nickers in a twist.
To demand a refund is not all that shocking: there was a breach of trust and no legitimate reason given for the delay(s).
I think it only reasonable to withhold money until there is product physically available and can be evaluated for it's quality prior to purchase to give incentive "to get it right" despite their claims.
As has been pointed out: there are varied opinions of parting lines, options, gaps and number of parts for the models which can cause people to opt-out.
Palladium Books was great to have for roleplaying games way back when and is welcome to see them FINALLY getting some Robotech IP out there but they almost missed the boat: the show started in 1985 = 29 years ago. So only late 30's or 40 something's would have any strong interest in this (or anime historians).
I really want this all to end so that I never have to deal with them again, they are too painful to deal with.
I slipped into a rant again didn't I?
P.S. Who has the "Battle of the Planets" ... er... "Science Ninja Team Gatchaman" IP (or are they separate??)?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Rules to use Veritechs in X-Wing? Those are rules we might actually use.
I made some rules to use Battletech LAMs in X-wing if you're interested. Not the same thing obviously as I wouldn't want to run afoul of Palladium's cease and desist machinations...
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Rules to use Veritechs in X-Wing? Those are rules we might actually use.
Never played X-Wing and only glanced at a rulebook. Could be fun though. Trying to decide how Veritech's can fly in comparison to a Tie would be interesting when you do the conversions to X-Wing. If you do the conversions, post them here, I for one would be interested.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Rules to use Veritechs in X-Wing? Those are rules we might actually use.
Never played X-Wing and only glanced at a rulebook. Could be fun though. Trying to decide how Veritech's can fly in comparison to a Tie would be interesting when you do the conversions to X-Wing. If you do the conversions, post them here, I for one would be interested.
What game are these rules for then?
Mike1975 wrote:Some of the players realized that the Star Wars miniatures game and Tactics were the same scale. So they got to talking about conversions and playing both together and we looked at some quick conversions. Here are some stats for anyone interested. I think I will make up some stat cards for these this coming weekend if I have time so if you think they are off, feel free to give your 2 cents. Attached are some of the Tactics units for comparison.
Other then X-Wing, the only other Star Wars miniatures game was the old collectable one.. which was 28mm (Dudesmen) or 'LOL-Scale?!' (Ships)
Of course, your files say Star Trek.. which is either X-Attack Wing, or Star Fleet, or ACTA: Star Fleet... none of which are the same scale as these Robotech figs
Star Wars and Robotech already share some similarities in settings, with one force using fewer but more individually powerful fighters versus 'swarms' of canon fodder; VTs vs Battlepods, X-Wings vs TIEs.
Establishing the stats, dials and points values of the craft probably wouldn't be terribly difficult, and there's already significant pilots, upgrades and craft variety to compare them to. I think the biggest issue would be trying to adopt the VT's themselves. Nothing in X-Wing has such variability in how it maneuvers, how fast it can be, etc. A craft with 3 maneuver dials and that actually changed stats (new dials might have slower movement but be more agile, might get away with keeping similar stats), and that alone could be a bit of a nightmare to find a balance of points costs.
My friends are pretty invested in X-Wing though, so it's tempting to run a few spreadsheets and see where I'd end up.
Swabby wrote: That would hold up as contract in court.
And already has.
Latest update was very good, definitely in the right direction.
Out of curiosity, in which cases? The only one I'm aware of is the case where the creator foolishly commingled the KS funds with his personal accounts and then just gave up when he realized that he had grossly underestimated the costs of the project. And from memory it was the commingling, rather than the failure to deliver, that led to the successful (fraud) class action against him (although I'm more than happy to be corrected).
And while I'm sure you could pursue a breach of contract case they tend to be very expensive and in this case difficult to prove since everything is an 'estimate'. As I've observed before, KS is a bit of a Libertarian's paradise; if you read their TOS you'll note that a backer is clearly not an investor (so federally enforced securities laws don't apply) and nor is it a storefront so standard consumer protections (as enforced by your state AG in the US and similar elsewhere) also don't apply. Both of which provide a far simpler form of recourse than contract law (sometimes it's nice to have the government at your back).
Note that creator is the one upon who the responsibility falls. KS is not going to pursue your money for you, unlike say what happens with Amazon.
Please note that I am not suggesting we will need to following this path; I have full faith that wave 1 will show up in 2014. More just interested in whether there have been other successful cases against KS's that went 'dark' for interest's sake.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Rules to use Veritechs in X-Wing? Those are rules we might actually use.
Never played X-Wing and only glanced at a rulebook. Could be fun though. Trying to decide how Veritech's can fly in comparison to a Tie would be interesting when you do the conversions to X-Wing. If you do the conversions, post them here, I for one would be interested.
What game are these rules for then?
Mike1975 wrote:Some of the players realized that the Star Wars miniatures game and Tactics were the same scale. So they got to talking about conversions and playing both together and we looked at some quick conversions. Here are some stats for anyone interested. I think I will make up some stat cards for these this coming weekend if I have time so if you think they are off, feel free to give your 2 cents. Attached are some of the Tactics units for comparison.
Other then X-Wing, the only other Star Wars miniatures game was the old collectable one.. which was 28mm (Dudesmen) or 'LOL-Scale?!' (Ships)
Of course, your files say Star Trek.. which is either X-Attack Wing, or Star Fleet, or ACTA: Star Fleet... none of which are the same scale as these Robotech figs
Clarification, we have made conversions from X-Wing to Tactics, that is what I posted.
My answer was in response to BobtheInquisitor talking about going the other way and converting Robotech to X-Wing
Forar wrote: Star Wars and Robotech already share some similarities in settings, with one force using fewer but more individually powerful fighters versus 'swarms' of canon fodder; VTs vs Battlepods, X-Wings vs TIEs.
Establishing the stats, dials and points values of the craft probably wouldn't be terribly difficult, and there's already significant pilots, upgrades and craft variety to compare them to. I think the biggest issue would be trying to adopt the VT's themselves. Nothing in X-Wing has such variability in how it maneuvers, how fast it can be, etc. A craft with 3 maneuver dials and that actually changed stats (new dials might have slower movement but be more agile, might get away with keeping similar stats), and that alone could be a bit of a nightmare to find a balance of points costs.
My friends are pretty invested in X-Wing though, so it's tempting to run a few spreadsheets and see where I'd end up.
I've been told is the same scale or close to Robotech Tactics. I can see how the conversions could be problematical. You could turn to Battloid mode and let a Tie fly right on by and then zap him. Still, that is a crossover that could be interesting and fun, unlike Robotech and Voltron.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus you could save some $ since you could use miniatures that you already have.
The link to the X-wing battletech conversions is a few posts up. Here is a (bad) pic of the battletech LAMs I plan to use.
I've got all three modes of the LAMs pictured above in the boxes posted there. Let me know what you guys think. Basically, the fighter version plays like a standard x-wing fighter where as the humanoid mode moves very slow but has almost a turret like arc of fire (everything but the back arc). The third in between mode is... well.. in between them!
... Mike, dude, I've played dozens of games of X-Wing. Minor tournaments, planning on playing in a major one at the end of May.
I know what X-Wing is. :-P
And I was more referring to figuring out stats for Robotech fighters in the X-Wing system, which wouldn't be terribly difficult. Assigning proper points values to them would probably be a bit more difficult, but any instance where something could simply be 're-skinned' would probably be the simplest manner, though not necessarily the most accurate way of doing things.
... but FYI, X-Wing is, like, one of the most popular games out there right now. Has its own subforum, as you obviously know. I doubt many people were confused by what we were talking about. :-P
Which reminds me, I need to look into a core box for an upcoming tournament. Was hoping to wait for the big Black Friday sales, but oh well, gotta have my own damage deck and whatnot, and I think we only have 4 or 5 across 6 players. Not a big deal though, I'd planned on picking one up eventually, it'll just cost a few bucks more this way.
Then we came back and did some more work for a couple of hours. Around 6:30 PM we closed for the day and everyone went to Kathy’s house to celebrate Julius’ and my birthdays (which were actually a week or so earlier). Before I left for the party (to which I was late), I had a nice visit with a couple of local, Michigan, fan-friends. We had a wonderful and stimulating conversation about Rifts® and Palladium Fantasy® and "the art" of role-playing. I really enjoy these two people, so it was a lot of fun for me. I even bounced some ideas on them concerning a couple of secret projects, which they loved. They also volunteered to help us ship out Wave One of Robotech® RPG Tactics™ later this Summer. Awesome. We are going to need a lot of volunteers for a couple of weeks to get everything shipped as quickly as possible to our 5,300+ Kickstarter people.
So they raised 1.4 million and still need the support of volunteers to get things shipped out?
Could always put in a call to Manpower or some other labor based temp services, but I don't think they work for hugs from Uncle Kev or the chance to bask in his radiant presence.
Also am I wrong or didn't their last update on Thursday say "spring" for the release date? What changed over the weekend?
Yeah. A friend of mine has at least 2 of everything except the Shuttle (just one of those) and like 4-9+ of everything else, so between that and another friend that started collecting, we've got enough for 6 people to field 100 point lists and still have models to spare. I think he actually has around 550 points of each side, including higher point characters and upgrades.
He snagged 2 copies of Imperial Aces, and I think the plan is to get 1 of the Rebel Aces.
The tournament we're going to has prize support including the next wave of fighters, so hopefully across the 6 of us someone will place high enough to earn a new ship for the roster.
The Corellian Corvette looks like it will be a cool addition as well. Once they get all the basic fighters out I wonder in which direction they will take it. A Marauder Corvette would be cool. I always liked how those looked.
Well, they're already dipping into "the Extended/Expanded Universe", so there's some space to work there for another couple years, then the new movies start coming out and they can work with those. If they get stuck, there's always the prequels to look at (we're already looking at older ships with the Z-95, which I believe is the precursor to the X-Wing), and at that point they've got half a decade to a decade of material to trickle out.
If they really really want to expand things, they can simply use a much smaller scale (like 1:1000 or 1:2000 or whatever it would take to make a 1 to 9km long ship fit on a table and not cost $1000) and design a ship to ship battle game with little bases of fighter squads and play out capital ship battles.
Edit: similarly, it'll be interesting to see how much RRT can 'mine' the lore for the other series. As discussed in the past, there's not the same kind of variety in the second series. A bunch of the destroids look practically identical to one another (not nearly as iconic in the way the Rifleman and Warhammer are... ;-), and the enemy forces are similarly identical, other than minor changes (as I recall) and the colour, which is more a paint choice than anything. Oh, and the sleds, but those aren't exactly super sexy.
Which isn't to say they *can't* manage to add variety to things, but the middle generation seems to be kind of the bastard child of the saga, which is why I think trying to combine 2 and 3 into one project might help overcome that, as has been discussed as an option in the past.
Yeah, when I made the 2nd gen stuff I had to use the Robots/Drones for the Return of the Masters book to add flavor to the Masters. Using just Bioroids, even if there are differences is limited. I also added that Bazooka thing the bioroids used in the Sentinels movie.
I spoke to him about them in the FB page. If I do a literal conversion like the rest the X-Wing will do like 12 damage. One X-wing would be worth a whole squad of VT's. So while maybe correct if you think Star Wars as way advanced, you mess with being able to use squadrons of Star Wars fighters. I can do 2 sets if you like but if we use his stats directly the Star Wars stuff is not going to be well balanced in comparison. Take a look at the Keonig monster thread and comments.
Forar wrote:Oh, and NMI trolling their Facebook page with questions about RRT. That didn't exactly help PB's case in my eyes either.
Having the desire like everyone else here and elsewhere about a product I paid for does not equal trolling. I was not belligerent, insulting, abusive or anything else of the sort. I dont see any of the other people who posted to their FB page about RRT getting called a troll.
However, this is all I am going to say on the matter. You are entitled to your opinion of my comments.
My rebuttal:
Then why did you remove them, if you did nothing wrong? They seem to be missing from the page now, and I can't help but notice your FB profile no longer includes your forum handle.
Please. We both know you were trying to start something on that page while they were at Adepticon (and thus had extra traffic visiting them and their pics). And we both know that ND is simply parroting PB's information about the project, so going to them requesting info couldn't have been more transparent.
Even if that were the case, where are your requests of Palladium? I see a lot of updates and murmurs mentioned (yet strangely not nearly as much about the Kickstarter updates on their own page as ND has put up...), and yet no questions for them?
Oh, maybe you've been asking them directly? So why did ND need to be asked repeatedly in public?
"Jeff Nmi Ruiz: Does the gorgeous lady like to play Robotech RPG Tactics?"
"Jeff Nmi Ruiz: So in other words, no updates from Ninja Division"
"Jeff Nmi Ruiz: Yah but it doesn't look like you're acTually supporting or promoting it... unless you're not allowed"
"Jeff Nmi Ruiz: Hopefully we will have some completed ROBOTECH RPG TACTIC MINI's that grossed $1.4 million on Kickstarter"
Who do you think you're fooling?
Trolling is a lot of things, and 'technically not doing anything wrong but attempting to provoke a response' is certainly not an uncommon one. You can proclaim innocence all you like, but you were egging them on, and doing so while even tangentially associated with PB really wasn't the best idea I've seen.
But it's good to know some of the statements and behaviours one might exhibit and not be considered a troll under your moderation. Thanks for the heads up! :-D
The sharing of which I normally find a bit uncouth, but y'know what? Not in this case. He was harassing ND on their FB wall and clearly trying to make them look bad while they were at GAMA, so here we are.
If he's so innocent, why are the messages gone (and it doesn't seem to be related a block; they're not there if you check the ND page while logged out)? Where has the "NMI" gone from his FB profile name?
Even if meant with the best of intentions (unlikely), clearly someone decided it was inappropriate.
So don't try to tell me it was all harmless requests for info.
Cypher-xv wrote: His buddy has been brown nosing on the PBFB page.
I had to go check it out. Apparently the palladium site isn't locked like Mike's robotech one so I can read most (but not all) the comments. Someone should probably mention to the Liam guy who said:
"Plus, I know this much from my time as 2nd Place Holder in Australia's Dream Blade miniatures game, more parts means more "frankenmodeling"; more parts means its easier for me to customize stuff just for fun."
that his experience in a PREASSEMBLED PREPAINTED collectible minis game doesn't translate to any expertise in a traditional one where none of that is done for you ahead of time.
Cypher-xv wrote: His buddy has been brown nosing on the PBFB page.
I had to go check it out. Apparently the palladium site isn't locked like Mike's robotech one so I can read most (but not all) the comments. Someone should probably mention to the Liam guy who said:
"Plus, I know this much from my time as 2nd Place Holder in Australia's Dream Blade miniatures game, more parts means more "frankenmodeling"; more parts means its easier for me to customize stuff just for fun."
that his experience in a PREASSEMBLED PREPAINTED collectible minis game doesn't translate to any expertise in a traditional one where none of that is done for you ahead of time.
He's also a firefighter, soldier, writer of Young Justice episodes stuck in limbo, and a host of other stuff. He's basically macguyver.
Cypher-xv wrote: His buddy has been brown nosing on the PBFB page.
I had to go check it out. Apparently the palladium site isn't locked like Mike's robotech one so I can read most (but not all) the comments. Someone should probably mention to the Liam guy who said:
"Plus, I know this much from my time as 2nd Place Holder in Australia's Dream Blade miniatures game, more parts means more "frankenmodeling"; more parts means its easier for me to customize stuff just for fun."
that his experience in a PREASSEMBLED PREPAINTED collectible minis game doesn't translate to any expertise in a traditional one where none of that is done for you ahead of time.
Hey Warboss,
The problem I have is that every time I post people who follow me get a heads up that I posted something on the site. Since I have a lot of old friends and professionals that follow me it can be a problem and annoying if the forum was not a closed one. Sorry.
Now as far as NMI, the same day I heard what he did I screen capped it and sent it to PB. NMI blocked me within hours and went on a bit of a rant, so at least it got through somewhat to the PB folks.
@Mike: No worries but thanks for the explanation. I would have thought that there would be a way to classify the online status of various pages and who gets those updates but I guess not. I too am a closet gamer at work so I understand.
@Forar: I don't think it's harassment but I do think he should have also done spammed it on the Palladium site as well. They're just as much if not more (since they're effectively management) responsible.
What is really funny is by Kevin posting this, he "needs" volunteers specifically because he will not spend one penny outside of his four walls to pack so expect a long delay and a few packing errors.
I could show up to be paid in model sprues and develop a pack system...
I expect them to take months (probably closer to a full season) to get out all the stuff. Palladium has proven for decades (and more specifically over the past year since the Robotech KS) that they are incapable of effectively managing a large project and prioritizing what needs to be done. We'll probably have the whole team packing for a weekend and then the volunteers will tire of the endeavor and stop... a few days later the ninja division folks that are supposedly going to help will go home (assuming they don't distance themselves even further and just not show up in the first place) leaving only the warehouse guy and who ever else is availabe to get packages out after about a week. Kevin will by that time have a new apple in his eye that gets his full attention (at least for a few days like an overactive terrier) and will have left Robotech packing (much like the whole project) to the experts at Ninja Division (who have left and don't care for months) and to his palladium staffer (who couldn't be bothered to properly assemble and base the prototypes for the biggest industry convention). After two weeks, the warehouse guy will probably have to split his time between robotech and the likely mounting up RPG orders to both customers and stores/distributors that need to be shipped since those can still be refunded (which means lost money). After a month, they'll have to start their gencon prep and whoever doesn't already have their robotech stuff will have to wait for another month or so before they start up again (a week or two to prepare, a week of gencon, a week to recover, and then an extra week added on for whatever eye fungus palladium will blame for an additional delay).
When they'll finally get out all the stuff, they'll give themselves a big pat on the back for getting it done so soon months later "for the fans" instead of hiring temp help for a week to just get it out the door. About that time, people will start realizing that their orders are screwed up (it's inevitable with 5,000+ individual shipments) and trying to get it fixed. Of course, by that time Palladium will be in full swing working on the queen of ghouls halloween mannaquin crap and not have time to do much else. That will segway into the inevitable Christmas grab bag hawking that happens for two months and hopefully the first round of screw up corrections will at least get out the door between Halloween and Christmas. That is just my admittedly half glass empty prediction based on what palladium has "accomplished" in the past and just plain common sense. YMMV.
You know... I'm not worrying about that one just yet. When Jorel is done solving the real world's problems, I'm sure he'll get right on it.
In all seriousness, I'm mentally preparing myself for palladium to never get out wave 2 at worst or at best have it come out sometime around Christmas of 2015 judging from the two year delay on the second Northern Gun book (the closest equivalent we have to a "second wave" crowdfunding project from palladium). Like you've said in the past... if it has taken them this long just to get out the limited sculpts of the first wave, who the hell knows how long it'll take them to get out the lion's share of KS sculpts in wave 2 especially now that ND can't be bothered much about the campaign. Most of my worries about the project from before and during the campaign have turned into accurate predictions for the present so I'd be a fool not to prepare myself for the worst. Something about fooling me once comes to mind.
Surely that transcription process must be pretty quick. "Yup, got this right, this right, oooh, gotta move that noun a little, now it's right", etc, etc? :-P
Just a little ribbing, but you've stated at length that your rules were basically the same, so how much work can be needed if all you're doing is verifying their accuracy?
Mike1975 wrote: Not when I do this literally word for word...ugh
Wouldn't a scanner and some OCR software be a better option for bulk transfer? You'ld have to go through and check, and possibly correct and reformat bits I know bullet points usually get screwed up. But large blocks of text should translate fairly well. Except if TM and (C) are pervasive (and it is PB we're talking about), then you'ld have to re-add them.
Just because PB are reputedly Luddites doesn't mean you have to be.
Let's look at "Mikes Kind of RRT Rules .27" while he works on .31 (apparently 28, 29, 30 and 31 include transcription right from the rules packet).
- A personal preference; the use of "mecha" in the singular kind of drives me batty. But that's my own thing, and I'm seeking professional help to deal with it. "Those mecha" versus "that mech". "That mecha" just doesn't seem right to me. The line to mock me for this level of pedantry starts to the left.
- Similar semantics: "Mega Damage Capacity" is, in Palladium Speak, a defensive quality. It's how much punishment something can take. Inflicting damage is simply "Mega Damage", which a glance at their cards indicate that it seems to be used in this fashion as well.
- Page 6; your rounding math is still off. " Sometime you will be required to roll a D3. In that case roll a single D6 and then divide the result by 2 and round down." This means a 3 is now a 1. That's not accurately reflecting a d3. Like Palladium, this error has persisted across several editions. ;-)
- "Rounding
Whenever a player needs to round off a number, the result should be rounded up to the nearest whole number unless specified otherwise. Rolling with impact damage is rounded down." Well, we agree here. You still need to fix your description of a d3. Also, when the hell does the game us a d3?
- "Sometimes this may be obvious that a unit has LOD to another unit, while other times you may need to get in close and try to get the “unit’s eye view” so that the player can determine if there is anything in the way."
"Units eye view."
*sigh*
"Often a piece of string, a laser pointer, or even a digital camera can be useful in determining true LOS."
Yeah, man, when I think "fast paced", I think about pulling out my iphone and trying to get an accurate picture of where my figure is standing.
"Note that friendly units do not block LOS."
Whelp, that's going to make life difficult, because pulling figures out of place just to get my phone in there and 'see what the guy in front of him can see' is neither quick nor intuitive gameplay.
- Facing, Page 7: " Marking the unit’s base will help indicate the unit’s front and rear arcs. If there is no marking than drawing a lateral line of the unit’s shoulders, or a similar dividing line if the unit has no shoulders."
Buh? RRT will be using bases with the facing marked. Even hinting that it's totally cool to just 'make it up' with 'go by the shoulders' is asking for trouble.
Even better; figures like the Battlepod, which don't actually have shoulders.
Also, using the base means not having to worry about perfectly positioning the figure when building it, as the base itself has the important information. What you're doing here is allowing what is called "Modeling for Advantage". Note: this will also come up with "true line of sight". "Why yes, all of my Battloids are curled up in tight shoulder rolls and kneeling to take aim, why do you ask?"
Page 10: Stealing activations. I called this a terrible idea in .26, and .27 hasn't sweetened it.
Page 11: Movement. Doubling or tripling a units movement when many figures can already cross the board in 2 turns or less seems... unnecessary. Also, immersion breaking, when someones Destroid sprints across the board at the same rate as a VT because a good pilot got a lucky roll.
There's nearly an entire page dedicated to this sprinting thing. It seems like it basically comes down to "feel like crossing the board? Spend a few command points and go for it!"
Page 13: water returns! No, I thought you said this crap was gone? Also, the definition of woods based on the separation of trees in inches remains. This is a needlessly fiddly way of doing things, and not something most people's tables will reflect. I'm not even veteran miniatures gamer and I know that many people use cloud-shaped pieces of felt for trees. It's a lot more straightforward to simply note the density (light, medium, heavy, dense, whatever) and an effect, than needing to measure out how many inches apart the trees are.
The movement chart is still here. I recall you saying it wouldn't be. It really needs to go. Really. This is not part of a 'fast paced game'. It's movement based bookkeeping.
Page 18: Suppressing fire seems like a mechanic that gives a sizable edge to the Zentraedi, particularly in swarms. Having a flat out +1 to strike rolls almost always (due to the innately higher unit count) seems awfully powerful.
Page 19: Cover. 50-75%. Oh god. This is going to be a mess in competitive play, and will probably end a few friendships as well.
Page 21: Combat: so first I roll to strike, and if that hits, the opponent can choose to try to dodge, and if that fails, they can try to roll with the impact. This seems like an awful lot of ifs to include in a Past Faced game.
Page 24: Special Scenario Rules: Hidden Units: how gaming groups stopped playing together, because _____ is a jerk. Also known as: "ranges and math, the scenario".
Page 26: Hand to hand attacks don't compare against Defense?? Target is a modified 5+ on a d6+piloting? O.o
Oh, then the defender rolls to parry. And then rolls with impact if they want to. So instead of a simple target number it's an opposed roll, for a less powerful attack.
Page 29: Firing into melee is a bad idea. Agreed! The outcome of doing so involves a chart! NOOOOOOOOO!
Aside: no more trawling deviant art for pinups for you, sir.
Page 41: Building a force, missing section on skirmishes. ;-)
Okay, made it all the way through. Honestly? I don't think I'd want to play this game. Combined with the expected for sizes, 300 points in an hour would be a pipe dream. Tables with any real density of terrain would be a nightmare. There seem to be some mechanics that just flat out reward one faction over the other (as it stands), and there are some design principles I'd probably adopt from Malifaux and X-Wing (not mechanics, just principles) among other systems to shore up some of those distinctions.
It's a noble effort, it's clearly a work of passion, but it's coming across as needlessly finicky rather than providing depth.
Forar wrote: Also, using the base means not having to worry about perfectly positioning the figure when building it, as the base itself has the important information. What you're doing here is allowing what is called "Modeling for Advantage". Note: this will also come up with "true line of sight". "Why yes, all of my Battloids are curled up in tight shoulder rolls and kneeling to take aim, why do you ask?"
Come on Forar. With everyone bitching that the models are over-complex, monopose lumps of plastic, how many people do YOU know that will spend the incredible amounts of time required to do this? From the comments on the models here and on the KS comments, anyone who spends the time to do that sort of major conversion to all the models in their possession, deserves the advantage in my opinion. (OK, just hacksawing them up and putting them on the bases does not count, they would have to be done decently.) Being realistic, I have not seen that many 'players' who have converted their 40K armies from basic standard poses - admittedly, SM come in a less monopose layout to begin with, but there are far and away more people who don't model everything kneeling than there are those that can be bothered to do that, and I expect there to be even fewer RTT players that will be bothered. It's not like "modelling for advantage" is only possible in RRT, it's been around for , well, as long as tabletop wargames have been around, I guess.
Leave that sort of work to the few modellers who got in on this KS, the sort of people who have no intention of playing a game, and are therefore being forced to wait for the sun to go nova, or as you would recognise the term, "Wave 2"
Oh, I'm sure it'd be a crazy amount of work, but I feel the point is valid; using the model in this way introduces a lot of issues, and doesn't solve any in particularly elegant ways.
The modelling for advantage may be much more difficult in this game (mouth watering 98% final as it is), but it puts too much emphasis on the literal model, rather than where the model is represented to be (the base).
The "you can shoot through allies" rule allows for this variability, and yet shooting enemies takes their exact as-seen position as an absolute? It's inconsistent at the very least, and needlessly complicated for large scale play unless ones table barely has any potential cover on it.
Can you imagine playing our 300 points on a drop zone commander board? Fiddly mech locations everywhere!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another fun thought; if we're doing "true line of sight" from the mech's perspective and cover is based off percentages... what happens if a unit tries to fire a weapon through cover. Like, a Tomahawk is positioned with its missile cluster behind the edge of a building while it peaks out to shoot at a pod, can it use that weapon? If so, isn't that ignoring the whole 'the exact positioning of the model is important' aspect? That seems to be inconsistently applied.
Hell, range is noted to be determined from the closest edge of the two figure's bases, shouldn't it be from the location of the weapon to the actual figure?
Treating the bases as pertinent info for one part of the rules and completely irrelevant for other sections is a significant inconsistency, and seems like it'd do more to slow things down and cause rules discussions (don't even need to be arguments, it's still wasted time).
Further thought; should that Tomahawk peaking around a building even get to do full damage? Since the left and right arms aren't noted as different weapons (far as I recall), presumably they're both needed to achieve that level of Mega Damage, so shouldn't firing with only one cause a penalty?
This simulationism/realism rabbit hole goes down pretty far, and whatever they might have said about their models, they have been very clear that this is intended to be a fast paced game. Fast paced games where you can play out 100'ish models on the table in 60 minutes can't have those kinds of snags be nearly as prevalent as they appear to be.
Forar wrote: Also, using the base means not having to worry about perfectly positioning the figure when building it, as the base itself has the important information. What you're doing here is allowing what is called "Modeling for Advantage". Note: this will also come up with "true line of sight". "Why yes, all of my Battloids are curled up in tight shoulder rolls and kneeling to take aim, why do you ask?"
Spoiler:
Come on Forar. With everyone bitching that the models are over-complex, monopose lumps of plastic, how many people do YOU know that will spend the incredible amounts of time required to do this? From the comments on the models here and on the KS comments, anyone who spends the time to do that sort of major conversion to all the models in their possession, deserves the advantage in my opinion. (OK, just hacksawing them up and putting them on the bases does not count, they would have to be done decently.) Being realistic, I have not seen that many 'players' who have converted their 40K armies from basic standard poses - admittedly, SM come in a less monopose layout to begin with, but there are far and away more people who don't model everything kneeling than there are those that can be bothered to do that, and I expect there to be even fewer RTT players that will be bothered.
It's not like "modelling for advantage" is only possible in RRT, it's been around for , well, as long as tabletop wargames have been around, I guess.
Leave that sort of work to the few modellers who got in on this KS, the sort of people who have no intention of playing a game, and are therefore being forced to wait for the sun to go nova, or as you would recognise the term, "Wave 2"
I can only comment that if you have truly played "competitive play" all is fair in turning the rules to advantage.
I have seen armies done specifically for advantage and it would be much better rules-wise to have the shape of the model mean as little as possible, so you can go more by how cool it looks rather than conforming to a rule-set.
Also, anyone doing a TON of work on something like rules should be open to well thought-out criticism and even better, examples of how to improve because it IS all about the love of getting it right. Heck, it is gratifying enough to have evidence someone carefully read your work.
As it is, I think it looks dumb. But was probably going to put it on a few Destroids anyway.
If that adds to the mech's profile/silhouette, then I guess it's getting put on as low as possible, or even pointing down.
I shouldn't have to even think about that aspect when building these 'models' for gameplay. 100% agreed with the concept of using the bases as the noteworthy characteristic (if need be, give them a 'height value', aka the "Cylinder" approach others have mentioned in the past, similar to how Wyrd does things) and reduce the need for fiddly line of sight both ways all but entirely.
What's more worthwhile to the community; needlessly "get your camera in front of the mech to see what it sees" gameplay, or someone feeling free to model and base their figures however they wish to express creativity?
Even making it a consideration is something to consider, because it will have an impact at some point.
If my base is peaking around a corner so I can shoot while in cover, great. I'd prefer not to have to worry about whether putting my Battloids amidst city ruins base stuff puts it that centimeter too high to lose advantage from what cover we typically use.
Yes, it might not come up a lot, but when writing rules this far in advance, why not take the time to try to solve as many disputes and edge cases in advance as possible?
"Wow! Having all your Battloids on flight stands diving/jumping into position looks really cool. Too bad it means they don't get any cover at all on this table. Ever.": Not enhancing anyone's gameplay.
Let's look at "Mikes Kind of RRT Rules .27" while he works on .31 (apparently 28, 29, 30 and 31 include transcription right from the rules packet).
- A personal preference; the use of "mecha" in the singular kind of drives me batty. But that's my own thing, and I'm seeking professional help to deal with it. "Those mecha" versus "that mech". "That mecha" just doesn't seem right to me. The line to mock me for this level of pedantry starts to the left.
--->I HATE THIS TOO AND HAVE CHANGED NEARLY EVERY REFERENCE TO MECHA TO UNITS IN THE RE-WRITE
- Similar semantics: "Mega Damage Capacity" is, in Palladium Speak, a defensive quality. It's how much punishment something can take. Inflicting damage is simply "Mega Damage", which a glance at their cards indicate that it seems to be used in this fashion as well.
- Page 6; your rounding math is still off. " Sometime you will be required to roll a D3. In that case roll a single D6 and then divide the result by 2 and round down." This means a 3 is now a 1. That's not accurately reflecting a d3. Like Palladium, this error has persisted across several editions. ;-)
--->FIXED
- "Rounding
Whenever a player needs to round off a number, the result should be rounded up to the nearest whole number unless specified otherwise. Rolling with impact damage is rounded down." Well, we agree here. You still need to fix your description of a d3. Also, when the hell does the game us a d3?
--->FIXED
- "Sometimes this may be obvious that a unit has LOD to another unit, while other times you may need to get in close and try to get the “unit’s eye view” so that the player can determine if there is anything in the way."
--->FIXED
"Units eye view."
*sigh*
"Often a piece of string, a laser pointer, or even a digital camera can be useful in determining true LOS."
Yeah, man, when I think "fast paced", I think about pulling out my iphone and trying to get an accurate picture of where my figure is standing.
"Note that friendly units do not block LOS."
Whelp, that's going to make life difficult, because pulling figures out of place just to get my phone in there and 'see what the guy in front of him can see' is neither quick nor intuitive gameplay.
---> I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED
- Facing, Page 7: " Marking the unit’s base will help indicate the unit’s front and rear arcs. If there is no marking than drawing a lateral line of the unit’s shoulders, or a similar dividing line if the unit has no shoulders."
Buh? RRT will be using bases with the facing marked. Even hinting that it's totally cool to just 'make it up' with 'go by the shoulders' is asking for trouble.
Even better; figures like the Battlepod, which don't actually have shoulders.
Also, using the base means not having to worry about perfectly positioning the figure when building it, as the base itself has the important information. What you're doing here is allowing what is called "Modeling for Advantage". Note: this will also come up with "true line of sight". "Why yes, all of my Battloids are curled up in tight shoulder rolls and kneeling to take aim, why do you ask?"
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Page 10: Stealing activations. I called this a terrible idea in .26, and .27 hasn't sweetened it.
---> AT FIRST I AGREED WITH YOU, RULES SPECIFIES THAT YOU CAN ONLY SPEND A SINGLE COMMAND POINT TO ATTEMPT THIS AND NEED A 6 ONT A D6 SO ITS NOT AS BAD AS I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT
Page 11: Movement. Doubling or tripling a units movement when many figures can already cross the board in 2 turns or less seems... unnecessary. Also, immersion breaking, when someones Destroid sprints across the board at the same rate as a VT because a good pilot got a lucky roll.
---> I HAVE SIMILAR RESERVATIONS BUT THE FACT THAT THE COST TO DO SO IS HEAVY IN COMMAND POINTS AND YOU NEED TO GET A 6 ON A D6TO DO THIS LIMITS THIS GREATLY. ALSO A FEW UNTS DOING THIS AND CHARGING UP UNSUPPOTED ARE BASICALLY JUST TARGETS FOR YOUR ENEMY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS NOW. YOU'LL HAVE TO TRY THIS IN GAME YOURSELF AND SEE WHAT YOU THING THEN. REMEMBER COMMAND POINTS = LIFE
There's nearly an entire page dedicated to this sprinting thing. It seems like it basically comes down to "feel like crossing the board? Spend a few command points and go for it!"
---> THAT WAS SOMETHING I ADDED IN PLAYING WITH RULES POSSIBILITIES --->SPRINTING IS GONE
Page 13: water returns! No, I thought you said this crap was gone? Also, the definition of woods based on the separation of trees in inches remains. This is a needlessly fiddly way of doing things, and not something most people's tables will reflect. I'm not even veteran miniatures gamer and I know that many people use cloud-shaped pieces of felt for trees. It's a lot more straightforward to simply note the density (light, medium, heavy, dense, whatever) and an effect, than needing to measure out how many inches apart the trees are.
---> TERRAIN IS MUCH SIMPLER, 3 TYPES : OPEN, ROUGH (RUBBLE, WATER, WOODS, ETC., DEADLY. APART FROM THAT YOU HAVE BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES
The movement chart is still here. I recall you saying it wouldn't be. It really needs to go. Really. This is not part of a 'fast paced game'. It's movement based bookkeeping.
---> GONE, AS ABOVE, ONLY 3 TERRAIN TYPES, WOODS AND WATER AND ALL ARE COMBINED AS ROUGH TERRAIN
Page 18: Suppressing fire seems like a mechanic that gives a sizable edge to the Zentraedi, particularly in swarms. Having a flat out +1 to strike rolls almost always (due to the innately higher unit count) seems awfully powerful.
---> THIS HAS BEEN CHANGED TO CLOSE FORMATION. PODS HAVE A GUNNERY OF ONLY 1, SO THIS HELPS, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD THINK AND THE MECHANIC IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. I'LL GIVE MORE DETAILS LATER
Page 19: Cover. 25-75%. Oh god. This is going to be a mess in competitive play, and will probably end a few friendships as well.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Page 21: Combat: so first I roll to strike, and if that hits, the opponent can choose to try to dodge, and if that fails, they can try to roll with the impact. This seems like an awful lot of ifs to include in a Past Faced game.
---> THERE IS ONLY THE DODGE ROLL, ROLL WITH IMPACT IS FREE/AUTOMATIC IF YOU PAY COMMAND POINT SO ROLLING DOES NOT ADD A LOT OF DICE ROLLING TO GAMEPLAY
Page 24: Snow and low light conditions: screw you, Zentraedi infantry!
---> AGAIN, TERRAIN IS SIMPLIFIED, RESTRICTION IS GONE, PERSONALLY I PREFER MORE COMPLEX TERRAIN OPTIONS, BUT AGAIN, I PLAYED BATTLETECH AND BASED THESE RULES OFF OF THAT WHEN I WROTE THEM.
Page 24: Special Scenario Rules: Hidden Units: how gaming groups stopped playing together, because _____ is a jerk. Also known as: "ranges and math, the scenario".
---> GONE, MAYBE IN ADVANCED RULES
Page 26: Hand to hand attacks don't compare against Defense?? Target is a modified 5+ on a d6+piloting? O.o
Oh, then the defender rolls to parry. And then rolls with impact if they want to. So instead of a simple target number it's an opposed roll, for a less powerful attack.
---> HAND TO HAND RULES ARE OPPOSED ROLLS FOR STRIKE AND PARRY, AGAIN ROLL WITH IMPACT DOES NOT REQUIRE A ROLL. I ASSUMED IT DID SINCE THAT IS THE WAY THE RPG RULES WORK.
Page 29: Firing into melee is a bad idea. Agreed! The outcome of doing so involves a chart! NOOOOOOOOO!
---> NOBODY CAN EVER FIRE INTO MELEE UNLESS THE FRIENDLIES ARE PODS OR INFANTRY WITH LIFE IS CHEAP, IN THAT CASE DAMAGE IS SHARED EQUALLY, NO CHART
Aside: no more trawling deviant art for pinups for you, sir.
Page 41: Building a force, missing section on skirmishes.
--> THIS SECTION IS TINY, LIKE I SAID, I'VE PROPOSED ADVANCED RULES THAT WILL INCLUDE A MORE DETAILED SKIRMISH SET, IF THIS HAPPENS I WILL SOLICIT SOME HELP
Okay, made it all the way through. Honestly? I don't think I'd want to play this game. Combined with the expected for sizes, 300 points in an hour would be a pipe dream. Tables with any real density of terrain would be a nightmare. There seem to be some mechanics that just flat out reward one faction over the other (as it stands), and there are some design principles I'd probably adopt from Malifaux and X-Wing (not mechanics, just principles) among other systems to shore up some of those distinctions.
It's a noble effort, it's clearly a work of passion, but it's coming across as needlessly finicky rather than providing depth.
SORRY ABOUT UPPERCASE, I FELT THIS WAY COMMENTS WOULD STICK OUT BETTER.
I did send an email about sharing the rules, keep your fingers crossed.
No worries, the upper case and smilies, they made it clear where your comments were, and adding quote tags around every statement would've been an obnoxious waste of time.
Now, I'll trim out yours and respond in kind:
--->I HATE THIS TOO AND HAVE CHANGED NEARLY EVERY REFERENCE TO MECHA TO UNITS IN THE RE-WRITE
You and I, we are more alike than originally anticipated.
---> Re: Line of Sight: I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED.
:-(
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Yeah... this is going to be a problem. I think the conversation above sums up why pretty well. I get that you're just the messenger, but that doesn't change it being a crappy mechanic.
---> AT FIRST I AGREED WITH YOU, RULES SPECIFIES THAT YOU CAN ONLY SPEND A SINGLE COMMAND POINT TO ATTEMPT THIS AND NEED A 6 ONT A D6 SO ITS NOT AS BAD AS I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT
That doesn't necessarily make it much better. As you say, command points are life, so gambling one on a 16% chance of success stings. At least it doesn't appear to be "1 command point per squad" anymore. That was highly obnoxious for such a low chance of success. Still can't see trying to use this very often.
---> I HAVE SIMILAR RESERVATIONS BUT THE FACT THAT THE COST TO DO SO IS HEAVY IN COMMAND POINTS AND YOU NEED TO GET A 6 ON A D6TO DO THIS LIMITS THIS GREATLY. ALSO A FEW UNTS DOING THIS AND CHARGING UP UNSUPPOTED ARE BASICALLY JUST TARGETS FOR YOUR ENEMY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS NOW. YOU'LL HAVE TO TRY THIS IN GAME YOURSELF AND SEE WHAT YOU THING THEN. REMEMBER COMMAND POINTS = LIFE
But it doesn't need a 6, as I recall. It was d6+Pil to meet or exceed a 6, and units with speed below 6 could do it even more easily. With a good pilot and a slower unit, a few command points and a lucky roll could see a MAC II sprinting across a table in a truly unbelievable way. If any form of this remained or returned, I'd recommend a hard limit where a player can't spend more than 1 CP per figure on this. A shot at doubling a figure's speed (while also possibly spreading their squad across half the table if some units don't make it) is spicy as it is.
---> THAT WAS SOMETHING I ADDED IN PLAYING WITH RULES POSSIBILITIES --->SPRINTING IS GONE
Are these two separate mechanics I'm conflating into 1? I thought sprinting was the "move multiple times in a turn" thing above?
---> TERRAIN IS MUCH SIMPLER, 3 TYPES : OPEN, ROUGH (RUBBLE, WATER, WOODS, ETC., DEADLY. APART FROM THAT YOU HAVE BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES
---> GONE, AS ABOVE, ONLY 3 TERRAIN TYPES, WOODS AND WATER AND ALL ARE COMBINED AS ROUGH TERRAIN
Much better. The structure stuff is a bit fiddly as well, but the terrain was cluttered.
---> THIS HAS BEEN CHANGED TO CLOSE FORMATION. PODS HAVE A GUNNERY OF ONLY 1, SO THIS HELPS, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD THINK AND THE MECHANIC IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. I'LL GIVE MORE DETAILS LATER
Fair enough, but it's worth noting that any mechanic that provides an advantage to the side with superior numbers is something to watch very closely in a game where 1 faction will almost always have superior numbers.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Eh? So instead of going with clear/sensible rules, they've just moved to "if you disagree roll a D6"? So... the GW approach to rules dispute resolution? Frowning so hard here. SO HARD.
---> THERE IS ONLY THE DODGE ROLL, ROLL WITH IMPACT IS FREE/AUTOMATIC IF YOU PAY COMMAND POINT SO ROLLING DOES NOT ADD A LOT OF DICE ROLLING TO GAMEPLAY
So to roll with impact and cut damage in half, you just spend the CP? No roll necessary? That I actually like. Iffy on the mechanic in general (also, rolling with the impact of an energy weapon? O.o ), but better.
---> AGAIN, TERRAIN IS SIMPLIFIED, RESTRICTION IS GONE, PERSONALLY I PREFER MORE COMPLEX TERRAIN OPTIONS, BUT AGAIN, I PLAYED BATTLETECH AND BASED THESE RULES OFF OF THAT WHEN I WROTE THEM.
I've noticed. :-P
Battletech and RRT are very different animals, and what we're seeing is how the mechanics for one don't necessarily line up with the other.
Page 24: Special Scenario Rules: Hidden Units: how gaming groups stopped playing together, because _____ is a jerk. Also known as: "ranges and math, the scenario".
---> GONE, MAYBE IN ADVANCED RULES
Good. Would have been a nightmare.
Page 26: Hand to hand attacks don't compare against Defense?? Target is a modified 5+ on a d6+piloting? O.o
Oh, then the defender rolls to parry. And then rolls with impact if they want to. So instead of a simple target number it's an opposed roll, for a less powerful attack.
---> HAND TO HAND RULES ARE OPPOSED ROLLS FOR STRIKE AND PARRY, AGAIN ROLL WITH IMPACT DOES NOT REQUIRE A ROLL. I ASSUMED IT DID SINCE THAT IS THE WAY THE RPG RULES WORK.
Page 29: Firing into melee is a bad idea. Agreed! The outcome of doing so involves a chart! NOOOOOOOOO!
---> NOBODY CAN EVER FIRE INTO MELEE UNLESS THE FRIENDLIES ARE PODS OR INFANTRY WITH LIFE IS CHEAP, IN THAT CASE DAMAGE IS SHARED EQUALLY, NO CHART
Eh? The rules state you can as long as there are enough enemies in place. Something about as long as there are 3 or more enemies in base to base with the opponent, you can shoot 'em. Damage is shared equally? Err, so if there's 1 Tomahawk and 3 Battlepods kicking the crap out of it (literally), and I fire a GU-11 into the melee for 6 damage, that gets spread out among all 4?
--> THIS SECTION IS TINY, LIKE I SAID, I'VE PROPOSED ADVANCED RULES THAT WILL INCLUDE A MORE DETAILED SKIRMISH SET, IF THIS HAPPENS I WILL SOLICIT SOME HELP
I'd be happy to help. I think a few of us here worked up very sensible Skirmish guidelines that'd take up a few paragraphs at most.
... except the rules are already done, aren't they? We're 4 months (*winky*) from delivery, surely they aren't going to start shuffling the book around just to fit in anything but the most minor of adjustments at this point?
Talizvar wrote: Now if only this could be done with feedback on the models!
(Just no pleasing us I know!)
Cool to see the updates though!
Not sure if those "fixes" are errors in the official rules and fixes by PB, or errors in Mikes rules and fixes by him for his next iteration. There's two trains running parallel here, and it can be confusing at times to separate the one from the other.
The thing I'd be most concerned about is how much input the ND staff still have, how much the rules have diverged since, and how much experience PB have in the wargaming field. Without seeing the full rules, it's hard to make an assessment, but the things Mike mentions PB sticking to (LOS) seem.... archaic. And the "dice off if argument over 25/75 cover" comes across as turdworthy.
Talizvar wrote: Now if only this could be done with feedback on the models!
(Just no pleasing us I know!)
Cool to see the updates though!
Not sure if those "fixes" are errors in the official rules and fixes by PB, or errors in Mikes rules and fixes by him for his next iteration. There's two trains running parallel here, and it can be confusing at times to separate the one from the other.
Well, not sure who he is getting permission from then on what he can or cannot change... his wife?
The thing I'd be most concerned about is how much input the ND staff still have, how much the rules have diverged since, and how much experience PB have in the wargaming field. Without seeing the full rules, it's hard to make an assessment, but the things Mike mentions PB sticking to (LOS) seem.... archaic. And the "dice off if argument over 25/75 cover" comes across as turdworthy.
Hard to argue with GW the "world leader" of tabletop war gaming and their success!
Just stay really far away from IP infringement, Kevin would have a heart attack taking on those guys.
Forar wrote: ---> Re: Line of Sight: I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED.
:-(
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Yeah... this is going to be a problem. I think the conversation above sums up why pretty well. I get that you're just the messenger, but that doesn't change it being a crappy mechanic.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Eh? So instead of going with clear/sensible rules, they've just moved to "if you disagree roll a D6"? So... the GW approach to rules dispute resolution? Frowning so hard here. SO HARD.
That's a great idea - take two of the most hated rules (the other being IGOUGO) from GW and keep them! That's the perfect way to make a successful rule set!
What you have now is Boosting your speed, you pay 1 Command Point PER TRY PER UNIT, so if you have a VF Squadron and want them to boost on you need to spend command points on each unit and then you need to get a 6 with each one. You also have to say beforehand how much you want to spend. So if you spend 2 Command Points for each VF for a total of 8, and then only 3 of them get at least one six on both dice, one of them is going to get left behind, so while the idea worried me, the real thing in practice will not be used often as leaving your buddies behind is typically a death sentence. Forget sprinting.
Rules for Buildings are really simple, for me a bit too much so. Maybe something to mess with with some advanced rules.
Close Formation, everyone will try to be in close formation unless you have Heavy Arty Pods or Phalanx's with Blast making everyone spread out.
All qualifying units in close formation enjoy a +1 bonus to Strike in ranged combat. Each unit with a Gunnery Attribute that is less than the total number of units in the close formation (not the squadron as a whole) qualifies for the bonus to Strike. However, units in formation that have a higher GN do not qualify for the bonus.
Terrain -- I like to have a least Heavy and Light woods and a few others, these are all wrapped up into heavy and open, this might have to change when cyclones come into play though.
Hand to Hand rules did not allow firing into the group, what was in 0.27 was my first thoughts into how to change this. Now you can only fire if friendly units have Life is Cheap and then things are spread around evenly among all the units in hand to hand. I've tried to add firing Torso or head weapons in hand to hand at the cost of a command point, that way a Tomahawk could fire the chest guns or a veritech the head lasers but I think this will wait for advanced rules.
Honestly at this point I'm not sure how much time we have left and they might not tell me if they knew.
So I plan on pushing advanced rules with some Skirmish stuff with more detail in it that can be used for smaller games OR for 3rd gen when cyclones and invid are about.
Forar wrote: ---> Re: Line of Sight: I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED.
:-(
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Yeah... this is going to be a problem. I think the conversation above sums up why pretty well. I get that you're just the messenger, but that doesn't change it being a crappy mechanic.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Eh? So instead of going with clear/sensible rules, they've just moved to "if you disagree roll a D6"? So... the GW approach to rules dispute resolution? Frowning so hard here. SO HARD.
That's a great idea - take two of the most hated rules (the other being IGOUGO) from GW and keep them! That's the perfect way to make a successful rule set!
I did pose various alternatives, remember not everyone thinks this is a bad idea though. Some prefer it this way. Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hope this helps some, feel free to throw out some more.
- A personal preference; the use of "mecha" in the singular kind of drives me batty. But that's my own thing, and I'm seeking professional help to deal with it. "Those mecha" versus "that mech". "That mecha" just doesn't seem right to me. The line to mock me for this level of pedantry starts to the left.
'Mech' used to be a protected FASA term. Not sure if this is still current or has lapsed, btu FASA learned from the Battledroids 'issue' and protected Mech heavily. My favorite was a late 80s/early 90s adventure for the ParanoiaRPG titled 'Mad Mechs' that used the term solely as an abbreviation for 'mechanics' (as in the job) and has a small sticker in the cover stating that they were aware of FASA's rights and making no attempt at ownership.
I would agree that using the term Mega Damage Capacity (or MDC) is ridiculous, especially if the game doesn't handle SDC. Considering that in Palaldium 1 MDC generally reduces a humanoid without MDC armor to a fine red mist, I'm guessing we won't have unarmored humans in the game.
(A lost opportunity, as 'Capture the Minmei' would be a fun scenario, and totally true to the canon.)
Mike1975 wrote: What you have now is Boosting your speed, you pay 1 Command Point PER TRY PER UNIT, so if you have a VF Squadron and want them to boost on you need to spend command points on each unit and then you need to get a 6 with each one. You also have to say beforehand how much you want to spend. So if you spend 2 Command Points for each VF for a total of 8, and then only 3 of them get at least one six on both dice, one of them is going to get left behind, so while the idea worried me, the real thing in practice will not be used often as leaving your buddies behind is typically a death sentence. Forget sprinting.
Just two bits. I don't like the change to "unit". While I guess it's technically acceptable, I personally conflate "unit" with "formation". So it made the "1CP per try per unit" bit confusing. Using "model" or "figure" would be less confusing, at least to me.
Second bit, I'm really not enthused by the whole "17% Success Command Point" rule. You've said "Command Points = Life.". Making success so restrictive looks to make for some truly swinging games. In your above example, you say you roll 8 dice for the unit. That means for the expenditure of eight CP, there's a ~23% chance that you get NOTHING. Your chance of getting the listed 3 successes is less than ~13.5% (that number accounts for 3 successes on 8 dice, but doesn't account for the real if marginal chance two of those dice apply to a single model). The chance of expending 8CP to get all four moving is less than ~3%. To get a better than 50-50 chance of the formation doing it, you need to expend 22CP, and that number goes up, if you have to assign each to single models. My math may be off, but to get a 50% chance of the formation moving, requires 10CP PER MODEL. Seems completely worthless, given the apparent importance of CP.
Just to clarify that last bit, and for people to check my math.
To get a 50% full success rate across four models, requires each model to have an individual 85% success rate, cause one failure means failure as a whole (that might not apply tactically, you might only need 3 to succeed, but that still leaves one Veri with it's thumb up it's proverbial, and that's a potential 25% drop in the formation's effectiveness)
0.85(success chance)^4(required successes)=~0.5 or 50%.
To get an 85% chance on getting a 6, is NOT 6 dice. The chance of rolling a 6 on a d6 IS 1/6 (or 16.66%). But you can't just add the success chances together. You need to multiply out the failures.
The chance of failing to get a 6 on 6 dice is (5/6)^6. Or 33%. Which means the chance of succeeding on at least one six is 66%. That's good enough for one model, but to get the 50% we were talking about, insufficient for four. Extrapolating out the numbers, we need (5/6)^10 to get the ~85% chance of getting a single 6. Actually, 11 is better (10 is 83.85%, 11 is 86.54%). But it's close enough for government work.
EDIT: Mike, My point is, having something in there that appears to be this cornercase, yet uses an apparently important and restricted resource, just seems like so much wasted paper. That it has to get done on a figure by figure basis, just makes it worse. And will slow the game down. If I rolled 8 dice, and picked out the sixes, that takes X time. Rolling 4 pairs of dice, and figuring it out case by case, doesn't lend itself to "fast paced". Note, I don't have a problem with involved detailed mechanics (BT was my first wargame). But that's not what RTT is being promoted as. Time consuming detail in 4v4 is fine. In 40v40, not so much.
Keep in mind that sharing damage keep you alive but also getting back strikes and crossfire. There may be times you want to boost 2 of the 4 VFs in a squadron to surround some pods and nail them from both sides. That way you would only need to boost 2 VFs. Situations vary. Again the high CP cost and risk reduces the worry about abuse.
Mike1975 wrote: Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
Except in appealing to as big a crowd as it can to be successful, it will stumble across "win at all costs" type players, and hyper competitive tournament players alike. They can be a good cash cow section of the gaming populace, so while I respect that *your* rules might not reflect catering to those players, the *official* rules absolutely have to.
As has been noted in the past, this isn't an RPG, there isn't a GM sitting at the table arbitrarily telling them whether what they want to do works or not, the rule system has to be solid (but flexible), intuitive and yet reflect edge cases with the minimum amount of fuss.
@Morgan's Math: I haven't run the numbers to the same degree, but he has a very good point. Keep in mind that outside of Leadership abilities, each Mech generates 1 CP per turn (aside from "Life is Cheap" figures, but Officer's Pods seem to bump that average up at least a bit, closer to 1/2 CP per figure in the squad depending on what is taken... unless it's a swarm of 21 pods, that is).
Taking the example we're working with, that 8 CP to try to get VT's moving at speed requires *two full squads worth of CP* (before Leadership, but even with it, that's sizable). Even with Leadership 4 on a 1J (Right? And is Leadership in addition to the CP generated by the VT itself, or total?) that's only 7 or 8 CP. Doubling up still falls short on the likelihood of working.
And as I see your reply in my 'thread window', keep in mind that "it doesn't have a very high chance of working" is *not* necessarily something in its favor. It makes things very swingy, either the ability works and it's super powerful, or it flops and people are frustrated for feeling they wasted what you have repeatedly noted is a valuable resource. I'm no stranger to "high risk, high reward" gameplay, but CP have effects that just happen, or ones that have (from what we've seen) terrible chances of happening. The latter make a mess of balance; if they happen, that's huge, if they don't, that player just pissed away "a ton of life", for as we know, "CP ARE LIFE!".
Unless you roll 5 or less, in which case feth you!
Mike1975 wrote: Keep in mind that sharing damage keep you alive but also getting back strikes and crossfire. There may be times you want to boost 2 of the 4 VFs in a squadron to surround some pods and nail them from both sides. That way you would only need to boost 2 VFs. Situations vary. Again the high CP cost and risk reduces the worry about abuse.
It's not that it's abusable. It's that the way it's written, it's like a lottery. Or as it's often derogatorily called, a "stupid tax". As it stands, it's only going to be used in three situations. The truly desperate situation (for who it mostly won't work), the people who don't understand the math (for who it mostly won't work), and for cheaters with weighted dice. I'd much rather the cost of the extra movement be factored into the cost of the ability, and have it act more reliably. Making the use of the rule "tactical", rather than "lottery".
Forar wrote: ---> Re: Line of Sight: I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED.
:-(
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Yeah... this is going to be a problem. I think the conversation above sums up why pretty well. I get that you're just the messenger, but that doesn't change it being a crappy mechanic.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Eh? So instead of going with clear/sensible rules, they've just moved to "if you disagree roll a D6"? So... the GW approach to rules dispute resolution? Frowning so hard here. SO HARD.
That's a great idea - take two of the most hated rules (the other being IGOUGO) from GW and keep them! That's the perfect way to make a successful rule set!
I did pose various alternatives, remember not everyone thinks this is a bad idea though. Some prefer it this way. Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
Yes, it has to cater to a large crowd.
Having something in the rules like "LOLDICEOFF" isn't catering to a large crowd, it's bs lazy rules writing.
I don't personally have a problem with TLOS, but I understand why people gripe about it.
And if the system wants to do well, it needs - not should have, but needs - a rule set that will survive tournament "abuse".
Balance wrote: 'Mech' used to be a protected FASA term. Not sure if this is still current or has lapsed, btu FASA learned from the Battledroids 'issue' and protected Mech heavily.
The end result of that for me personally was that "mech" would be used to refer to the bi-pedal machines in settings that only had plodding walkers, while "mecha" should be used to refer to them in settings that had at least some agile types (i.e. a MAC II might be a slow plodding thing, but the fact that VFs weren't meant that all of the walkers in the setting were "mecha").
It also ended up being more or less "US stuff is mechs and Japanese stuff is mecha".
Mike1975 wrote: Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
Except in appealing to as big a crowd as it can to be successful, it will stumble across "win at all costs" type players, and hyper competitive tournament players alike. They can be a good cash cow section of the gaming populace, so while I respect that *your* rules might not reflect catering to those players, the *official* rules absolutely have to.
As has been noted in the past, this isn't an RPG, there isn't a GM sitting at the table arbitrarily telling them whether what they want to do works or not, the rule system has to be solid (but flexible), intuitive and yet reflect edge cases with the minimum amount of fuss.
@Morgan's Math: I haven't run the numbers to the same degree, but he has a very good point. Keep in mind that outside of Leadership abilities, each Mech generates 1 CP per turn (aside from "Life is Cheap" figures, but Officer's Pods seem to bump that average up at least a bit, closer to 1/2 CP per figure in the squad depending on what is taken... unless it's a swarm of 21 pods, that is).
Taking the example we're working with, that 8 CP to try to get VT's moving at speed requires *two full squads worth of CP* (before Leadership, but even with it, that's sizable). Even with Leadership 4 on a 1J (Right? And is Leadership in addition to the CP generated by the VT itself, or total?) that's only 7 or 8 CP. Doubling up still falls short on the likelihood of working.
And as I see your reply in my 'thread window', keep in mind that "it doesn't have a very high chance of working" is *not* necessarily something in its favor. It makes things very swingy, either the ability works and it's super powerful, or it flops and people are frustrated for feeling they wasted what you have repeatedly noted is a valuable resource. I'm no stranger to "high risk, high reward" gameplay, but CP have effects that just happen, or ones that have (from what we've seen) terrible chances of happening. The latter make a mess of balance; if they happen, that's huge, if they don't, that player just pissed away "a ton of life", for as we know, "CP ARE LIFE!".
Unless you roll 5 or less, in which case feth you!
There are a few assumptions that you are making in all this that you do need to consider.
1. Official Rues is not equal to Tournament Rules, and there had been talk of writing a seperate set of tournament rules. So collecting all the ideas for alternatince instead of just "That won't work" would be much more useful. I have no plans on helping with those, I know I would not have the experience, last tourney I played was over 20 years ago.
2. The only way to remove variability to change the die type ot the number of dice. Increasing the number of dice such as using 2D6 can reduce variance but also slow down what is designed to be a fast playing system.
3. If you eliminate or reduce that variance you also eliminate or reduce the chances of trying oddball things and having good luck with them. This happens in battle. Risk and rewards. If someone wants to risk 10+ Command Points, it's likely going to hurt him elseware since a single VF squadron of 4 Fighters generates 6 command points total, the VF-1J had 2 leadership. The VF-1S was dropped to 3 leadership. Again, if a player knows the risk he is taking and he loses the gamble, why would that put him off a game? he knows enough of the rules at that point understand the risk he was taking. I don't agree with this argument. I've had plenty of mechs get their heads shot off from a roll of a natural 12. I even won a battle with the first shot of the game due to a lucky hit. Removing some variability and flexibility can have quite the opposite effect and bore players just a fast.
Mike1975 wrote: Keep in mind that sharing damage keep you alive but also getting back strikes and crossfire. There may be times you want to boost 2 of the 4 VFs in a squadron to surround some pods and nail them from both sides. That way you would only need to boost 2 VFs. Situations vary. Again the high CP cost and risk reduces the worry about abuse.
It's not that it's abusable. It's that the way it's written, it's like a lottery. Or as it's often derogatorily called, a "stupid tax". As it stands, it's only going to be used in three situations. The truly desperate situation (for who it mostly won't work), the people who don't understand the math (for who it mostly won't work), and for cheaters with weighted dice. I'd much rather the cost of the extra movement be factored into the cost of the ability, and have it act more reliably. Making the use of the rule "tactical", rather than "lottery".
I don't see if as a Lottery, 1 in 6 is not that bad. It's a risk and it has a reward, I personally would rarely use it unless the conditions were just right. A first this worried me just like it does you but then I realized how much the risk involved was and realized that I had no problem with someone paying 3 or 4 command points in hoping to get some advantage. I will crucify him for it somewhere else on the table. 3-4 Command Points alone is 3-4 less chances of trying to Dodge or Rolling with Impact and halving damage when some other unit gets hit. Also, if you boost in a fighter, you must use the FULL boosted movement with afterburner on your second move. Hadn't thought of this but then it can be really useful for Airstrikes if your rolls are good.
Forar wrote: ---> Re: Line of Sight: I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED.
:-(
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Yeah... this is going to be a problem. I think the conversation above sums up why pretty well. I get that you're just the messenger, but that doesn't change it being a crappy mechanic.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Eh? So instead of going with clear/sensible rules, they've just moved to "if you disagree roll a D6"? So... the GW approach to rules dispute resolution? Frowning so hard here. SO HARD.
That's a great idea - take two of the most hated rules (the other being IGOUGO) from GW and keep them! That's the perfect way to make a successful rule set!
I did pose various alternatives, remember not everyone thinks this is a bad idea though. Some prefer it this way. Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
Yes, it has to cater to a large crowd.
Having something in the rules like "LOLDICEOFF" isn't catering to a large crowd, it's bs lazy rules writing.
I don't personally have a problem with TLOS, but I understand why people gripe about it.
And if the system wants to do well, it needs - not should have, but needs - a rule set that will survive tournament "abuse".
Again, you might not know this but you guys deserve to, there has been talk of doing a seperate set of :Tournament Rules" Make a list of what you'd do different at a tournament and I'll share what I can when that ball gets rolling, shoot, its likely already in the works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hope that covers it all for now
Mike1975 wrote: I don't see if as a Lottery, 1 in 6 is not that bad. It's a risk and it has a reward, I personally would rarely use it unless the conditions were just right. A first this worried me just like it does you but then I realized how much the risk involved was and realized that I had no problem with someone paying 3 or 4 command points in hoping to get some advantage. I will crucify him for it somewhere else on the table. 3-4 Command Points alone is 3-4 less chances of trying to Dodge or Rolling with Impact and halving damage when some other unit gets hit. Also, if you boost in a fighter, you must use the FULL boosted movement with afterburner on your second move. Hadn't thought of this but then it can be really useful for Airstrikes if your rolls are good.
Right. It's not that it's too strong - it's that the reward isn't worth the risk. It's absolutely a stupid tax - 3-4 Command Points to maybe (maybe... the times my opponent's Tesla Destructors have failed to roll a single 6 - and that's twin linked - is pretty high) roll a 6 and do something useful probably isn't worth doing 90% of the time. So all it does is serve as a "Are you a good player?" test.
Again, you might not know this but you guys deserve to, there has been talk of doing a seperate set of :Tournament Rules" Make a list of what you'd do different at a tournament and I'll share what I can when that ball gets rolling, shoot, its likely already in the works.
Why have a separate set of rules? That's a waste of time. Literally, it makes me never want to play the game. I'm dead serious.
Mike1975 wrote: Keep in mind that sharing damage keep you alive but also getting back strikes and crossfire. There may be times you want to boost 2 of the 4 VFs in a squadron to surround some pods and nail them from both sides. That way you would only need to boost 2 VFs. Situations vary. Again the high CP cost and risk reduces the worry about abuse.
It's not that it's abusable. It's that the way it's written, it's like a lottery. Or as it's often derogatorily called, a "stupid tax". As it stands, it's only going to be used in three situations. The truly desperate situation (for who it mostly won't work), the people who don't understand the math (for who it mostly won't work), and for cheaters with weighted dice. I'd much rather the cost of the extra movement be factored into the cost of the ability, and have it act more reliably. Making the use of the rule "tactical", rather than "lottery".
I don't see if as a Lottery, 1 in 6 is not that bad. It's a risk and it has a reward, I personally would rarely use it unless the conditions were just right. A first this worried me just like it does you but then I realized how much the risk involved was and realized that I had no problem with someone paying 3 or 4 command points in hoping to get some advantage. I will crucify him for it somewhere else on the table. 3-4 Command Points alone is 3-4 less chances of trying to Dodge or Rolling with Impact and halving damage when some other unit gets hit. Also, if you boost in a fighter, you must use the FULL boosted movement with afterburner on your second move. Hadn't thought of this but then it can be really useful for Airstrikes if your rolls are good.
Which is my point. The apparent only purpose of the rule is for people without an understanding of the math pissing away CP when it could be used for something actual useful. If it's that rare to get use of, it's just a handicap. It'd be like adding in an optional unit, that costs 75pts in a standard 300pt game. "SDF-1 Bombardmant- Roll 2d6 before deployment. If you roll double 6, you win the game.". And it's not like these abilities mentioned even seem like they're worth all that much. Increase the cost, remove the huge swings. 2CP to double move automatically too cheap? Make it 3. But when you're looking at spending 4CP to get a 50% chance? Meh. Turf it.
Yes, it has to cater to a large crowd.
Having something in the rules like "LOLDICEOFF" isn't catering to a large crowd, it's bs lazy rules writing.
I don't personally have a problem with TLOS, but I understand why people gripe about it.
And if the system wants to do well, it needs - not should have, but needs - a rule set that will survive tournament "abuse".
Again, you might not know this but you guys deserve to, there has been talk of doing a seperate set of :Tournament Rules" Make a list of what you'd do different at a tournament and I'll share what I can when that ball gets rolling, shoot, its likely already in the works.
Umm.... Tournament Rules that govern more than just the way tournaments operate? As in, an entirely new set of changes to the actual game rules (not just scenario/victory conditions)? I can't begin to say how wrong I think that'd be. The official gameplay rules should be the SAME rules used at tournaments. I seriously can't wrap my head around them not being the same. "Oh, the dodging of four missiles rule? Yeah, that's in the Official Rules. But we're playing Tournament Rules!". "Oh, you'ld have LOS if we were playing in a tournament, but because we're playing the Official Rules, we dice off.".
I know you're trying to help, Mike. But gahhh! That sounds bloody horrible. Has ANY game had a different actual rules set (specifically not forcelist changes, scenario specifics, or optional rules, but actual changes to the core system) between Tournament and Official rules?
Interesting idea of paying 2 CP's. I will share that on.
Tournament Rules might just narrow the focus on some of the problems you are worried about and take them out of frame. There are many games that have additional limitations or specifications specifically for tournaments. Battletech would specify what point system or tonnage would be legal. 40K tournaments also had limitations at times. That does not mean they are a completely new set of rules. I do know the idea of tournament rules has been mentioned before.
Mike1975 wrote: Interesting idea of paying 2 CP's. I will share that on.
The problem is, given their time constraints, there's no time to properly test it. At this point, anything beyond typos and rewording to make sure intent matches the written word, should be completely out of the question.
Mike1975 wrote: Tournament Rules might just narrow the focus on some of the problems you are worried about and take them out of frame. There are many games that have additional limitations or specifications specifically for tournaments. Battletech would specify what point system or tonnage would be legal. 40K tournaments also had limitations at times. That does not mean they are a completely new set of rules. I do know the idea of tournament rules has been mentioned before.
BT- Forcelist change. 40K- Usually Scenario change. What you're talking about though, at least as I interpret it, are actual changes to the mechanics. That LOS is determined or decided differently from "Official" to "Tournament". And that is just so bad, on so many levels. Changes that are made before (Forcelists) or after (Scenarios) the game are one thing. But changes to how the actual game gets played based on Tournament/non-Tournament? Worst. Concept. Ever.
I'm with you on one thing. Use only one LOS system. I think that even with the drawbacks with your fanatic players TLOS is the easiest to play and teach. Besides, that is one thing that is not changing. Only option is an optional system in an advanced rules book.
Mike1975 wrote: 1. Official Rues is not equal to Tournament Rules, and there had been talk of writing a seperate set of tournament rules. So collecting all the ideas for alternatince instead of just "That won't work" would be much more useful. I have no plans on helping with those, I know I would not have the experience, last tourney I played was over 20 years ago.
This is an absolutely terrible idea. Unfathomably bad. World of Warcraft has some of the brightest minds in the games industry working on it, and they have gone on, at length, to strive to keep "Player Versus Environment" and "Player Versus Player" rules as close to identical as possible, because having different rules for your 'normal' play and your 'competitive' play is generally terrible. Malifaux has tournament rules, but off hand, other than some minor adjustments, a game plays out as normal. X-Wing has tournament rules, but those are mostly focused on how one determines the winner across 4/16/64/whatever players using a scoring system. Having "tournament rules" that differ from the "normal rules" is an utterly terrible idea. The game should stand on its own two feet as it is. It shouldn't require a significant overhaul to play quickly and smoothly in a competitive setting.
*Palladium* themselves have suggested that there'd be a competitive scene supported (by ND and/or themselves) since the beginning. Presumably because they knew that competitive play appeals to a significant fraction of the gaming market, and those players are also often a sizable source of cash. It's too late for them to say "oh, man, tight competitive play is hard to balance, that'll need to be in an expanded/advanced rules set". Their rules should be that good to begin with, and they've had over a year and a half to get there.
Edit: hell, I can't even think of a game I've heard of that has significant (core mechanics) changes between 'standard' and 'competitive' play. Magic has various rules sets based on care restrictions, but actual game mechanics are very, very anal retentively written out for all players in any game.
2. The only way to remove variability to change the die type ot the number of dice. Increasing the number of dice such as using 2D6 can reduce variance but also slow down what is designed to be a fast playing system.
Or you reduce the need to roll randomly by increasing the cost, as Morgan points out. That's not exactly 'outside the box' thinking here. Having abilities that simply cost 1CP, and other abilities that cost 1CP and do nothing ~84% of the time is not going to balance out well. There is already a ton of variability in outcomes (attacks, dodge rolls) and places to use CP. Any action that requires a giant pile of them to happen is going to be a lot more frustrating to use than one that simply costs extra to achieve. Similarly to how I thought the idea of the Zentraedi (with their numerical advantages) almost always having suppressive fire bonuses was a bad idea, what you're describing would make the aforementioned "dash" or whatever it's called an almost exclusively RDF action. Well, unless the Zentraedi just wanted to spend their entire pool to throw a wave of pods into melee with the destroids. >.>
3. If you eliminate or reduce that variance you also eliminate or reduce the chances of trying oddball things and having good luck with them. This happens in battle. Risk and rewards. If someone wants to risk 10+ Command Points, it's likely going to hurt him elseware since a single VF squadron of 4 Fighters generates 6 command points total, the VF-1J had 2 leadership. The VF-1S was dropped to 3 leadership. Again, if a player knows the risk he is taking and he loses the gamble, why would that put him off a game? he knows enough of the rules at that point understand the risk he was taking. I don't agree with this argument. I've had plenty of mechs get their heads shot off from a roll of a natural 12. I even won a battle with the first shot of the game due to a lucky hit. Removing some variability and flexibility can have quite the opposite effect and bore players just a fast.
It's a risk/reward balance, and the rules as you've most recently shared them has vast risks compared to the rewards. Blowing 8 CP to maybe have half a squad double move makes planning difficult, because unless that's the intended goal, it's more likely to mess people's plans up than reward them.
I don't see if as a Lottery, 1 in 6 is not that bad.
Compared to "no roll necessary, always happens", it's pretty bad. As you keep saying, CP ARE LIFE, why would I waste a handful of them on a "maybe" when I can at least put them to use in a fashion that utilizes the stats of my figures (dodges, extra attacks) or guaranteed damage reduction/sharing?
I did pose various alternatives, remember not everyone thinks this is a bad idea though. Some prefer it this way. Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
FFS, someone doesn't have to be a "megalomaniac number cruncher" to take issue with this.
Again, you might not know this but you guys deserve to, there has been talk of doing a seperate set of :Tournament Rules" Make a list of what you'd do different at a tournament and I'll share what I can when that ball gets rolling, shoot, its likely already in the works.
No, we don't know this, because they don't tell us anything.
And the fact that Palladium is considering it is killing what little faith and interest I had left in the game.
Guys, I'm not advocating a completely unique gameplay for tourneys. But you have to decide how big the battles need to be, how many if any characters will or will not be allowed, what number of points each player should use.
Boosting, first it was a bad idea because things could get out of hand when you thought it could effect an entire squadron and now it's not enough or too variable? Again, games need some variability and risk. I don't think the risk is worth the Command Points normally but there will be times when it is and if its a simple pay 2 Command Points, that makes it so that there is no risk at all, only a cost, I can see your point, I just don't agree with it. There will be times where you can use this and tactically place units to do some damage. I think this requires some risk. As someone pointed out, at this point, there might not be a chance to change it either way.
Forar, I do remember us talking about your LOS options, I did share, directly with KS on the phone if you remember and mentioned the things we and others had talked about and was told it would stay as it. I asked for you guys, I don't have a problem using TLOS, but I do see your points. I did as much as I could. I'm not even fully aware of how many and what suggestions I have made that have been fully adopted at this point.
You guys are upset that they do not have all the tourney regulations (I'm avoiding rules to avoid any more confusion) such as table sizes and points and limitations? Remember how close we are to actually having minis. I don't think this should have been something foremost on their minds, they have had a lot of other stuff to still get out the door.
When they spoke of tourney rules I don't think they were thinking of changing the rules, more of explaining and describing how to set them up, table sizes, terrain, points. These can vary as you can have Large size tourney with 450+ points, mid-sized at 200-300 and then smaller or skirmish. All of that needs to be written up and specified.
Now, that being said, I DO THINK that an advanced rules set that includes more detailed rules for Hand to Hand, Characters, maybe some additional weapons rules or options and maybe an optional LOS system needs to be created in order to please people at all levels and fulfill the game for all requirement. You do not TLOS, others do, you like faster and simpler games, others do not, you are thinking of smaller skirmish games, others are not. There is now way to please everyone unless you can have options to fulfill the needs of each type of player.
Even though I think it is cheap, there are players that greatly enjoy twisting and messing with minis to new positions to take advantage to TLOS.
Point is, there will NEVER be a way to keep everyone happy, the best option is to have a variety of optional rules that players can opt to use with there friends. Tournaments on the other hand may say yes or no to many of these rules as they evolve over time at numerous events.
Point of order; we do have suggested table sizes. 4 x 4, 4 x 6 for larger games.
Nobody that I've seen here is arguing that they should accommodate *everybody*, merely that they need a rules set that will stand up to the greatest amount of punishment possible. They lauded the use of a former Games Workshop employee regarding the rules. They had ND and 80-100+ beta testers, along with themselves giving rules suggestions.
There are a ton of particulars that the info packet you contain lacks, and the more it's discussed, the more it stands out. The more I look at what is written, even in the official releases, the less some of it makes sense.
Example: the "you must take 2 core squad cards in a 300 point game" rule is unnecessary. It's superfluous information. "You must take 1 core squad card per 150 points in the non-skirmish game being played", BAM, simple. 150 point game? 1 card. 200 point game? 1 card. 300 point game? 2 cards. 449 point game? 2 cards.
Character limits? This is the first I've seen it even mentioned. If it exists, it should probably get noted.
According to ND, a 300 point game takes about an hour to complete between two players who know what they're doing. I cannot fathom a 450+ point tournament by those standards unless it's a weekend long affair. Ideally they should be cutting to the top 8 within X hours, and the length of the game will dramatically impact that. Simply put, most people don't have the endurance to play 12 hours of games just to figure out who the final 4 are. These might not be considerations for someone who has zero interest in tournaments, but it's the kind of reality that they need to consider.
As for variables, there are already tons of them in the game. For such a "CP ARE LIFE" level of importance, it is entirely relevant how they are to be spent. In Malifaux, their limited resource (soul stones) was almost always at least potentially useful. Sure, there were cases where you'd spend one of the up to 8 (for an entire game) you had, but they were generally a spicy affair, at least in 1.5. Spending one to minimal or no effect *sucked*, it was a massive waste. As a resource that replenishes per turn, there is a bit more leeway, but if the choice is "roll dice and maybe some of this squad get to move faster" or "guaranteed, you get to half incoming damage, or spread it around, or attack with another weapon", the guaranteed effect is going to be chosen the majority of the time. Choosing '16% chance' options makes them more than just edge cases, as Morgan pointed out, they make them either acts of desperation or titanic wastes of resources. I've played games with "mastery tests" in them, notably Magic and D&D 3.0. It has to be done elegantly. I don't feel this is being done elegantly.
Anyway, I'm not expecting KS or PB or anyone to bow to my every whim, but if .27 is reflective of at least the gist of RRT (and you've spoken at length about how close they are at this point... except for all the places where they aren't), and PB is no closer to releasing us their official info (unless we're astoundingly lucky and they let you fire off the half a year or more out of date rules to the general public), yeah, this is becoming cause for concern.
Mike1975 wrote: Guys, I'm not advocating a completely unique gameplay for tourneys. But you have to decide how big the battles need to be, how many if any characters will or will not be allowed, what number of points each player should use.
Which is not what you inferred. Hence the reaction by several people. Obviously Tournaments will have specific restrictions on forcelists (even if it just sets the number) and how scenarios are determined. And if that's what they are, there is no problem. What you inferred, was that the Tournament Rules would/could/should be different at the core mechanical level. And that's a significant issue. Not what I play, or where I play, but HOW I play.
Mike1975 wrote: Boosting, first it was a bad idea because things could get out of hand when you thought it could effect an entire squadron and now it's not enough or too variable? Again, games need some variability and risk. I don't think the risk is worth the Command Points normally but there will be times when it is and if its a simple pay 2 Command Points, that makes it so that there is no risk at all, only a cost, I can see your point, I just don't agree with it. There will be times where you can use this and tactically place units to do some damage. I think this requires some risk. As someone pointed out, at this point, there might not be a chance to change it either way.
That was me. And if they did change it, I'd be concerned about potential balance issues, but balance issues are apparently PB's bread and butter.
And while I'd prefer certainty, to which you disagree, I'd also be OK with having there be risk. But the risk should balance the reward. You want to make it 4+, and you roll a pool for the entire formation? No real problem with that. You'ld need 7CP for a 50% chance for the formation to move. Expensive, sure. 40CP under the current system ridiculous? Not so much. As you yourself stated, you'ld not use it, and cheer if your opponents used them thusly. Indicating it's a straight up mistake, 90% of the time. That they could be used on things that have a significantly greater risk vs reward. Just like you don't want the reward to be gamechanging, you don't want the risk to be hugely disproportional.
Mike1975 wrote: Forar, I do remember us talking about your LOS options, I did share, directly with KS on the phone if you remember and mentioned the things we and others had talked about and was told it would stay as it. I asked for you guys, I don't have a problem using TLOS, but I do see your points. I did as much as I could. I'm not even fully aware of how many and what suggestions I have made that have been fully adopted at this point.
Hopefully, centre point LOS finally got it's skull caved in. I hate TLOS, but the whole concept of "if you can't see the eye, you can't see the figure, look! The regult's behind a lamp post, dang!" was ugghhhh.
Mike1975 wrote: You guys are upset that they do not have all the tourney regulations (I'm avoiding rules to avoid any more confusion) such as table sizes and points and limitations? Remember how close we are to actually having minis. I don't think this should have been something foremost on their minds, they have had a lot of other stuff to still get out the door.
Only speaking for myself, I'm not upset they do not have tourney regulations. You're the one who conflated those with rules (specifically LOS), and that's what caused several of us to jump up. If the tourney regulations are just that, that's one thing.
As for how close we are to minis, that waits to be seen. Sorry, from start of production, assuming no further hiccups, it's 84-96 days from start of production to final postage from PBHQ. Then anywhere up to a couple of weeks for delivery, depending on location, and nothing going wrong there, either. GenCon is 117 days away. And as of the last update, they still hadn't seen the Veritech PPP's. Even if they're seen, and approved this week, they still need to be milled, the test run done, and final approval. I'd put the chance we'll see anything in the next 6 months as negligible, unless PB exceed all expectations. And they've barely met any since the KS concluded. Hell, the only thing I give them kudos for, is the resolution of the VEF/1D issue, and that was a fault completely of their own making (promising something they weren't licensed to do).
Mike1975 wrote: When they spoke of tourney rules I don't think they were thinking of changing the rules, more of explaining and describing how to set them up, table sizes, terrain, points. These can vary as you can have Large size tourney with 450+ points, mid-sized at 200-300 and then smaller or skirmish. All of that needs to be written up and specified.
Again, that's not what you inferred. Apparently a misinterpretation, but one caused by you seeming to want to deflect criticism of the LOS rules. Just saying.
Mike1975 wrote: Now, that being said, I DO THINK that an advanced rules set that includes more detailed rules for Hand to Hand, Characters, maybe some additional weapons rules or options and maybe an optional LOS system needs to be created in order to please people at all levels and fulfill the game for all requirement. You do not TLOS, others do, you like faster and simpler games, others do not, you are thinking of smaller skirmish games, others are not. There is now way to please everyone unless you can have options to fulfill the needs of each type of player.
Given what we've seen of the HtH rules, I'm not sure they need to be more detailed. How many options does a Veri have in close combat? The YF-4 has at least six (can't tell because the back card is covered). And I'm not averse to having complex rules systems. Hell, I'd hoped the PB rules WERE complex. But that doesn't jive with the "fast play, 40v40, done in an hour" gameplay being put forward. That's the reason I was hoping skirmish rules would have added that, and not been a paragraph on force selection like they apparently are.
No, you can't please everyone. But contradictory philosophies make for bad gameplay. Fast, large scale gameplay, and finicky cornercase rules don't go together. I like Battletech, 25+ years on. But I wouldn't want to play BT 40v40, and want to finish in an hour. Similarly, when I play Epic 40K (the 6mm version, the last GW wargame I will play), I don't want to be determining if one of my Land Raider's being hit destroys a track, a sponson, or the pintle mount. I just want to take the miniature off and continue the battle.
Mike1975 wrote: Even though I think it is cheap, there are players that greatly enjoy twisting and messing with minis to new positions to take advantage to TLOS.
And those people shouldn't gain benefit or penalty (sticking models on flight stands looks to be a bad idea) as a result. That's why several people have preferred base/column LOS.
Mike1975 wrote: Point is, there will NEVER be a way to keep everyone happy, the best option is to have a variety of optional rules that players can opt to use with there friends. Tournaments on the other hand may say yes or no to many of these rules as they evolve over time at numerous events.
And again, there's a difference between optional rules, and a dual rules set between "tournament" and "official" gameplay. And bringing up evolution of tourney rules has the potential to be even worse, if not handled at a definitive source. Don't have much confidance there, as apparently PB are shockingly bad at maintaining a central source for rules and organised play. Ninja Division were supposed to be handling it, but it looks they want to fulfill their contractual obligations as quickly as possible, and GTFO. It's a bad sign for organised play.
Mike1975 wrote: Again, you might not know this but you guys deserve to, there has been talk of doing a seperate set of :Tournament Rules" Make a list of what you'd do different at a tournament and I'll share what I can when that ball gets rolling, shoot, its likely already in the works.
Yeah, I wonder how we got the idea that it was significantly more than just scenarios and point levels.
More detailed rules for HtH? Just play the RPG.
It's not about "liking" TLOS or not. It's about the fact that it will create arguments. Are you trying to tell me you've never - ever - played a game of 40k (or any other TLOS game) where you and your opponent disagreed on how much of a model can be seen? When there's (potentially) real money on the line, those arguments are going to be more heated.
You brought up the "tournament rules" in response to me complaining about TLOS and the dice off to resolve things (the latter being literally the worst game designer crime ever perpetrated. I'm not exaggerating.) please do us the respect of understanding that context matters.
rigeld2 wrote: You brought up the "tournament rules" in response to me complaining about TLOS and the dice off to resolve things (the latter being literally the worst game designer crime ever perpetrated. I'm not exaggerating.) please do us the respect of understanding that context matters.
While I agree diceoff is a significant crime, I think others approach, if not exceed it.
Excessive charting, especially on a mass-scale/minimal-element game, can be burdensome. Battletech can be problematic, especially when it comes to missiles/LBX. "Hit roll">"Number of Hits">"Hit Location" per number>"Number of Crits", "Crit Effect" rolls. But that's OK, because it's scaled to small operations. I've seen some games that use this style, and then recommend large scale forces. Bad bad bad.
Excessive keywords, this is one I am hoping RTT avoids, but I'm not so sure. Looking at the shown cards, there seem to be a large amount. Maybe it becomes easy to tell the difference between Overwhelming and Inescapable, or maybe it's going to be an often "Which was which again?". Some will obviously be intuitive (Flyover and Blast look likely to be easy to remember), but the more keywords you add, without explanation, the more difficult it is to play without frequent checks of the rules. It's my one big gripe with Deadzone. Excessive use of Keywords when a slightly more lengthy descriptor or alternate terminology avoids trying to remember the difference between Deliberate and Single Shot, or Firestorm and Rapid Fire.
TLOS is also one, but that's been argued to death. What other crimes against wargamanity are out there?
Let's see, I'd go with the overuse of d6's in wargaming. I much prefer games that use d10's or d20's because you can actually get some variation in equipment capabilities. Another common one is unrealistic ranges (your rifle only has an effective range of 100 meters, really, good thing my giant laser cannon has an effective range of twice that).
OK, if I got the ball rolling on the complete change of rules for tourney, I apologize.
Hand to Hand WILL eventually have to be more complex, what I mean by that is that you can't have a punch for a cyclone do the same as a punch from a VF. There will have to be damage levels based on unit size or something. So yeah, it will need to change eventually. That being said, I too had major concerns for the way it is written. I think it does way too much damage. Remember though, power kicks and punches and even stomp require command points so while they will happen, most of the time a unit will be simply punching or kicking for 1-2 points of damage.
Morgan, the excessive abilities, well, most are self explanatory but I still get Overwhelming and Inescapable mixed up at times. I've played enought that an ability gets linked in my mind to a unit. I know the Tomahawk's guns cannot be rolled against if they hit so that helps remind me that Overwhelming cannot be Rolled against.
While I agree that D6 has it's limits, unfortunately it is by far the most common die. I wish D8 or D10 had been used personally. You could also have a bit more variation in unit abilities with a larger die size. D20 is just way too much. Ideally rolling 2 dice would reduce the chance of variation like 2D6 and give more of a bell curve but it also makes the game take longer because you have to roll paired dice. I think 2D6 would have made the game better personally.
Rigeld, the last tourney I played was when 40k 2nd Ed was out. And I've never played for $. I've played a lot with friends, my brother and his kids still play and each kid has his own army. Honestly, we've never had a serious argument about cover, but again, we played for fun, not for tournaments and usually it was every man for himself each person get 200 points and a corner of the ping pong table, disputes could be solved by having another player take a quick look. So, no, I've never had people argue vehemently on LOS. I had a good group of friends playing.
No in D and D we had one guy that was an idiot and he would cast Disintegrate spells over bad guys and if a fellow hero was too close, oh well. My Dwarf had to go and chop that Wizards head off. He was an idiot.
Oh and realistic ranges and mini games, regardless of scale, do not typically work out well. All your weapons would honestly be able to fire across the table. Even Mini-Missiles on the cyclones have a range of a mile or more. The only way to make that work is to have range bands. Thos can also slow things down until you have every weapon memorized or nearly so. Just try playing battletech in the Solaris Arena where you have realistic ranges and like 8 range bands and you have to re-caclulate the to-hit roll for each weapon you fire every turn.
Mike1975 wrote: Rigeld, the last tourney I played was when 40k 2nd Ed was out. And I've never played for $. I've played a lot with friends, my brother and his kids still play and each kid has his own army. Honestly, we've never had a serious argument about cover, but again, we played for fun, not for tournaments and usually it was every man for himself each person get 200 points and a corner of the ping pong table, disputes could be solved by having another player take a quick look. So, no, I've never had people argue vehemently on LOS. I had a good group of friends playing.
It's not just in tournaments. If you've ever said "I can see that guy." and your opponent disagrees, you've stopped play until that's resolved. That doesn't lend itself to a "fast paced" game.
Base+cylinder is just a much better method of resolving LoS. But, honestly, it's forgivable as long as there's "official" models. Tournament packets should include a line similar to "in LoS disputes, all models will be assumed to be built to look like the official models." This allows creative conversions with no advantage to LoS.
Oh and realistic ranges and mini games, regardless of scale, do not typically work out well. All your weapons would honestly be able to fire across the table. Even Mini-Missiles on the cyclones have a range of a mile or more. The only way to make that work is to have range bands. Thos can also slow things down until you have every weapon memorized or nearly so. Just try playing battletech in the Solaris Arena where you have realistic ranges and like 8 range bands and you have to re-caclulate the to-hit roll for each weapon you fire every turn.
I quite enjoyed Solaris :-) What made you bring up realistic ranges?
Crimes against wargamanity:
1. Dicing off to resolve disputes as an official rule.
2. Games designed to be fast paced that have more than a half page of summary/quick-reference charts.
3. Games that have craploads of fiddly bits that require some solid modeling skills to look average.
4. Games that have poorly written rules in general (40k is absolutely famous for this)
For all the gruff people give it, Battletech is actually a decent game. It's not fast paced - and doesn't pretend to be.
I don't see why hand to hand has to change based on Cyclones. There are only a few units of that size, so... don't let them do hand to hand attacks. But remember that you've been advocating (and I'm not opposed to) having a base represent multiple units. One Cyclone punching a Battlepod might not do much, but 4 of them might tear it up a bit in a desperation play. Not to mention the Saber variant (my favourite), which in a cluster is probably at least as dangerous as things well outside its weight class.
Other small things would presumably be stuff like the Invid and perhaps Inorganics, but these are the conceits of the setting; that a 1000 pound robot cat is somehow able to threaten a 20 ton 50 foot tall robot (well, in swarms at least). Just going to have to be something they deal with, and perhaps a reason not to skip SC (as some have advocated in the comments), as it'll just make the change in size all the more abrupt.
But seriously, hand to hand is already given more space and consideration than it deserves. Yes, this is a holdover from the RPG, no, Palladium won't change that, but it's still excessive. And I hate the melee system in general. Having options is one thing, having 8 options that don't do a whole hell of a lot is another. Though I suppose we should be thankful for Body Blocks; I see a lot of "GET AWAY FROM ME" shoves and then blowing that unit to scrap with their squadmates.
As a long time Magic player, I don't mind lots of keywords, but even Magic (which uses them at length) explains them on the cards. Now, between the art, damage tracks, missile tracks and upgrades there may just not be enough space to put them on the front, but what is on the backs of the cards? A quick glance glossary for the keywords found on that card would be an excellent idea.
As for dice, my group focusing on a lot of X-Wing lately has definitely enhanced my appreciation for the d8.
So, no, I've never had people argue vehemently on LOS. I had a good group of friends playing.
Which is good to hear for you. Not everyone has that luxury. Be it tournaments, or just two strangers playing at a convention or in a store, the rules have to be designed to handle two people with no history together and a vested interest in winning playing together. Designing games where everybody is a friend is easy. Designing games for strangers takes extra effort, and their rules set needs to be able to withstand that kind of strain.
A game that can't be played quickly or smoothly in those sorts of settings is just stacking the deck against itself. Just because *you* don't ever play against those sorts doesn't mean that nobody will, and as noted above, while that is totally a good reason to ignore such things in your personal rules (aside from the fact you have repeatedly noted that they are as good as Palladium's version or better, which means that scrutiny comes back into play), it is disheartening to hear that PB might be taking the same stance.
A game cannot be designed for public use in a manner that expects such familiarity, because for many instances, it won't exist.
I love Battletech, I just love Robotech even more. It's just takes so long to do a lance on lance battle. Alpha Strike does help some but I don't like the mechanic of shoot once and do X damage, especially when I'm aware of the actual stats and how in the game you can shoot with something like an Atlas and hit with everything except the AC-20. Alpha strike is an all-or-nothing that I don't like. I also don't like the way movement modifiers are, you get them regardless of if you have moved or not. In that sense, while poorly written, quickstrike was superior.
The below us exactly the type of thing that is useful to share and will help. This is what I was thinking of as far as Tournament rules not a complete LOS re-write or using a new system, but clarifications or specifications for a Tourney.
Tournament packets should include a line similar to "in LoS disputes, all models will be assumed to be built to look like the official models." This allows creative conversions with no advantage to LoS.
Mike1975 wrote: Hand to Hand WILL eventually have to be more complex, what I mean by that is that you can't have a punch for a cyclone do the same as a punch from a VF. There will have to be damage levels based on unit size or something. So yeah, it will need to change eventually. That being said, I too had major concerns for the way it is written. I think it does way too much damage. Remember though, power kicks and punches and even stomp require command points so while they will happen, most of the time a unit will be simply punching or kicking for 1-2 points of damage.
Realistically, I would think you'd want to use the same mechanics, possibly with a twist to represent that 'hand to hand' from a VT is a punching/kicking from a big mecha versus a Cyclone, or squad of Cyclones, darting in, attacking with light arms/melee weapons/whatever, and dashing away. Or is the system still using the broken-up punch/kick attacks from the RPG that didn't really work great there?
Mike1975 wrote: Guys, I'm not advocating a completely unique gameplay for tourneys. But you have to decide how big the battles need to be, how many if any characters will or will not be allowed, what number of points each player should use.
Reasonable and can be done officially or by tournament organizers.
Boosting, first it was a bad idea because things could get out of hand when you thought it could effect an entire squadron and now it's not enough or too variable? Again, games need some variability and risk. I don't think the risk is worth the Command Points normally but there will be times when it is and if its a simple pay 2 Command Points, that makes it so that there is no risk at all, only a cost, I can see your point, I just don't agree with it. There will be times where you can use this and tactically place units to do some damage. I think this requires some risk. As someone pointed out, at this point, there might not be a chance to change it either way.
Reminds me of the "magic phase" in WH or the number of attack/defending dice in Risk idea: take limited resources like command points and have them equal a die or +1 on the roll per or something to that effect.
Forar, I do remember us talking about your LOS options, I did share, directly with KS on the phone if you remember and mentioned the things we and others had talked about and was told it would stay as it. I asked for you guys, I don't have a problem using TLOS, but I do see your points. I did as much as I could. I'm not even fully aware of how many and what suggestions I have made that have been fully adopted at this point.
Things that require a bit of a judgment call can be twisted to advantage or a stalemate in competitive play which is a level of play I would like this system to have. We may want to look at this like: is it a true skirmish game where model exactly represents position and visibility or is it like Battletech where it is "representative" of the model being active in that area so the position of the base is more relevant.
You guys are upset that they do not have all the tourney regulations (I'm avoiding rules to avoid any more confusion) such as table sizes and points and limitations? Remember how close we are to actually having minis. I don't think this should have been something foremost on their minds, they have had a lot of other stuff to still get out the door.
Ouch, that is tough thing to force a gamer to choose: improvement of gaming rules or getting the "playing pieces" in our hands. Think of it like this: Robotech models have been out there for ages, if anyone wanted the discrete models they could have had them at any time, we are waiting on an actual "official" tabletop game with standardized models for that game: one is worthless without the other.
When they spoke of tourney rules I don't think they were thinking of changing the rules, more of explaining and describing how to set them up, table sizes, terrain, points. These can vary as you can have Large size tourney with 450+ points, mid-sized at 200-300 and then smaller or skirmish. All of that needs to be written up and specified.
This is like the GW trap: are we providing "ideas" of how we would like to play OR actual rules to specify how a competitive game is to be played. One is nice to have and the other will be reviewed with the intent of exploiting weakness in the language of the rule.
Now, that being said, I DO THINK that an advanced rules set that includes more detailed rules for Hand to Hand, Characters, maybe some additional weapons rules or options and maybe an optional LOS system needs to be created in order to please people at all levels and fulfill the game for all requirement. You do not TLOS, others do, you like faster and simpler games, others do not, you are thinking of smaller skirmish games, others are not. There is now way to please everyone unless you can have options to fulfill the needs of each type of player.
Battletech has just put out a system for less detailed gaming that worked very well (3 lances per side were not bad) but the normal game is good for a lance per side at the most. If I was a marketing evil guy I would flesh out a fully detailed rule set and then create a conversion system for streamlining for larger battles as a separate release later. You could take a page from "Federation Commander" where they had a card for each ship: one side was more detailed and the other less so.
Even though I think it is cheap, there are players that greatly enjoy twisting and messing with minis to new positions to take advantage to TLOS.
If the rules allow, the truly competitive will find a way. I admire the Japanese old way of looking at everything as potential "life or death" so to push yourself to the limit of the rules can be a habit. It is not unreasonable to require the rules to be reasonably clear so that this mindset can play the game and not make others grumpy.
Point is, there will NEVER be a way to keep everyone happy, the best option is to have a variety of optional rules that players can opt to use with there friends.
Just because something is not possible does not make it an unworthy goal to strive toward. Agreed that optional or alternative "rules" that may make the game more fun but less tight can be offered. Core rules still need to be as clear and non-optional as possible (no words like: you could, look, may, should, try...)
. Tournaments on the other hand may say yes or no to many of these rules as they evolve over time at numerous events.
Tournament FAQ's can be updated and can be a great item for discussion and possible customer/supplier feedback after the dust settles but getting something out of the gate to start that shows some playtesting and balancing is important. At least like X-wing there is only two factions to balance so there is a hope of keeping it reasonable.
Ton of writing and feedback here, good to see.
What I feel needs to be pointed out is that both in games design and in model design this project really does not have to draw ideas from a vacuum.
There are a ton of model kits out there with sprue layouts and parting line decisions all there to see, just buy some kits.
There are a ton of game systems with all kinds of complicated things represented (Battletech since 1984!) (Heavy Gear since 1994!) and varying ways to address the scale of the battles.
Innovation can stem also from taking an existing combination of rules applying them differently, I really like a computer game called "Path of Exile" that took bits and pieces of successful design considerations and made a game all their own, I see the same opportunity here.
The efforts are appreciated but Battle-Tech, Battle-Tech "AlphaStrike", Federation Commander, Warhammer 40k and X-wing are the games I will be comparing this against. I just hope anyone involved higher up is at least aware of these products.
Mike1975 wrote: I love Battletech, I just love Robotech even more. It's just takes so long to do a lance on lance battle. Alpha Strike does help some but I don't like the mechanic of shoot once and do X damage, especially when I'm aware of the actual stats and how in the game you can shoot with something like an Atlas and hit with everything except the AC-20. Alpha strike is an all-or-nothing that I don't like. I also don't like the way movement modifiers are, you get them regardless of if you have moved or not. In that sense, while poorly written, quickstrike was superior.
Hah! I get a lance on lance done in an hour. Maybe 1.5 if we're drinking at the same time. When we get together as a large group we normally do 4-6 mechs per person and finish in time to do some board games as well.
The below us exactly the type of thing that is useful to share and will help. This is what I was thinking of as far as Tournament rules not a complete LOS re-write or using a new system, but clarifications or specifications for a Tourney.
It's stupid to make that distinction. There's literally nothing you could put in a tournament packet (as far as clarifying rules) that wouldn't benefit a casual gamer as well.
Mike1975 wrote: Hand to Hand WILL eventually have to be more complex, what I mean by that is that you can't have a punch for a cyclone do the same as a punch from a VF. There will have to be damage levels based on unit size or something. So yeah, it will need to change eventually. That being said, I too had major concerns for the way it is written. I think it does way too much damage. Remember though, power kicks and punches and even stomp require command points so while they will happen, most of the time a unit will be simply punching or kicking for 1-2 points of damage.
Realistically, I would think you'd want to use the same mechanics, possibly with a twist to represent that 'hand to hand' from a VT is a punching/kicking from a big mecha versus a Cyclone, or squad of Cyclones, darting in, attacking with light arms/melee weapons/whatever, and dashing away. Or is the system still using the broken-up punch/kick attacks from the RPG that didn't really work great there?
Mechanics would be the same, problem is that you can't have a kick from a battlepod and a kick from a cyclone doing the same damage. There will have to be some sort of scaling there whether is a group of cyclone pucnhing = a VT punch or something else there will still need to be an ajustment to the rules as written.
Forar knows whats up. I have played against MY COUSIN and have had standoffs about TLOS. TLOS is basically asking two (or more) people to agree on something that amounts to a subjective interpretation. We can both be viewing the same thing and have 2 separate interpratations on the ruling (usually influenced in some way by our desired results). Anything used to remove the subjectivity will end up slowing down play. I have played with the Cylinder+Base LOS system. It is a much more objective (not fully though ) system. I have never seen an LOS argument in Warmachine, but I have seen plenty of game halts (and been in) over LOS in 40k (the same system being used in Robotech). This is disheartening from a tournament, competitive standpoint.
Oh, and I agree with the assertion of needing a "all models are assumed to be built like the official models" clause at the least. We don't want to dampen creativity since it looks like people will already be needing to do extensive modeling.
Mike1975 wrote: I love Battletech, I just love Robotech even more. It's just takes so long to do a lance on lance battle. Alpha Strike does help some but I don't like the mechanic of shoot once and do X damage, especially when I'm aware of the actual stats and how in the game you can shoot with something like an Atlas and hit with everything except the AC-20. Alpha strike is an all-or-nothing that I don't like. I also don't like the way movement modifiers are, you get them regardless of if you have moved or not. In that sense, while poorly written, quickstrike was superior.
Hah! I get a lance on lance done in an hour. Maybe 1.5 if we're drinking at the same time. When we get together as a large group we normally do 4-6 mechs per person and finish in time to do some board games as well.
The below us exactly the type of thing that is useful to share and will help. This is what I was thinking of as far as Tournament rules not a complete LOS re-write or using a new system, but clarifications or specifications for a Tourney.
It's stupid to make that distinction. There's literally nothing you could put in a tournament packet (as far as clarifying rules) that wouldn't benefit a casual gamer as well.
I've never found anything in tournament rules useful in casual gaming either, I think they are purely designed to prevent gross abuses and set a baseline as to how the games will be set up (# points, table size). Most tourney rules are to set the stage so that people are all on the same page when they arrive to play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironwill13791 wrote: Forar knows whats up. I have played against MY COUSIN and have had standoffs about TLOS. TLOS is basically asking two (or more) people to agree on something that amounts to a subjective interpretation. We can both be viewing the same thing and have 2 separate interpratations on the ruling (usually influenced in some way by our desired results). Anything used to remove the subjectivity will end up slowing down play. I have played with the Cylinder+Base LOS system. It is a much more objective (not fully though ) system. I have never seen an LOS argument in Warmachine, but I have seen plenty of game halts (and been in) over LOS in 40k (the same system being used in Robotech). This is disheartening from a tournament, competitive standpoint.
Oh, and I agree with the assertion of needing a "all models are assumed to be built like the official models" clause at the least. We don't want to dampen creativity since it looks like people will already be needing to do extensive modeling.
I think that assertion as a wonderful idea. People can make their minis however they want BUT in tournament play they will not be able to get any real advantage from it other than making cool looking minis.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rigeld,
Three of the best group play board games besides Axis and Allies are Cosmic Encounter, Talisman and Cutthroat Caverns
Mike1975 wrote: I've never found anything in tournament rules useful in casual gaming either, I think they are purely designed to prevent gross abuses and set a baseline as to how the games will be set up (# points, table size). Most tourney rules are to set the stage so that people are all on the same page when they arrive to play.
Really? Do you guys just ignore FAQ/Errata? I'm seriously questioning your understanding of what I'm trying to get across to you.
Three of the best group play board games besides Axis and Allies are Cosmic Encounter, Talisman and Cutthroat Caverns
Our current favorites are Twilight Imperium and Shogun.
rigeld2 wrote: But, honestly, it's forgivable as long as there's "official" models. Tournament packets should include a line similar to "in LoS disputes, all models will be assumed to be built to look like the official models." This allows creative conversions with no advantage to LoS.
Until a single creative conversion appears anywhere on a model box cover or anywhere in the rule book (perhaps in the EPIC painting section that Palladium was working on for 3 months!)...
Ironwill13791 wrote: Forar knows whats up. I have played against MY COUSIN and have had standoffs about TLOS. TLOS is basically asking two (or more) people to agree on something that amounts to a subjective interpretation. We can both be viewing the same thing and have 2 separate interpratations on the ruling (usually influenced in some way by our desired results).
The other thing is that two completely reasonable people can come to different conclusions and neither one has to be a TFG because of it. I've been in that situation and clear rules (that make sense) to refer back to is key in that situation. Now I brought up the edge case of two battlepods completely invisible behind a single light pole but there are much more reasonable versions of the same thing that WILL occur. If you're dealing with a stranger, you don't know what type of person you're dealing with (reasonable or TFG) and have rules that fix the majority of cases in a common sense or at least logical manner is key. I don't see that currently in the (outdated) LOS rules we've been presented and I've said so a half dozen times through various methods directly to Palladium (PM's on the forums, PM's on kickstarter, posts, threads, etc). If they screw that up, it's just par for the course for them unfortunately but at least this time they can't claim ignorance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: As long as it's noted that it's a conversion and not an official pose, that's fine
If it's in the rulebook and doesn't involve major cutting AND sculpting, it is an official pose and simply one of many ways to assemble the model. That is frankly an entirely reasonable view to take.
Mike1975 wrote: I've never found anything in tournament rules useful in casual gaming either, I think they are purely designed to prevent gross abuses and set a baseline as to how the games will be set up (# points, table size). Most tourney rules are to set the stage so that people are all on the same page when they arrive to play.
Really? Do you guys just ignore FAQ/Errata? I'm seriously questioning your understanding of what I'm trying to get across to you.
Three of the best group play board games besides Axis and Allies are Cosmic Encounter, Talisman and Cutthroat Caverns
Our current favorites are Twilight Imperium and Shogun.
Maybe we are off, FAQ and Errata is not what I would consider tournament rules only stuff.
Ironwill13791 wrote: Forar knows whats up. I have played against MY COUSIN and have had standoffs about TLOS. TLOS is basically asking two (or more) people to agree on something that amounts to a subjective interpretation. We can both be viewing the same thing and have 2 separate interpratations on the ruling (usually influenced in some way by our desired results).
The other thing is that two completely reasonable people can come to different conclusions and neither one has to be a TFG because of it. I've been in that situation and clear rules (that make sense) to refer back to is key in that situation. Now I brought up the edge case of two battlepods completely invisible behind a single light pole but there are much more reasonable versions of the same thing that WILL occur. If you're dealing with a stranger, you don't know what type of person you're dealing with (reasonable or TFG) and have rules that fix the majority of cases in a common sense or at least logical manner is key. I don't see that currently in the (outdated) LOS rules we've been presented and I've said so a half dozen times through various methods directly to Palladium (PM's on the forums, PM's on kickstarter, posts, threads, etc). If they screw that up, it's just par for the course for them unfortunately but at least this time they can't claim ignorance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: As long as it's noted that it's a conversion and not an official pose, that's fine
If it's in the rulebook and doesn't involve major cutting AND sculpting, it is an official pose and simply one of many ways to assemble the model. That is frankly an entirely reasonable view to take.
While I remember that picture of the Pod quite clearly, that was when you use center of Base LOS and that has it's own drawbacks. I've not played the Warmachine version of LOS, so while it does sound like it is more argument proof, it seems to me that it will also take more time. At this point though, LOS is set, for good or bad. I already tried to change that. That was #1 on my list and the topic of my first call.
I understand but I was just commenting that issues will come up and it doesn't mean that it is an edge case or even that one person is being unreasonable. Que sera, sera to borrow from Dorris Day. If what we say/post/feel/don't buy had any effect on Palladium then the RPG wouldn't be were it is today and where their entry to minis is heading.
warboss wrote: I understand but I was just commenting that issues will come up and it doesn't mean that it is an edge case or even that one person is being unreasonable. Que sera, sera to borrow from Dorris Day. If what we say/post/feel/don't buy had any effect on Palladium then the RPG wouldn't be were it is today and where their entry to minis is heading.
I agree, but the only alternative that is faily foolproof is the warmachine one. At least the roll a die to resolve the issue helps reduce the time wasted on arguments. I know that some people will argue when they know the other person is right just to be a jerk though.
I haven't played Warmachine, but the 'volume of a cylinder' description sounds similar to how LoS is determined in Malifaux, and while there were still some situations that took a sec to sort out (or just ask an impartial third party for their opinion), they were pretty infrequent, and the system held up to a lot of scrutiny, at least across the hundreds of games across the years we played.
It's not perfect, but not having to worry about the models at all (the base and stats associated with the figure supersede the model) means you can base and pose them however you like.
Also, I disagree. The "roll a die" won't necessarily reduce the time wasted on arguments; people will still debate whether or not it's unclear enough to need to go to the die roll anyway, with at least one player having a vested interest in not having their opinion/judgement invalidated by random chance.
Forar wrote: I haven't played Warmachine, but the 'volume of a cylinder' description sounds similar to how LoS is determined in Malifaux, and while there were still some situations that took a sec to sort out (or just ask an impartial third party for their opinion), they were pretty infrequent, and the system held up to a lot of scrutiny, at least across the hundreds of games across the years we played.
It's not perfect, but not having to worry about the models at all (the base and stats associated with the figure supersede the model) means you can base and pose them however you like.
Also, I disagree. The "roll a die" won't necessarily reduce the time wasted on arguments; people will still debate whether or not it's unclear enough to need to go to the die roll anyway, with at least one player having a vested interest in not having their opinion/judgement invalidated by random chance.
True, there are always people that will never give up and fight to the end.
Mike1975 wrote: True, there are always people that will never give up and fight to the end.
It's not just people that fight to the end. Unless it's all specified, you'll have people with differing opinions of where LOS originates from. The descriptor I saw earlier said you need LOS from the figure. What part of the figure? The head? Centre mass? Any part of the miniature? The sensor pod for the Destroid upgrade (like that silly "I have a hat!" Phalanx shown at GAMA)? The weapons themselves?
Especially given the Destroids and the Glaug have a fairly wide arm width. In a lot of cases, it won't matter. But in some non-negligible amount of cases, unless it's spelled out for the players, there's going to be interpretations. And as others have said, if the two players are new to each other, or there are tourney prizes on the line, or they're just plain competitive, it can add to the "I'm right! You're wrong!" sticking points.
Mike1975 wrote: True, there are always people that will never give up and fight to the end.
Exactly, hence my emphasis on a rules system that is flexible and intuitive enough to minimize the potential for disputes.
Note, I'm specifically referring to disputes between reasonable people. Donkey-caves are always going to have gak'y arguments over stupid things, that cannot be avoided. But it's not unreasonable to try to keep vagueness to a minimum, and rules as encompassing as possible, so it's truly the fringe cases that give cause for pause.
There is no differentiation for the size of a unit at present, hence a kick is a kick and does the same damage regardless of the size. Hence future rules will have to modify or change present ones in order to integrate stuff like cyclones and bioroids that are much smaller.
Then we came back and did some more work for a couple of hours. Around 6:30 PM we closed for the day and everyone went to Kathy’s house to celebrate Julius’ and my birthdays (which were actually a week or so earlier). Before I left for the party (to which I was late), I had a nice visit with a couple of local, Michigan, fan-friends. We had a wonderful and stimulating conversation about Rifts® and Palladium Fantasy® and "the art" of role-playing. I really enjoy these two people, so it was a lot of fun for me. I even bounced some ideas on them concerning a couple of secret projects, which they loved. They also volunteered to help us ship out Wave One of Robotech® RPG Tactics™ later this Summer. Awesome. We are going to need a lot of volunteers for a couple of weeks to get everything shipped as quickly as possible to our 5,300+ Kickstarter people.
So they raised 1.4 million and still need the support of volunteers to get things shipped out?
Could always put in a call to Manpower or some other labor based temp services, but I don't think they work for hugs from Uncle Kev or the chance to bask in his radiant presence.
Gosh, I'm not entirely sure that I trust "a lot of" "fan-friend-volunteers" to ship 5300 packages without massive amounts of feth-ups.
I trust them to do a decent job for a single weekend and then the "gift" of free labor expires and palladium is left with the one or two guys they're willing to devote to this plus one or two more from ND.
Azazelx wrote: Gosh, I'm not entirely sure that I trust "a lot of" "fan-friend-volunteers" to ship 5300 packages without massive amounts of feth-ups.
Could be interesting, Azazelx. It's already going to cost them a metric crapload (that's 1.0936 Imperial craploads) to ship internationally. Doing that twice, because of splitting the waves makes it excessive. Shipping it thrice, because some unpaid intern fan significantly screwed up the order, could be several magnitudes of cluster-fethery.
Whelp, no update yet (and I'm not optimistic at this rate), but there has been the usual weekly newsletter.
It goes on for, no exaggeration, 2 pages about how awesome it is that they're hitting their 33rd anniversary, and how lucky Kevin is, and even remembers to say THANK YOU to the fans.
Oh, and then this:
UPDATE: Everything Else
Robotech® RPG Tactics™, other new releases, the 2015 Palladium Open House (May 14-17, 2015), and other things are all moving forward. I’ll have more details on all fronts in next week’s update.
Oh, well then, glad to hear so much has happened in the last 8 days that it can be summed up as "we'll get back to you in a week".
Bob the Accountant wrote: PB has convinced me that purchasing more product down the line probably isn't necessary.
Same here. About the only thing I'd consider buying that I missed in my pledge would be a box of zentraedi infantry but frankly I don't see myself buying more than that.
So, a week and a half since the last update. Not that I'm terribly surprised, and 'laying low' might seem to be in their best interest from some perspectives, I'm sure, but man, if we're to accept that they're on the cusp of starting to punch plastic out now, the next update had better contain pics of, like, 11 out of the 11 remaining test sprues they need to have, along with a giant thumbs up and novelty "GO START MAKING THEM!" sign in the background.
102 days until the end of July (if we're to assume the worst about the 'new July target' that hasn't even been officially stated).
102 days to sign off on 12 molds, punch out nearly half a million models.
Napkin math; roughly 6500 Battle Cries (minus however many weren't backed, plus however many extra were added on during the pledge manager) x 69 models = 448,500 figures, plus roughly 200 core box only backers, 34 models per box, 6800 more, meaning wave one is around 455,000 figures. Assuming 3 figures per sprue (that seems to at least have been the plan, given what we've been told), that's over 150,000 sprues.
Now, I have no idea how long it takes to punch these things out, but even assuming 10 seconds per sprue, that's over 17 days of sprue punching, assuming zero down time (somehow they change the molds out in less than 10 seconds without missing a beat), no shut downs, no maintenance, and no other concerns.
But there will be mold change outs, there will probably be maintenance, and unless someone more familiar with these things wishes to enlighten me, I'm guessing it's more than 10 seconds for a sprue this size. It is China though, so I am assuming 24/7 production. Edit: though if they made more than 1 mold and ran both (or more) at the same time, or one mold punched out more than one sprue at a time, it could cut that time down significantly, but given their statements about the costs of the molds, I'm not optimistic for either, as presumably 2 molds or larger molds for multiple sprues (if they can even do that?) would be more expensive).
3 weeks for production? 4? Plus a month to cross the ocean? That leaves barely a month and a half to cover any delays, any hold ups, any customs time, loading issues (this assumes the ship leaves the second they load up, I'm told it can sit around for days or weeks finishing off the cargo haul), and that getting the cargo unloaded and hauled up to Michigan isn't hit with delays either.
Yeahhhhh, good luck with that.
So, who wants to start a pool on when they push Backer delivery to September? And maybe another for when they casually slip into a newsletter that there'll be boxes available at Gencon (pointedly ignoring the backers entirely, of course)?
You make the assumption that there is only one sprue pressed at a time, and one machine doing it. (Not saying they will make it, but odds are they will have more then one machine and possibly lay out more then one set per press) (missed your edit, I'm going to assume production would be more then one machine... Though)
Brother Weasel wrote: You make the assumption that there is only one sprue pressed at a time, and one machine doing it. (Not saying they will make it, but odds are they will have more then one machine and possibly lay out more then one set per press) (missed your edit, I'm going to assume production would be more then one machine... Though)
Yeah, it probably will. But even if you only take the Regult Battle Pods into account, that's 150,000 models, if you go three per sprue*, that's still 50,000 cycles. ABS at about the thickness they're using, takes IIRC 17-24 seconds to "set" (that's going from a liquid to a non-malleable solid (else it distorts). I ballparked the entire process down to 30 seconds per press, consisting of the compression, injection, setting, and ejection, but that could be well short.
* And that's assuming three. The size of the sprue used for the Arthur Pods would only fit two Regults. If they keep a uniform sprue size (it makes for ease of setting up/switching molds), then add 50% more cycles.
So even with multiple machines, unless they're running at least 4, it'll add to the delay. And even if they run 4, unless they're going to duplicate the Regult mold (unlikely, given it's redundancy and PB's reputed pennypinching ways), it'll still take at least 18 days (27 if it's twofer), not accounting for maintenance, or other potential problems. I know from my work with metals, the machine needs to be flushed regularly, but I'm not familiar with plastics and their daily operations. Maybe it'll be different, and things will be "coming up Milhouse", but with PB, it seems Murphy is a bigger presence.
Thanks for sharing. So, given the largest run seems to be what will be setting the pace (as they seem to account for about a third of the figures, if they have at least 3-4 machines running, they're rapidly dwindling down to the "gak or get off the pot" point of no return on that "Gencon Suicide Pact".
My favourite running gag in the comments section is how many people seem to think GW space marines are, like, 20-25 pieces each, and that this belief somehow makes RRT's apparent split sensible.
Hey guys, are Space Marines 20+ pieces? 'Cause I could swear some of y'all said they were more like 6-8, plus some WYSIWYG bling depending on what one wanted to build them into.
Though I think Kendachi and I should pursue this book idea. Maybe fit them in around the Kickstarter Warboss and I are apparently going to work on.
From the pictures posted earlier in this thread, a terminator is the best fit but if they want to compare them to a stock marine so be it. A normal marine is:
Head Two Torso halves Legs Two arms Backpack Two Shoulder pads One Weapon
10 pieces for a typical marine. Some have more (like Devastators with bigger multipart guns and backpacks that are as big as the marine) whereas some have less (like assault marines with their weapons modelled onto the arms instead of separate). You have the option of adding bling like pouches, ribbons, and walkmans to the marine but the above 10 pieces is what makes a marine a marine. The starter set versions are only 2-3 pieces each and have more varied poses than just limb swing in one plane.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I do find the comments about Kevin S farting rainbows to be unrealistic over in the kickstarter comments. Everyone knows you need sunshine to make a rainbow and he has unequivocably stated that no sunshine is blown up his butt.
Brother Weasel wrote: You make the assumption that there is only one sprue pressed at a time, and one machine doing it. (Not saying they will make it, but odds are they will have more then one machine and possibly lay out more then one set per press) (missed your edit, I'm going to assume production would be more then one machine... Though)
Read my mind to that point: They are cheap so do not assume more than one model per mold, one mold per model. Heaven help us if they get premature tool wear or run into short-shot issues.<edit> Or the dreaded ejection pins gooped up!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: From the pictures posted earlier in this thread, a terminator is the best fit but if they want to compare them to a stock marine so be it. A normal marine is:
Head
Two Torso halves
Legs
Two arms
Backpack
Two Shoulder pads
One Weapon
10 pieces for a typical marine. Some have more (like Devastators with bigger multipart guns and backpacks that are as big as the marine) whereas some have less (like assault marines with their weapons modelled onto the arms instead of separate). You have the option of adding bling like pouches, ribbons, and walkmans to the marine but the above 10 pieces is what makes a marine a marine. The starter set versions are only 2-3 pieces each and have more varied poses than just limb swing in one plane.<snip>
Do not forget the base for the marine then as you say ammo pouches or a pistol, knife or grenades can be added but a plain marine looks fine. Oddly enough, a basic Eldar Guardian is about the same number of parts.
I can honestly say I have never seen any front face of their soldiers or vehicles with a parting line down the middle. Imagine that, I found something good to say about GW, Huh PB really is providing a new standard to me and it is not a good one.
I have said before, I am a modeler before painter or anything else so I do not mind lots of parts but killing off all those mold lines right in the primary viewing surfaces of the models will be a challenge to make it look good and not show up after paint. I have found that is also becomes completely unforgiving if there is any distortion in the fit: modeling putty will be the added step.
Talizvar wrote: I can honestly say I have never seen any front face of their soldiers or vehicles with a parting line down the middle. Imagine that, I found something good to say about GW, Huh PB really is providing a new standard to me and it is not a good one.
Heh. When Palladium and their flunkies talk about "taking on GW", I expected it to mean by being better, not worse, than GW. I never expected it'd be in terms of low standards of communication, fan hate, component assembly, or price.
The latter may come as a bit of a WTF, but I just checked GW Terminators (the closest equivalent), and they're 5 for $50. Destroids are 4 for $33. That's not a huge difference, in the grand scheme of things. And as much as people rag on GW for their prices, and a some have mentioned assembly issues (the giant Goblin Spider thing was a PITA to assemble, apparently) I've heard very little complaint about actual quality. And from the images, the Terminators are truly multi-pose. Whereas the Robotech Spartan... nuff said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TalonZahn wrote: Forget the Mecha primary surface, the Gnerl fighter is split right down the middle of the canopy.
On a model that's about 40% canopy.
Let's pretend the halves line up perfectly, and there's no seam... there will *still* be a line right down the middle that will be plain as day.
Yeah, I saw that one in the GAMA pictures and I just read the subtext as "You think the seams on the Spartan are badly located? That's not a seam. THIS is a seam", as spoken in a Crocodile Dundee accent, and with Wayne holding the figure up with one hand, flipping the bird with the other.
wufai wrote: I'm sure PB will manage to have production demo models for Gencon, all they need is a few sprue of each mold for assembly and painting for Gencon.
I'm still anticipating my KS items won't be in my hands until Spring 2015.
They can keep using the same 3D printed prototypes for Gencon, that's not in question.
What's in question is the 'we WILL have RRT product for sale at Gencon, and not just LE exclusives' that they've been quite firm about.
I won't at all be surprised by further delays, but I'm not quite so forgiving of the either lies or incompetence (and it takes impressive mental gymnastics for it to avoid being at least one, if not both) that have led to where we are now.
We'll deliver as promised, as soon as we can. Wave One will deliver in June or July, as we've said before. Wave Two by the end of the year, hopefully well before.
Note: "as we've said before" is a flat out lie. The original time line was "June, maybe May" previous to that statement in March during 'the Zero situation" while "Spartangate" was raging.
Before the PM closed on this I picked up an extra Roy Fokker for my brother. I talked to him this morning and he asked if I had it yet. It took a few minutes to explain to him why I was laughing.
In semi related news, I read today (and checked myself to be sure) that CMON took responsibility for the Relic Knights delay in the comments of the most recent Wrath of Kings update.
@Jason McFarland We found out today and posted the update today. Production delays are not something to hide from. It is what it is. In fact, the sooner we find out and let our backers know, the better it is. What would delay the inevitable do? I know you are disappointed, so are we, but everything within our control was going to plan until we hear from the factory in regards to the additional kickstarter addons.
@TSgt Keats We thank you for your support, but at the end of the day, we are not here to lay blame to our partners. We are the publisher and we ran the kickstarter, so we are responsible for the delivery. Delays happen, especially with complicated big projects that end up doubling or tripling the initial offerings of the start of the campaign. We will do our absolute best to minimize the delay while not compromising on the quality.
-David
From the general comments: saying this had to hurt a bit:
Creator CoolMiniOrNot
@ KB9YEN We will have demos and intro events at Gen Con, but no products for sale until we deliver the project.
-David
Well, at least they're taking the high road this time. I personally heard that ND was to blame from an admittedly biased source but they are right in that ultimately they, as the "boss", are responsible just like Palladium is for anything those they hire screw up on. Then add in palladium's personal corporate history of screw ups and we have the situation we're in today. I sincerely doubt Palladium will take the high road and not sell full boxes before shipping out pledges.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bob the Accountant wrote: Before the PM closed on this I picked up an extra Roy Fokker for my brother. I talked to him this morning and he asked if I had it yet. It took a few minutes to explain to him why I was laughing.
Don't forget to tell him that if he is unhappy that he is just a vocal minority and that the vast majority of people don't agree with him. Palladium (secretly) asked everyone.
As a contrast though, the currently latest update for SDE from Soda Pop/Ninja Division includes a list of each item in the KS and where it is in terms of progress. So, at least they seem to understand the concept of "information flow" as relates to backers. Now, as we know from this one, it could simply all be lies about where they are in the process, but there's at least an attempt at transparent communication from the ND side of things.
Kendachi wrote: I just discovered that Raging Hero's TGG hasn't even a pledge manager yet.
I thought we were doing poorly with Palladium.
Waitwhat?
Really?
Hell, Shadows of Brimstone still doesn't have a pledge manager up, and they finished their campaign late November 2013. And here I thought that was getting a bit silly. (note; I still think it's a bit silly, how long can it really take to set that gak up?) I'm aware of there being extenuating circumstances, but there hits a point where you just need to deliver on an aspect.
As for SDE, damn, that's a solid update. Some AvP updates I glanced through had a nice 'status/timeline' graph similar to ones that I've seen in project management situations here at work, really smooth way to show what is done, what is being worked on, how far along it is, and whats next on the list (and how long that should take).
Forar.. stretch goal for our kickstarter... T-Shirt with a grown man bending over with a rainbow shooting out of his butt and a pony riding it. Just sayin'....
Works for me. We should have it before the challenge coin, but after the stickers. The t-shirt message suggestions will have to be higher point tiers with limited slots, as there are only so many days, and changing shirts every hour wouldn't do any of them justice.
warboss wrote: Forar.. stretch goal for our kickstarter... T-Shirt with a grown man bending over with a rainbow shooting out of his butt and a pony riding it. Just sayin'....
Your next SG should be to upgrade that pony to a Unicorn, with it's own rainbow flowing from the aft end!
I just discovered that Raging Hero's TGG hasn't even a pledge manager yet.
I thought we were doing poorly with Palladium.
I guess we know what it would be like if Kevin was French!
I'm not sure if that is a bad thing though. What advantage has finalizing the pledge manager 10 months ago (and opening it over a month late at that point) given us? None. We just gave Palladium even more money on a troubled project way, way, way upfront. They're like a bad contractor that wants the full payment upfront and rushes to the bank to cash the check minutes after he gets it. The pledge manager accomplished only one thing and it was for the pure benefit of Palladium who seemingly have done nothing in the meantime (considering they were 98% done and within 45 days of manufacture start almost a year ago).
That's a fair point. My group was in for (off hand) a Reckless, maybe an extra box or two and some add ons. 2/3 of what we ended up contributing in total.
Had they waited longer to launch/end it (and honestly, I was having my doubts in August/September, but we stuck with it anyway) we might not have gone that extra distance.
It was sensible at the time, based on their 'December, maybe even earlier!' estimate. September was only 4 months from that target, so compiling the extra cash and numbers was totally reasonable.
Now... yeah, obviously they failed on all kinds of levels.
Thanks to brookM for linking the site over on the RH thread!
I made up a quick clock for this kickstarter as well. I stayed away from the "suicide pact" terminology that might get the link removed due to complaints though.
So for those interested in the rules I've trying to do a more detailed write up than what I have done before. He's where I've started. I'll add more during the next week or two. Here is what I have for now. Feel free to ask any questions.
Alright guys, here is a much more extensive review of the rules and what a game setup would be like. I already have my table set up but I will still give a brief bit of info on everything I can think of. First off, keep in mind that this is the wet dream for many of us that grew up and watched Robotech as kids. Knowing that also keep in mind that the rules are made to be quick to play and easy to learn. I’ve played Battletech for many years and I tend to want more detail that what is here in some of the rules and that shows through as I was goofing off and making my own rules set a few months ago.
1. Table Set-Up and Terrain. Regardless of if your terrain is a bunch of rocks, trees, lava, or a swamp; there are 3 types of terrain: Open, Rough, and Deadly. Open is easily moved across such as plains, small brush, lighter woods, or shallow water. Rough can be heavy forest or severely rocky terrain that costs a unit more time and effort to cross. Deadly is impassible such as a raging river. Players place their terrain on the table and then determine what are the limits or boundaries of each piece of terrain. If players have a bunch of loose trees the players should agree on where the terrain starts and ends, the limits, before starting. Rough terrain costs 2 inches per inch moved. Deadly terrain cannot be walked through and is considered something like Lava. It can be flown over though. Cumbersome units like the Mac II treat Rough terrain as if it was Deadly terrain.
Personally I like more of a variety of terrain but as I’ve said I played Battletech where you have infantry and vehicles and they do not have the same mobility as a mechanized unit like a Regult. Regults can walk unhindered in water that would be prohibited for foot infantry or cyclones. This will have to wait till the next generations of stuff comes out or for some sort of Advanced rules book.
If you have some buildings it is also a good idea to decide which ones are which by using the descriptions in the book. I personally don’t plan on trying to track building damage and use buildings only as terrain features. If you want to blow some up it’d be a good idea to decide what buildings are what. I think using a small piece of a post-it with the building designation and sticking it on the roof works well. You can then write on the post-it how much damage the building has taken as you play. Other methods can get clunky.
2. Now that the table is set teams can pick their forces. In this game I’ve chosen a single Squadron for each side. The Zen player has an Attack Squadron and the UEDF use a single Veritech Squadron. An attack squadron consists of one Glaug/Officer’s Pod and 9 Regults/Battlepods. The UEDF Veritech squadron consists of one VF-1J and three VF-1A’s. These rules have remained the same as to what was in the KS Beta release a while back. One Squadron is required per 150 points in the game and you can choose two support cards and one special per Squadron. Some cards have built in upgrades; if you buy the upgrade all the units on that card get the upgrade. Some upgrades improve the squadron AND it’s supporting units. Here is a link to the Force Orgs that I have been using. The points may have changed slightly since then and the 2nd and 3rd gen Force Orgs are ones I made on my own messing around with the game.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0VSNzmthd1vRE1tM1BySzVwSHc&usp=sharing
3. My table is a bit large at 4 x 8 so I set the VF’s at one end in Fighter mode; you have to choose what mode they start in and all the units in the squadron start in the same mode. So if you have 4 Veritechs from the Squadron card and two more VF-1A’s from a support card and a VF-1S from a special card, you have to start them all on the edge of the table in the same mode. Of course when they are first activated they can change however they want and in any combination they want. The Zentraedi are set up on the opposite side of the table behind some light cover, some rough terrain with some trees on it.
Now there are 2 types of Cover, light and heavy. Light cover is like billboards, trees, something not completely solid. Heavy cover is something like a solid hill or building. You can mix and match. You can have rough terrain and light cover like some swampy terrain on Kashyyyk (That’s the Wookie homeworld for those that don’t know) and some good tree cover. This means you have rough terrain that provides light cover. You could also have open terrain with heavy cover like a city where you are hiding behind a building. Terrain effects movement, cover depends upon the thickness and type of cover your unit has.
4. Step 1 - Now each player will get look at his Force Cards and what units he has on the table and determine the number of Command Points (CPs) that he has. Command Points = Life. Players use them to Dodge attacks, Roll with and Attack, and many other things. They are actions or attacks per melee from the RPG. Having one Squadron the UEDF player gets one CP per fighter for a total of 4 AND 2 more for the VF-1J that has a Leadership of 2 for a total of 6 Command Points. The Zentraedi player has one Glaug, this will give him 5 Command Points; one for the Glaug itself and 4 more because a Glaug has a Leadership of 4. Regults have the Life is Cheap ability and do not generate Command Points. This is the Command Phase and it is the very first thing players will do each and every turn.
5. Step 2 - Now the next part of the Command Phase involve deciding who moves first. Both sides roll 2D6. The highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie the player with the unit with the highest Leadership ability wins, in this case the Glaug has a Leadership of 4 so the Zentraedi will win ties until the Glaug is destroyed. If your Leadership is the same on both sides, the side that Activated very last on the last turn goes first this turn. The player that wins initiative can opt to allow the opponent the first activation.
6. Step 3 – This is where if you have wind, poor visibility, special rules like bombardments or aerial drops, all of those are taken into account.
7. Now that the Command Phase is done the players now get on to the action…
I’ll add some meat to this once I get home and start rolling the dice and taking pictures.
Yknow, they really should follow Cthulhu Wars leads and offer an olive branch to their backers, be upfront and honest about where they are and offer a realistic serious timeframe about what we can expect, and then do the right thing and throw us a bone with some extra gak for putting up with their shenanigans.
Mike1975 wrote: 6. Step 3 – This is where if you have wind, poor visibility, special rules like bombardments or aerial drops, all of those are taken into account.
Should not exist in a "fast paced" game.
I think PB is having trouble deciding if they're trying to have a new fast paced game, or a game that can replicate their RPG rules. The two are absolutely contradictory.
Mike1975 wrote: 6. Step 3 – This is where if you have wind, poor visibility, special rules like bombardments or aerial drops, all of those are taken into account.
Should not exist in a "fast paced" game.
I think PB is having trouble deciding if they're trying to have a new fast paced game, or a game that can replicate their RPG rules. The two are absolutely contradictory.
These are optional so only used if you want them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Gameplay is designed to be fast paced, in fact when I have made suggestions that could slow down play they are often rejected.
Also keep in mind that you do need a good deal of optional stuff because not everyone wants a straight beer and pretzels game. Some people want to be able to use more realism.
Mike1975 wrote: Also keep in mind that you do need a good deal of optional stuff because not everyone wants a straight beer and pretzels game. Some people want to be able to use more realism.
I disagree. Optional stuff can wait until the rules are more than 98% done and get released online (HAH!) or in a supplement book.
Get the rules done. Get something actually finished. Then give a gak about expanding it.
I guess I'll agree to disgree, not everyone has the same expectations on level of detail for when the game is released. Having some stuff and options for those who like more detailed games as optional rules seems a good idea to please as many people as possible. I think much of these were added during playtesting so, to me, that means that someone thought that it would be a good idea who was actually playing the game.
warboss wrote: Thanks to brookM for linking the site over on the RH thread!
I made up a quick clock for this kickstarter as well. I stayed away from the "suicide pact" terminology that might get the link removed due to complaints though.
Having optional rules isn't a bad thing. Even making sure they fit clearly within the regular framework ahead of time isn't a problem for me.
But when the game is supposed to be played in one hour with up to 100 units on the table, there are limits to how many little extras fit in before it drowns in the attempt.
I mean, even detailing them as "advanced rules", to what end? Special encounters? Does that indicate the main/core rules are the "basic" ones? Has the stance on playing 'fast' and intuitively been cast aside, since surely the idea is for players to move to more advanced rules once they master the basics?
An hour is 3600 seconds. Say a game plays out over 6 turns. Worst case scenario, Zentraedi Swarm List versus Zentraedi Swarm list, each figure has 6 seconds or so to complete its actions. Some time is saved as units are destroyed, and some speed will be gained when up to a quarter of those figures are all in one squad, having up to 2.5 minutes to complete their actions (up to 24 movements, 24+ attacks, still a ton to do in a short timeframe, not to mention opponents weighing out options, rolling dice, using special abilities, marking notes/damage, etc).
Conversely, a small scale force. 14 (or 16, in your rules) VTs per side, 28 figures total. Each figure now has 21 seconds to complete a turn (around a minute and a half per squad of 4, or 3 minutes per cluster of 8).
Not to mention refreshing command pools, double checking cards, etc, etc, etc.
Now, will most games be played out with a Tournament-like hard lock of 1 hour? Probably not. Was the "one hour for a 300 point game" number perhaps a bit exaggerated back in the campaign days? Perhaps it was! Maybe they actually found it was more like 80 or 90 minutes long. But these are some of the tidbits we have that butt up against the rules as we've been presented them. If there are literally 50-100 figures on the table, the standard rules can't have us checking fiddly line of sight with our iphones and laser pointers on a half dozen targets. A 300 point game wouldn't take an hour, it'd take an entire day, picking the perfect position to attack/defend from, calculating water depths and movement penalties/bonuses uphill and downhill (which are apparently gone, but got left in the last version we got access to), carefully choosing the angle of attack to flank in crossfire positions, this isn't a 'fast paced game', it's far too simulationist while claiming to replicate a cartoon that played fast and loose with physics a couple dozen times per episode, and might as well have been prefaced by "any issues that strain your suspension of disbelief are caused by wizards".
Now, as always, I'm going to preface this by saying kudos, Mike. You continue to offer up what you can/wish to for critique in the hopes of spurning conversation.
Unfortunately, between utilizing the RPG as your basis (an already flawed system that doesn't lend itself well to such things if taken without a massive, horse-killing heaping dose of salt) and a need to not violate an NDA while under the eye of a rather litigation prone company, they become the only target, the low hanging fruit, and whatever critique I lob against it, the thousands of backers (and potentially thousands or tens of thousands of other players world wide) will probably be ten times as vicious and one tenth as forgiving/understanding of any faults or flaws in the 'official' rules.
If PB thinks they can just stumble their way through this, they are going to realize what a stirred up hornets nest looks like once the first backers crack open their boxes and begin sharing rules (in context and out) for the world to see.
Their chance to hide behind "it's still in development! Not final!" died months ago when the rules were supposedly done. If more than minor tweaks remained, either they weren't actually done, or they need to yell at their playtest group and think about what they've done. Between the model concerns and the rules silence (HG enforced or not, that is a point of contention for many), they need to make a concerted effort to avoid shooting themselves in the foot. Or even worse, having the bullet continue on and kill a golden egg laying goose, because if tangible damage is inflicted on the Robotech franchise, I imagine losing the license would be the least of their troubles.
Also, I'm getting ranty. Clearly it's time for lunch.
Well if that is the concern, think that when I speak of additional rules to add complexity I assume Advanced Rules = Optional Rules. They are things to add depth but are not required in any way to play. IF you assume, somehow, that advanced rules must be used I can understand your worries,
Automatically Appended Next Post: You could easily make a battletech game take 3-4 times as long if you use every optional rule written for the game
I personally did not since I played solo games and took pictures. Players with experience could do 300 points a side in under an hour easily. I'd say 45-50 minutes.
Mike1975 wrote: I personally did not since I played solo games and took pictures. Players with experience could do 300 points a side in under an hour easily. I'd say 45-50 minutes.
I asked if you would give it a shot to test the theory, and you said you'd give it a try. It was months ago, but we definitely talked about it. Not saying it was some kind of commitment, just thought I'd check in.
45 minutes for 65+ figures, eh?
Not with the rules 'samples' we keep getting. I'm calling shenanigans.
Mike1975 wrote: I personally did not since I played solo games and took pictures. Players with experience could do 300 points a side in under an hour easily. I'd say 45-50 minutes.
I asked if you would give it a shot to test the theory, and you said you'd give it a try. It was months ago, but we definitely talked about it. Not saying it was some kind of commitment, just thought I'd check in.
45 minutes for 65+ figures, eh?
Not with the rules 'samples' we keep getting. I'm calling shenanigans.
Forar, I did play it out and I did post it. I had to subtract out time for taking pictures and writing a bunch of stuff down for the AAR. I'd have to look back in this thread, but it was there. Just not me playing against another player since I did not have anyone local at that time. I do now. 300 points is more like 16-20 UEDF and 30-40 Zentraedi
Automatically Appended Next Post: Examples of rough terrain could be a deep body of water, an especially heavily wooded area, an area with very uneven ground or ravines, or an asteroid field.
From the rules, so rough terrain should be pretty uncommon and deadly even more so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Note: Open terrain in Tactics is not just like plains or roads in most games, Open terrain can include water that is not really deep and woods and even jungle or asteroids. The difference is that mecha are tough enough that they can pass through that terrain without a care. You can be in some woods that are considered open terrain and still get light cover from the woods you are in. In games like Battletech the terrain type and what cover it gives you are linked but you also have an entire page of what you can or cannot do in any specific type of terrain. In Tactics you have Open, Rough and Deadly terrain and No Cover, Light Cover or Heavy cover. Each terrain piece will be have what type of terrain it is AND what kind of cover it provides while in it. So it is in a way much simpler than many games. Also take note that Deadly terrain cannot be moved through on purpose but it is not an instant kill for units inside it. Units take damage each turn they are in Deadly terrain until they manage to get back out of it.
BS already has the cyclone 3d renders he's been talking about. It's on the RRTks. Looks like he's going to have them printed by shapeways. The way PB has handled this mess BS's cyclones might be the only ones we'll ever see in 6mm.
Mike1975 wrote: Note: Open terrain in Tactics is not just like plains or roads in most games, Open terrain can include water that is not really deep and woods and even jungle or asteroids. The difference is that mecha are tough enough that they can pass through that terrain without a care. You can be in some woods that are considered open terrain and still get light cover from the woods you are in. In games like Battletech the terrain type and what cover it gives you are linked but you also have an entire page of what you can or cannot do in any specific type of terrain. In Tactics you have Open, Rough and Deadly terrain and No Cover, Light Cover or Heavy cover. Each terrain piece will be have what type of terrain it is AND what kind of cover it provides while in it. So it is in a way much simpler than many games. Also take note that Deadly terrain cannot be moved through on purpose but it is not an instant kill for units inside it. Units take damage each turn they are in Deadly terrain until they manage to get back out of it.
That sounds interesting yet simple enough but obviously the proof is in the pudding and most of us won't really get the full feel of it till at least gencon.
Mike1975 wrote: Note: Open terrain in Tactics is not just like plains or roads in most games, Open terrain can include water that is not really deep and woods and even jungle or asteroids. The difference is that mecha are tough enough that they can pass through that terrain without a care. You can be in some woods that are considered open terrain and still get light cover from the woods you are in. In games like Battletech the terrain type and what cover it gives you are linked but you also have an entire page of what you can or cannot do in any specific type of terrain. In Tactics you have Open, Rough and Deadly terrain and No Cover, Light Cover or Heavy cover. Each terrain piece will be have what type of terrain it is AND what kind of cover it provides while in it. So it is in a way much simpler than many games. Also take note that Deadly terrain cannot be moved through on purpose but it is not an instant kill for units inside it. Units take damage each turn they are in Deadly terrain until they manage to get back out of it.
That sounds interesting yet simple enough but obviously the proof is in the pudding and most of us won't really get the full feel of it till at least gencon.
I wish I could go. For those who do, have fun. Feel free to ask any questions between now and then.
They better have some good answers and info for everyone before then though or
According to one of the Facebook groups, WRRD will be at some gaming thing showing off RRT next month.
Dave Knighthawk wrote:So I've just confirmed with Thomas Roache that he'll be coming to The Gamer's Realm (1750 Whitehorse-Mercerville Rd. Hamilton, NJ 08619) on May 17th on behalf of ROBOTECH RPG TACTICS and RED DUKE GAMES! We'll also be there to film and also showing off DRAGON CHESS and RAMPAGING JOTUNN! If you can't make it but want to see all the fun and action, follow GAMERS ON GAMES on Facebook and at http://www.youtube.com/gamersongames
I was tempted to trim out the publicity, but figured some folks might actually want to check in on it, so there you are. Or participate, if anyone is in the area. Just over 3 weeks off and perhaps we'll get some more informHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Well, he is a playtester so he may have an even more up to date copy of the rules. I suspect the recent youtube video rant had something to do with one of only 3 or 4 people who covered Robotech on youtube getting a special demo done in his neck of the woods so soon after the public meltdown. If anything, I'd expect him to youtube the game for his channel at least.
@Mike: I'm not going to gencon either but I'm hoping that someone will post some videos. Obviously your input as to how things changed between your december copy and whatever they show at gencon will be interesting... unless maybe may, definitely June (like we always said June maybe July) doesn't get amended again.
Even if Palladium has nothing to sell at gencon, I do still expect them to run tiny demos at the booth and bigger event games on one table in the minis hall.
I'm hoping that there are at least a few changes, I've made a number of suggestions. From what I do know it seems like what they had at some conventions last year, maybe it was last GenCon, can't remember, was really close to what I got early this year.
Was at the sakuracon convention in seattle last weekend when to my surprise who should I see in the dealer's hall but ninja division! went over to ask them some questions about robotech and this is what I heard.
the test molds are either complete or being cut for all models. the Valkyrie has been particularly tricky. the test molds that are finished have had a test run which are with palladium for checking (the artillery pod is just one, ND said PB have more than that currently)
now how much of this is blowing smoke who knows. but that's what I was told at the con. they didn't have any robotech on hand to look at, just super dungeon, relic knights, and tentacle bento.
Alright guys, here is a much more extensive review of the rules and what a game setup would be like. I already have my table set up but I will still give a brief bit of info on everything I can think of. First off, keep in mind that this is the wet dream for many of us that grew up and watched Robotech as kids. Knowing that also keep in mind that the rules are made to be quick to play and easy to learn. I’ve played Battletech for many years and I tend to want more detail that what is here in some of the rules and that shows through as I was goofing off and making my own rules set a few months ago.
1. Table Set-Up and Terrain. Regardless of if your terrain is a bunch of rocks, trees, lava, or a swamp; there are 3 types of terrain: Open, Rough, and Deadly. Open is easily moved across such as plains, small brush, lighter woods, or shallow water. Rough can be heavy forest or severely rocky terrain that costs a unit more time and effort to cross. Deadly is impassible such as a raging river. Players place their terrain on the table and then determine what are the limits or boundaries of each piece of terrain. If players have a bunch of loose trees the players should agree on where the terrain starts and ends, the limits, before starting. Rough terrain costs 2 inches per inch moved. Deadly terrain cannot be walked through and is considered something like Lava. It can be flown over though. Cumbersome units like the Mac II treat Rough terrain as if it was Deadly terrain.
Personally I like more of a variety of terrain but as I’ve said I played Battletech where you have infantry and vehicles and they do not have the same mobility as a mechanized unit like a Regult. Regults can walk unhindered in water that would be prohibited for foot infantry or cyclones. This will have to wait till the next generations of stuff comes out or for some sort of Advanced rules book.
If you have some buildings it is also a good idea to decide which ones are which by using the descriptions in the book. I personally don’t plan on trying to track building damage and use buildings only as terrain features. If you want to blow some up it’d be a good idea to decide what buildings are what. I think using a small piece of a post-it with the building designation and sticking it on the roof works well. You can then write on the post-it how much damage the building has taken as you play. Other methods can get clunky.
2. Now that the table is set teams can pick their forces. In this game I’ve chosen a single Squadron for each side. The Zen player has an Attack Squadron and the UEDF use a single Veritech Squadron. An attack squadron consists of one Glaug/Officer’s Pod and 9 Regults/Battlepods. The UEDF Veritech squadron consists of one VF-1J and three VF-1A’s. These rules have remained the same as to what was in the KS Beta release a while back. One Squadron is required per 150 points in the game and you can choose two support cards and one special per Squadron. Some cards have built in upgrades; if you buy the upgrade all the units on that card get the upgrade. Some upgrades improve the squadron AND it’s supporting units. Here is a link to the Force Orgs that I have been using. The points may have changed slightly since then and the 2nd and 3rd gen Force Orgs are ones I made on my own messing around with the game.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0VSNzmthd1vRE1tM1BySzVwSHc&usp=sharing
3. My table is a bit large at 4 x 8 so I set the VF’s at one end in Fighter mode; you have to choose what mode they start in and all the units in the squadron start in the same mode. So if you have 4 Veritechs from the Squadron card and two more VF-1A’s from a support card and a VF-1S from a special card, you have to start them all on the edge of the table in the same mode. Of course when they are first activated they can change however they want and in any combination they want. The Zentraedi are set up on the opposite side of the table behind some light cover, some rough terrain with some trees on it.
Now there are 2 types of Cover, light and heavy. Light cover is like billboards, trees, something not completely solid. Heavy cover is something like a solid hill or building. You can mix and match. You can have rough terrain and light cover like some swampy terrain on Kashyyyk (That’s the Wookie homeworld for those that don’t know) and some good tree cover. This means you have rough terrain that provides light cover. You could also have open terrain with heavy cover like a city where you are hiding behind a building. Terrain effects movement, cover depends upon the thickness and type of cover your unit has.
Note: Open terrain in Tactics is not just like plains or roads in most games, Open terrain can include water that is not really deep and woods and even jungle or asteroids. The difference is that mecha are tough enough that they can pass through that terrain without a care. You can be in some woods that are considered open terrain and still get light cover from the woods you are in. In games like Battletech the terrain type and what cover it gives you are linked but you also have an entire page of what you can or cannot do in any specific type of terrain. In Tactics you have Open, Rough and Deadly terrain and No Cover, Light Cover or Heavy cover. Each terrain piece will be have what type of terrain it is AND what kind of cover it provides while in it. So it is in a way much simpler than many games. Also take note that Deadly terrain cannot be moved through on purpose but it is not an instant kill for units inside it. Units take damage each turn they are in Deadly terrain until they manage to get back out of it.
4. Step 1 - Now each player will get look at his Force Cards and what units he has on the table and determine the number of Command Points (CPs) that he has. Command Points = Life. Players use them to Dodge attacks, Roll with and Attack, and many other things. They are actions or attacks per melee from the RPG. Having one Squadron the UEDF player gets one CP per fighter for a total of 4 AND 2 more for the VF-1J that has a Leadership of 2 for a total of 6 Command Points. The Zentraedi player has one Glaug, this will give him 5 Command Points; one for the Glaug itself and 4 more because a Glaug has a Leadership of 4. Regults have the Life is Cheap ability and do not generate Command Points. This is the Command Phase and it is the very first thing players will do each and every turn.
5. Step 2 - Now the next part of the Command Phase involve deciding who moves first. Both sides roll 2D6. The highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie the player with the unit with the highest Leadership ability wins, in this case the Glaug has a Leadership of 4 so the Zentraedi will win ties until the Glaug is destroyed. If your Leadership is the same on both sides, the side that Activated very last on the last turn goes first this turn. The player that wins initiative can opt to allow the opponent the first activation. In this case the UEDF rolls a 10 and the Zentraedi a 6 but since everyone will still be out of range to each other, it really won’t matter who goes first on the first turn.
6. Step 3 – This is where if you have wind, poor visibility, special rules like bombardments or aerial drops, all of those are taken into account.
7. Now that the Command Phase is done the players now get on to the action…
I’ll add some meat to this once I get home and start rolling the dice and taking pictures.
8. Before that let’s talk real quick about what stats a unit has. There are 4 main attributes, some abilities, and how much damage a unit can take. Speed (SPD) is the amount of inches a unit can move. Piloting (PIL) tell you how maneuverable the unit is and how good of a pilot it has. Gunnery (GN) is how well you can shoot. Defense (DF) is a combination of how quick the unit is, how hard it is to hit, and how thick or hard its armor is. There are silhouettes of each unit on the Force Cards. These have a number of dots that you can fill in that determine how much the unit can take before it’s destroyed. There are a number of abilities that change how you move. I will explain a few since these are units I am using in this demo. Flight, units with flight may ignore any underlying terrain as they move. Aircraft on the other hand limits the units as they are flying. Aircraft can make up to a 90 degree turn before they move and then must move up to half their movement in a straight line forward. Afterburner allows the unit to make a second move after they have fired weapons. This seems strange to have three traits but it is needed and becomes easy to understand. Some units like Armored VT’s and Queadluun-Rau (Female Power Armor) should not have any restrictions when turning and can obviously fly. Veritechs in fighter mode can’t turn on a dime and are considered aircraft. They are also much faster and so they have Afterburner-allowing them in essence to move 6-12 inches and then attack and then move another 12 inches. Afterburner requires that you move your full SPD on the second move. Hover allows the units to ignore rough terrain as they move over it and also give the unit a boost in defense by giving it a -1 to be hit as it can slide and juke readily when shot at. Leap is the last one, since I’m using a Glaug and some Battlepods. Leap allows a unit to move a fraction of its movement and the “Leap” up to its SPD ignoring underlying terrain such as Rough Terrain or Buildings, and then move the rest of its SPD normally. This means that the Battlepods with a SPD of 5 essentially move 10 inches in a turn as long as they are on open terrain.
Weapons on the other hand have essentially 2 values to worry about and then any special traits. Range (RNG) is how many inches you can shoot. There are no short, medium, long or extreme ranges like some games. One value and that is it. Mega-Damage (MD) is the other value. Essentially how much damage the weapon do. There are also numerous Special abilities that enhance and modify the effects of a weapon. As they come up I will explain them in more detail.
So far everything is pretty simple and straight forward. Terrain is an adjustment since I would think woods and heavy woods from my Batteltech days would be considered rough but in this game, light woods are more like Open since it does not really hinder significantly the movement of a Mecha and heavy woods that DO hinder some are considered rough. It’s an adjustment and will and has caused a bit of confusion. One just needs to understand what it meant by Open in Robotech Tactics is not just some open plain or hill. It could still be some woods or a river or lake that is not deep enough to be a problem to a 40 foot tall giant robot. I was confused a bit at first and had to re-read that part since I was making assumptions based off of past Battletech game experience.
Just dropping in.
I will be demo-ing the Robotech RPG Tactics game with the full rules at The Gamer's Realm (1750 Whitehorse-Mercerville Rd. Hamilton, NJ 08619) on May 17th after 2pm.. looking to have several players on each side with multiple units per side. Looking to have people run units or multiple units depending on turnout. Things are still being reviewed and I'm still in discussion with PB to get the latest rules and possible demo figures. The rules will not be the demo rules from Gencon. More information will be forthcoming on facebook.
Please don't feed the trolls..
Also nice write up Mike...
And because that's a big wall of text, I've done a quick glance comparison (paragraphs identical sizes? Trimmed!) and here seem to be the parts that have either been altered or are new in Mike's post above:
Note: Open terrain in Tactics is not just like plains or roads in most games, Open terrain can include water that is not really deep and woods and even jungle or asteroids. The difference is that mecha are tough enough that they can pass through that terrain without a care. You can be in some woods that are considered open terrain and still get light cover from the woods you are in. In games like Battletech the terrain type and what cover it gives you are linked but you also have an entire page of what you can or cannot do in any specific type of terrain. In Tactics you have Open, Rough and Deadly terrain and No Cover, Light Cover or Heavy cover. Each terrain piece will be have what type of terrain it is AND what kind of cover it provides while in it. So it is in a way much simpler than many games. Also take note that Deadly terrain cannot be moved through on purpose but it is not an instant kill for units inside it. Units take damage each turn they are in Deadly terrain until they manage to get back out of it.
5. Step 2 - Now the next part of the Command Phase involve deciding who moves first. Both sides roll 2D6. The highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie the player with the unit with the highest Leadership ability wins, in this case the Glaug has a Leadership of 4 so the Zentraedi will win ties until the Glaug is destroyed. If your Leadership is the same on both sides, the side that Activated very last on the last turn goes first this turn. The player that wins initiative can opt to allow the opponent the first activation. In this case the UEDF rolls a 10 and the Zentraedi a 6 but since everyone will still be out of range to each other, it really won’t matter who goes first on the first turn.
8. Before that let’s talk real quick about what stats a unit has. There are 4 main attributes, some abilities, and how much damage a unit can take. Speed (SPD) is the amount of inches a unit can move. Piloting (PIL) tell you how maneuverable the unit is and how good of a pilot it has. Gunnery (GN) is how well you can shoot. Defense (DF) is a combination of how quick the unit is, how hard it is to hit, and how thick or hard its armor is. There are silhouettes of each unit on the Force Cards. These have a number of dots that you can fill in that determine how much the unit can take before it’s destroyed. There are a number of abilities that change how you move. I will explain a few since these are units I am using in this demo. Flight, units with flight may ignore any underlying terrain as they move. Aircraft on the other hand limits the units as they are flying. Aircraft can make up to a 90 degree turn before they move and then must move up to half their movement in a straight line forward. Afterburner allows the unit to make a second move after they have fired weapons. This seems strange to have three traits but it is needed and becomes easy to understand. Some units like Armored VT’s and Queadluun-Rau (Female Power Armor) should not have any restrictions when turning and can obviously fly. Veritechs in fighter mode can’t turn on a dime and are considered aircraft. They are also much faster and so they have Afterburner-allowing them in essence to move 6-12 inches and then attack and then move another 12 inches. Afterburner requires that you move your full SPD on the second move. Hover allows the units to ignore rough terrain as they move over it and also give the unit a boost in defense by giving it a -1 to be hit as it can slide and juke readily when shot at. Leap is the last one, since I’m using a Glaug and some Battlepods. Leap allows a unit to move a fraction of its movement and the “Leap” up to its SPD ignoring underlying terrain such as Rough Terrain or Buildings, and then move the rest of its SPD normally. This means that the Battlepods with a SPD of 5 essentially move 10 inches in a turn as long as they are on open terrain.
Weapons on the other hand have essentially 2 values to worry about and then any special traits. Range (RNG) is how many inches you can shoot. There are no short, medium, long or extreme ranges like some games. One value and that is it. Mega-Damage (MD) is the other value. Essentially how much damage the weapon do. There are also numerous Special abilities that enhance and modify the effects of a weapon. As they come up I will explain them in more detail.
So far everything is pretty simple and straight forward. Terrain is an adjustment since I would think woods and heavy woods from my Batteltech days would be considered rough but in this game, light woods are more like Open since it does not really hinder significantly the movement of a Mecha and heavy woods that DO hinder some are considered rough. It’s an adjustment and will and has caused a bit of confusion. One just needs to understand what it meant by Open in Robotech Tactics is not just some open plain or hill. It could still be some woods or a river or lake that is not deep enough to be a problem to a 40 foot tall giant robot. I was confused a bit at first and had to re-read that part since I was making assumptions based off of past Battletech game experience.
Everything else seemed to be the same as the Big Block of Text from last page.
Trimmed for ease of reading specifically for new material.
" If your Leadership is the same on both sides, the side that Activated very last on the last turn goes first this turn. "
This is HUGE. "Back to back activations" are an immense advantage. Being able to dart in, hit a target, and then continue to pound the crap out of the (presumably weakened) target is not something to take lightly. If anything, given the "alternating activations" aspect of the game, I'd say that the player who didn't activate last should go first.
WilhelmRochRedDuke wrote: Just dropping in.
I will be demo-ing the Robotech RPG Tactics game with the full rules at The Gamer's Realm (1750 Whitehorse-Mercerville Rd. Hamilton, NJ 08619) on May 17th after 2pm.. looking to have several players on each side with multiple units per side. Looking to have people run units or multiple units depending on turnout. Things are still being reviewed and I'm still in discussion with PB to get the latest rules and possible demo figures. The rules will not be the demo rules from Gencon. More information will be forthcoming on facebook.
Please don't feed the trolls.. Also nice write up Mike...
Tom
Reddukegames.com
Wow...good job lowering expectations by poking the locals with a stick instead. You do realize poor comments like that have the opposite effect, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: @mike: so do the qraus have both flight and hover? Or dual modes to use them in? It seems like the insane mobility seen in the show would need both to emulate it properly on the tabletop. I assume they dont have afterburner though with the drop in top speed they got this RPG edition compared with the last.
Forar wrote: And because that's a big wall of text, I've done a quick glance comparison (paragraphs identical sizes? Trimmed!) and here seem to be the parts that have either been altered or are new in Mike's post above:
Note: Open terrain in Tactics is not just like plains or roads in most games, Open terrain can include water that is not really deep and woods and even jungle or asteroids. The difference is that mecha are tough enough that they can pass through that terrain without a care. You can be in some woods that are considered open terrain and still get light cover from the woods you are in. In games like Battletech the terrain type and what cover it gives you are linked but you also have an entire page of what you can or cannot do in any specific type of terrain. In Tactics you have Open, Rough and Deadly terrain and No Cover, Light Cover or Heavy cover. Each terrain piece will be have what type of terrain it is AND what kind of cover it provides while in it. So it is in a way much simpler than many games. Also take note that Deadly terrain cannot be moved through on purpose but it is not an instant kill for units inside it. Units take damage each turn they are in Deadly terrain until they manage to get back out of it.
5. Step 2 - Now the next part of the Command Phase involve deciding who moves first. Both sides roll 2D6. The highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie the player with the unit with the highest Leadership ability wins, in this case the Glaug has a Leadership of 4 so the Zentraedi will win ties until the Glaug is destroyed. If your Leadership is the same on both sides, the side that Activated very last on the last turn goes first this turn. The player that wins initiative can opt to allow the opponent the first activation. In this case the UEDF rolls a 10 and the Zentraedi a 6 but since everyone will still be out of range to each other, it really won’t matter who goes first on the first turn.
8. Before that let’s talk real quick about what stats a unit has. There are 4 main attributes, some abilities, and how much damage a unit can take. Speed (SPD) is the amount of inches a unit can move. Piloting (PIL) tell you how maneuverable the unit is and how good of a pilot it has. Gunnery (GN) is how well you can shoot. Defense (DF) is a combination of how quick the unit is, how hard it is to hit, and how thick or hard its armor is. There are silhouettes of each unit on the Force Cards. These have a number of dots that you can fill in that determine how much the unit can take before it’s destroyed. There are a number of abilities that change how you move. I will explain a few since these are units I am using in this demo. Flight, units with flight may ignore any underlying terrain as they move. Aircraft on the other hand limits the units as they are flying. Aircraft can make up to a 90 degree turn before they move and then must move up to half their movement in a straight line forward. Afterburner allows the unit to make a second move after they have fired weapons. This seems strange to have three traits but it is needed and becomes easy to understand. Some units like Armored VT’s and Queadluun-Rau (Female Power Armor) should not have any restrictions when turning and can obviously fly. Veritechs in fighter mode can’t turn on a dime and are considered aircraft. They are also much faster and so they have Afterburner-allowing them in essence to move 6-12 inches and then attack and then move another 12 inches. Afterburner requires that you move your full SPD on the second move. Hover allows the units to ignore rough terrain as they move over it and also give the unit a boost in defense by giving it a -1 to be hit as it can slide and juke readily when shot at. Leap is the last one, since I’m using a Glaug and some Battlepods. Leap allows a unit to move a fraction of its movement and the “Leap” up to its SPD ignoring underlying terrain such as Rough Terrain or Buildings, and then move the rest of its SPD normally. This means that the Battlepods with a SPD of 5 essentially move 10 inches in a turn as long as they are on open terrain.
Weapons on the other hand have essentially 2 values to worry about and then any special traits. Range (RNG) is how many inches you can shoot. There are no short, medium, long or extreme ranges like some games. One value and that is it. Mega-Damage (MD) is the other value. Essentially how much damage the weapon do. There are also numerous Special abilities that enhance and modify the effects of a weapon. As they come up I will explain them in more detail.
So far everything is pretty simple and straight forward. Terrain is an adjustment since I would think woods and heavy woods from my Batteltech days would be considered rough but in this game, light woods are more like Open since it does not really hinder significantly the movement of a Mecha and heavy woods that DO hinder some are considered rough. It’s an adjustment and will and has caused a bit of confusion. One just needs to understand what it meant by Open in Robotech Tactics is not just some open plain or hill. It could still be some woods or a river or lake that is not deep enough to be a problem to a 40 foot tall giant robot. I was confused a bit at first and had to re-read that part since I was making assumptions based off of past Battletech game experience.
Everything else seemed to be the same as the Big Block of Text from last page.
Trimmed for ease of reading specifically for new material.
" If your Leadership is the same on both sides, the side that Activated very last on the last turn goes first this turn. "
This is HUGE. "Back to back activations" are an immense advantage. Being able to dart in, hit a target, and then continue to pound the crap out of the (presumably weakened) target is not something to take lightly. If anything, given the "alternating activations" aspect of the game, I'd say that the player who didn't activate last should go first.
Damn, thanks Forar, I wrote that last bit backwards
Am I reading too much into things, or do they really devolve into an argument about which customer segment is more abused by Palladium? It would seem to be smarter to direct the ire at the company causing the problems rather than lashing out at fellow customers enduring similar misery, but then again maybe I'm overestimating the intelligence level over there a tad.
The RPG folks that crowdfunded two massively delayed books feel slighted and rightfully so. The blame unfortunately has been laid at the feet of the Robotech KS despite Palladium's long history of piss poor project management and minimal output long before the kickstarter. They see the KS as taking up their project's valuable limited resources and I do feel for them but I think the reality is that Palladium simply didn't feel like prioritizing books that already had been paid for over stuff that is will generate more money for the same effort. Putting out the NG2 book will cost Palladium money in the short term so they've been putting it off for almost two years and desperately trying to alternately avoid the subject with platitude or silence and blaming anyone but themselves (we're so busy doing... stuff!).
Also, isn't Kevin doing the writing on that? With Jeff and Wayne on RRT duty?
If what they say is true, then there shouldn't be any (or much) conflict.
Oh, sure, they probably need to run some issues past him for final 98% absolute approval, but unless he were some sort of micromanaging, second guessing kinda guy with a need to be in absolute control...
Wait. Never mind. I see your point now.
Anyway, made it to Friday with no update (not surprising) and no weekly newsletter (a bit surprising).
Maybe one or both are simply mouth watering enough to need the extra time. Or they're laying low and praying people start forgetting about this stuff.
I know which I'd be putting money on, but I refuse to let this gak see another dime from me in any fashion whatsoever.
They also said Robotech wouldn't take up much of their own time or effort... and that it was 98% done. The truth is that we can't take anything they say at face value unfortunately. To quote the Gipper, trust but verify! The truth is that all roads at Palladium lead to Kevin's desk and he seemingly has the attention span and project management skills of an unsupervised toddler let loose in a toy store.
warboss wrote: @mike: so do the qraus have both flight and hover? Or dual modes to use them in? It seems like the insane mobility seen in the show would need both to emulate it properly on the tabletop. I assume they dont have afterburner though with the drop in top speed they got this RPG edition compared with the last.
I've been wondering about this. I can see Robotech's transformers (mainly the Veritechs for now, of course) being handled a couple different ways and I'm not sure which is right.
I could see 'free' transformation as a valid option as it makes them very fluid. The transformation stuff is essentially handwaved, and modes don't really matter with the possible exception of some weird restrictions. (Heavy Gear's been using something similar for SMS with badlands Rally and the Alpha stuff, and it does work.) This fits Robotech where VTs transform quickly and fluidly in combat (at least in some scenes) but could be unsatisfying to players as there's no emchanical difference and no 'feel' of controlling a transforming mecha. On the plus side, removes need for 3 minis per Veritech!
"Free per activation" has merit as well, and resembles the Field manual Heavy Gear rules. Pick your mode when activating a model. This seems like a middle ground and does simplify things, but makes cinematic-ish bits like flying up in Fighter then switching to Gerwalk to do something difficult.
"Pay to Transform" would not surprise me, even if I don't think it fits the canon well. Some sort of system where changing takes a number of action points or otherwise hinders doing other things. I feel this could lead to some unexpected behaviors as it may make sense in a game to move in a way that breaks realism, but conserves actions for 'useful' stuff like attacking.
Bribing people in Wave 1 will be significantly more difficult, as we're getting piles and piles of that stuff. "More destroids and support pods? I've already got more than I need. Meh."
Cypher-xv wrote: It will be interesting to see how each mode players out when using the valks in 3 modes in play at the same time.
Yes. I've got a Robot team for Mantic's Dreadball and it's confusing enough. I've actually got the extra minis to have something like 3 minis for each of 8 players on a team (the 6 normal, plus two for a league setup) although only about half are painted.
The need for each mech to have, like, 4-8 melee options is what kills me. Having A melee option would probably suffice. Two or three if one wanted to get out there (normal attack, 'heavy' attack, 'body block/ram' as a "GET AWAY FROM ME!" move) sure, but this punch/kick/power punch/power kick/etc/etc/etc is just obnoxious copying from the RPGs notes as though any of the wargamers playing will give a gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whelp, we got one.
Update #138 Apr 25 2014
What’s Been Going On
I know, I know. I didn't mean to wait two weeks between updates, but they have been an incredibly busy couple of weeks.
The Robotech® RPG Tactics™ Battle Foam bags have gone into production, and will ship with Wave One.
We sent what are hopefully our last round of corrections and adjustments for the Destroids and the Valkyries.
The Valkyrie prototypes, long believed to be on their way to us, turned out to have been waiting on those aforementioned corrections, so we really, really, should be getting them soon now, hopefully next week.
We saw and approved the Battle Dice, check ‘em out.
I finished layout of the color guide for the rulebook... only to then have it pointed out by Ninja Chris that we could improve it by listing hex color codes for each paint scheme. You can see the first one in this image. Jeff’s going to go through and add them over the next few days. I've still got a couple of rules clarifications to add elsewhere in the book, and hope to get that stuff done next week.
We did a lot of coordinating and going over everything, making sure all our T’s are dotted, etc. Production will begin in May, hopefully early May, so we’re doing all we can to make sure everything is ready and done right.
We just received an Artillery Pod frame today, pictured here. I’m not going to rush through putting this one together like I did with the prototypes (because that went well, right?), but I’ll take photos of the whole process and hopefully be able to post them next week. Ninja John also has one, and mentioned doing some painting tests, so we’ll see if we can get some photos from him, as well.
Got the blast template, too. Here’s one molded in clear plastic. The final version will be transparent blue, and the numbers, lines, and outer circle will be painted in white.
I think it's a relatively pointless but ultimately harmless step. If they don't have a deal in place with a minis paint manufacturer, they may not be able to use the names/colors. In the end, and ultimately most important, is the fact that early May production means that June is completely out as a delivery date and most likely so is July (a few weeks to manufacture, a few weeks to ship, a week or two in customs, and a few weeks to organize the packages and send them out to backers)... placing the earliest date into August which is screwed up for half the month due to Gencon... meaning that September is realistically the next window for most backers to get their stuff in their hands.
WilhelmRochRedDuke wrote: Just dropping in.
I will be demo-ing the Robotech RPG Tactics game with the full rules at The Gamer's Realm (1750 Whitehorse-Mercerville Rd. Hamilton, NJ 08619) on May 17th after 2pm.. looking to have several players on each side with multiple units per side. Looking to have people run units or multiple units depending on turnout. Things are still being reviewed and I'm still in discussion with PB to get the latest rules and possible demo figures. The rules will not be the demo rules from Gencon. More information will be forthcoming on facebook.
Please don't feed the trolls..
Also nice write up Mike...
Tom
Reddukegames.com
Reading your posts leaves me with the feeling the biggest problem with RRT is the incredibly poor foundations it was built on, your contribution, no?
WilhelmRochRedDuke wrote: Just dropping in.
I will be demo-ing the Robotech RPG Tactics game with the full rules at The Gamer's Realm (1750 Whitehorse-Mercerville Rd. Hamilton, NJ 08619) on May 17th after 2pm.. looking to have several players on each side with multiple units per side. Looking to have people run units or multiple units depending on turnout. Things are still being reviewed and I'm still in discussion with PB to get the latest rules and possible demo figures. The rules will not be the demo rules from Gencon. More information will be forthcoming on facebook.
Please don't feed the trolls..
Also nice write up Mike...
Tom
Reddukegames.com
Reading your posts leaves me with the feeling the biggest problem with RRT is the incredibly poor foundations it was built on, your contribution, no?
I wish I could Exalt this post over 9000 more times.
warboss wrote: @mike: so do the qraus have both flight and hover? Or dual modes to use them in? It seems like the insane mobility seen in the show would need both to emulate it properly on the tabletop. I assume they dont have afterburner though with the drop in top speed they got this RPG edition compared with the last.
I've been wondering about this. I can see Robotech's transformers (mainly the Veritechs for now, of course) being handled a couple different ways and I'm not sure which is right.
I could see 'free' transformation as a valid option as it makes them very fluid. The transformation stuff is essentially handwaved, and modes don't really matter with the possible exception of some weird restrictions. (Heavy Gear's been using something similar for SMS with badlands Rally and the Alpha stuff, and it does work.) This fits Robotech where VTs transform quickly and fluidly in combat (at least in some scenes) but could be unsatisfying to players as there's no emchanical difference and no 'feel' of controlling a transforming mecha. On the plus side, removes need for 3 minis per Veritech!
"Free per activation" has merit as well, and resembles the Field manual Heavy Gear rules. Pick your mode when activating a model. This seems like a middle ground and does simplify things, but makes cinematic-ish bits like flying up in Fighter then switching to Gerwalk to do something difficult.
"Pay to Transform" would not surprise me, even if I don't think it fits the canon well. Some sort of system where changing takes a number of action points or otherwise hinders doing other things. I feel this could lead to some unexpected behaviors as it may make sense in a game to move in a way that breaks realism, but conserves actions for 'useful' stuff like attacking.
Sorry if I missed this earlier. FPA has Hover, Flight, and Focus Fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Balance wrote: I still think having Mega-Damage without having regular damage is a poor design philosophy.
All damage is MD. I think it is a necessary evil to say that this is a crossover from the RPG and keep it under the umbrella of the PB license so that the game could get done.
A few of us were joking around about making some Star Wars X-Wing stats for Tactics since I've been told the scales are the same. Here are the Ties, Interceptors, and Avengers stat cards. Input is welcome since I don't have the X-wing minis game and the stats are based off of the old Tie Fighter Video games.
Also has a spreadsheet with the other units like the X-wing. I just don't have stat cards for them yet in my google drive.
https://drive.google.com/folderview…
Platuan4th wrote: So, is anyone ITT but me going to Gencon? I'm gonna try to stop by their booth and pester them, but can't make any promises about if I have the time.
If you're going, can I send you some funds to stop by the Mercs booth and buy their promo mini if they have one after you pester PB?
Platuan4th wrote: So, is anyone ITT but me going to Gencon? I'm gonna try to stop by their booth and pester them, but can't make any promises about if I have the time.
I'm going!
And what do you mean, I figured we'd have some stuff by then!?
I wonder if they'll have boxed Battlecry boxes there before KS backers get them. If so, you'll be seeing me grab two and go "Thanks! I backed at Showdown level, mark me off as I got my pledge" nah, j/k.. maybe.
Mike1975 wrote: A few of us were joking around about making some Star Wars X-Wing stats for Tactics since I've been told the scales are the same. Here are the Ties, Interceptors, and Avengers stat cards. Input is welcome since I don't have the X-wing minis game and the stats are based off of the old Tie Fighter Video games.
Also has a spreadsheet with the other units like the X-wing. I just don't have stat cards for them yet in my google drive.
https://drive.google.com/folderview…
As a Star Wars fan, I'm aghast that you don't have life is cheap on the TIE fighters as they are the epitome of that rule! I strongly suspect rebel symphathies are the culprit and am passing on the appropriate information if this doesn't get changed to the local intelligence services!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike1975 wrote: Sorry if I missed this earlier. FPA has Hover, Flight, and Focus Fire.
No worries, thanks for answering. Out of curosity, how does the hover -1 penalty interact with the always hit on 6 rule (assuming that is still in)? Does it change the roll to a 5 or does the auto-hit 6 roll take precedence like in D&D where a nat 20 hits even with a -10 to the roll?
I wonder if they'll have boxed Battlecry boxes there before KS backers get them. If so, you'll be seeing me grab two and go "Thanks! I backed at Showdown level, mark me off as I got my pledge" nah, j/k.. maybe.
That would be the only thing about selling them at Gencon that would make me happy. I don't begrudge fellow pledgers picking up their stuff early in person but I'm not happy with the likilihood of them selling stuff I have no chance for weeks later getting to people who didn't pledge. I'll admit that selling direct to customers at gencon doesn't break the letter of their "pledgers before distributors" promise but it bends the spirit of it over its knee and wails on it with a bamboo stick.
Mike1975 wrote: A few of us were joking around about making some Star Wars X-Wing stats for Tactics since I've been told the scales are the same. Here are the Ties, Interceptors, and Avengers stat cards. Input is welcome since I don't have the X-wing minis game and the stats are based off of the old Tie Fighter Video games.
Also has a spreadsheet with the other units like the X-wing. I just don't have stat cards for them yet in my google drive.
https://drive.google.com/folderview…
As a Star Wars fan, I'm aghast that you don't have life is cheap on the TIE fighters as they are the epitome of that rule! I strongly suspect rebel symphathies are the culprit and am passing on the appropriate information if this doesn't get changed to the local intelligence services!
We are trying to figure that out since if Tie Fighters and Interceptors have life is cheap....who do we give the ability to call in reinforcements to. We were thinking. Tyderian shuttle?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike1975 wrote: Sorry if I missed this earlier. FPA has Hover, Flight, and Focus Fire.
No worries, thanks for answering. Out of curosity, how does the hover -1 penalty interact with the always hit on 6 rule (assuming that is still in)? Does it change the roll to a 5 or does the auto-hit 6 roll take precedence like in D&D where a nat 20 hits even with a -10 to the roll?
I wonder if they'll have boxed Battlecry boxes there before KS backers get them. If so, you'll be seeing me grab two and go "Thanks! I backed at Showdown level, mark me off as I got my pledge" nah, j/k.. maybe.
That would be the only thing about selling them at Gencon that would make me happy. I don't begrudge fellow pledgers picking up their stuff early in person but I'm not happy with the likilihood of them selling stuff I have no chance for weeks later getting to people who didn't pledge. I'll admit that selling direct to customers at gencon doesn't break the letter of their "pledgers before distributors" promise but it bends the spirit of it over its knee and wails on it with a bamboo stick.
I used to think GW was bad but compared to PB, GW is the better of the two. Sure I'll never get my plastic T hawk but it beats having subpar models with a game that comes with a dwindling fanbase.
The -1 to hover does not change the 6 is a natural hit. Sorry that last post was from my cell and when I went back to fix it the site was down. I also have more FFG Xwing stuff to post later
I wonder if they'll have boxed Battlecry boxes there before KS backers get them. If so, you'll be seeing me grab two and go "Thanks! I backed at Showdown level, mark me off as I got my pledge" nah, j/k.. maybe.
Just core boxes and 6 expansions, 3 per faction. Definitely not full Battlecrys, that's for sure.
Well, that's easy fixed then. It's two First Contacts, 2 P/S Destroid Boxes, 4 Valkyrie Wing Boxes, 2 ZCommand Boxes, 2 ZArty Boxes, and 4 Regult Boxes.
"That'll be $709.20, plus tax. Cash or Credit?"
"Yeah, just take it off my tab."
I'm weighing up the two options (assuming I still can't get a refund). I can try to do the above, then literally sell the boxes (bundled as BC's) at half price right there. Or I can take the other approach, and because PB said "screw you" on the refund, I screw them on shipping. Cause it's gonna hurt.
warboss wrote:That would be the only thing about selling them at Gencon that would make me happy. I don't begrudge fellow pledgers picking up their stuff early in person but I'm not happy with the likilihood of them selling stuff I have no chance for weeks later getting to people who didn't pledge. I'll admit that selling direct to customers at gencon doesn't break the letter of their "pledgers before distributors" promise but it bends the spirit of it over its knee and wails on it with a bamboo stick.
They do seem to have hedged their bets, and they never responded to questions about it. The only reference I saw when searching the Updates for 'retail' and 'distrib' was
"We are still shooting for a December ship date, but we don’t know yet if that’s a sure thing. What we do know is that Kickstarter backers will be shipped goods BEFORE we ship to distributors." Update 113, Sep 26 last year.
This one is arguably breaking the letter of the statement.
"Note: Kickstarter orders will ship before Palladium sends any product to distributors for retail distribution. We appreciate your support, and you will get the product before it goes to retail." Update 116, Nov 2nd, It'd be retail distribution, but they're technically not sending the products to 'distributors' in the clinical sense, though it could be argued they're acting as self distributors at GC.
But then there's this one, which is most definitely breaking the letter of the law.
"In the end, you, our Kickstarter supporters, will be the first to receive a wonderful product that we hope will make you grin and provide endless hours of enjoyment. ". Update 125, Jan 10th. I can't see how they can lawyer-weasel out of that one. Can't even blame it on Wayne, as the entire post was apparently written by Kevin.
Mike1975 wrote: The -1 to hover does not change the 6 is a natural hit. Sorry that last post was from my cell and when I went back to fix it the site was down. I also have more FFG Xwing stuff to post later
Thanks for the clarification. My comment (after rereading it) may not be clear above and I was referring to the TIE adv calling in life is cheap reinforcements.
Platuan4th wrote: So, is anyone ITT but me going to Gencon? I'm gonna try to stop by their booth and pester them, but can't make any promises about if I have the time.
If you're going, can I send you some funds to stop by the Mercs booth and buy their promo mini if they have one after you pester PB?
I can try, but you'll need to remind me.
Also, I should really start making a list for who I'm Ninja shopping for...
@Mike: I'm trying to figure out how even of a fight you can have between a stock QRau and a VF-1J. IIRC, you said months ago that the Qrau has a defense of 6 whereas the VF-1 is 5/5/6. Additionally, the VF-1 only has the hover rule in Guardian mode whereas it is always in effect from what you said on the QRau. I'm not sure if the VF-1J still gets boosted stats beyond command points but IIRC gunnery was boosted but I'm not sure about defense. It does (at least with my limited knowledge) seem to make the Qrau hard to hit.
warboss wrote: @Mike: I'm trying to figure out how even of a fight you can have between a stock QRau and a VF-1J. IIRC, you said months ago that the Qrau has a defense of 6 whereas the VF-1 is 5/5/6. Additionally, the VF-1 only has the hover rule in Guardian mode whereas it is always in effect from what you said on the QRau. I'm not sure if the VF-1J still gets boosted stats beyond command points but IIRC gunnery was boosted but I'm not sure about defense. It does (at least with my limited knowledge) seem to make the Qrau hard to hit.
This should help. A typical VF-1J is still outclassed in many aspects by the Q-Rau but has 2 advantages, missiles and missile ranges are longer, it also has AM, where the Q-Rau has to use missiles to defend itself, and the GU-11 has more firepower. The Q-Rau shoots 8 missile volleys and is more apt to arrive at the 4 misssile hits no dodge rule though and also the arm cannons have inescapable. VF-1J have +1 GN and +1 PIL over a standard VF-1A. I'd give advantage to the Q-Rau unless the VF-1J has a better pilot.
Thanks for posting the cards. It does look like an interesting matchup although to be fair you'd likely have to add a VF-1S to the valkyries to even up the cost and command points. It seems in WW2 terms that the Qrau is a Zero that needs/likes to get in close and dogfight whereas the VFs are more like american fighters that strafe and have a big advantage at range due to firepower.
Just about, and enough points left over to snag either Gravity Bombs on the 1S, or Air Wing Nose Lasers (?) on all 5.
5 on 3, within 1 point of each other.
BAM.
... oh, or a 6 point character for the RDF! I hear Rick works cheap! (or he did when we saw the old rules at least, Mike has him beefed up from 5 points to 10, as I recall).
Eh? You've gone on at length about how super accurate and good (possibly better) your rules are, so until they bother to bring us up to speed, that's what we have to work with.
It's been something you've emphasized for months. A little late to walk it back now.
If nothing else, according to the last force organization charts we were sent, 3 FPA are... oh, 100 points. Which means taking 1 VT squad with 20 points left over; a character and/or another and/or some upgrades.
But, I mean, gotta go with what we've heard, and you're the man with the more up to date info!
Forar wrote: Eh? You've gone on at length about how super accurate and good (possibly better) your rules are, so until they bother to bring us up to speed, that's what we have to work with.
It's been something you've emphasized for months. A little late to walk it back now.
If nothing else, according to the last force organization charts we were sent, 3 FPA are... oh, 100 points. Which means taking 1 VT squad with 20 points left over; a character and/or another and/or some upgrades.
But, I mean, gotta go with what we've heard, and you're the man with the more up to date info!
I recommended some points changes. My psychic ability on whether they were adopted or not is limited. The points costs are based off of what I came up with when I made my own spreadsheet. Unless I get an update with something new this is as close as you are going to get. If you want look up the old points and use them. As always, if I get an update that I can share, I will.
The fact that they won't release their rules shows how ignorant they are in regards to miniature games vs RPGs. In RPgs, your rules and setting are what make you money. In miniatures, it's the miniatures.
I think this is just another example of how Palladium (Kevin) doesn't understand what he's doing.
Link to Star Wars fighter stat cards converted using stats from Tie Fighter video game. Includes X-Wing, A-Wing, Y-Wing, B-Wing, Tie Fighter, Tie Interceptor, Tie Bomber, and Tie Avenger. I'll add more down the line. Feel free to suggest changes or request a unit. Takes around 20-25 minutes to make a card and figure out stats and costs.
Is anyone else annoyed at the inclusion of megadamage (mdc) terminology considering everything in the game is megadamage. It should have just been called damage in my mind.
Ha! Wait till you have rules in hand and see the word Mecha a million times. I think this is a necessary evil for PB to justify using the RPG license to make a minis game so some things will have to be used from the RPG books.
The actual rules....I don't think you can find a paragraph without the word Mecha in it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So much so that when I did the re-write and took out the pics I told them I took out the word mecha and replaced it with Units or Figures. There should only be like 3-4 times the word mecha appears in the re-write. Hopefully soon they will decide one way or the other.
Do they pluralize it between "mecha" and "mechas"? Because that might drive me a bit crazy, but I can see situations in my head where ambiguity would cause a bit of a nightmare.
Of course, with the right wording that wouldn't be a case, but I'm already at a point doubting them, so let's table that possibility for now...
"So when your mecha fires at target mecha, that mecha may roll defense, then spend command points to attempt to dodge, roll with the impact, or have other mecha take some of the damage."
"Err, is that when one fires at one, or a bunch fire at one, or one fires at many, or many fire at many?"
"Yes."
>.<
THAT is a cluster-feth waiting to happen. A word that important simply cannot use the same for both singular and plural and avoid confusion (willful or otherwise).
Well, they can, but it'd involve a lot more clear and precise language than I'd expect of a company doing the above. :-(
To be fair, Mecha was the term used in all the novels as well and was both the singular and plural. It's not that hard to understand, though hopefully they tone down the amount of times it appears in the revision
"So when your mecha fires at target mecha, that mecha may roll defense, then spend command points to attempt to dodge, roll with the impact, or have other mecha take some of the damage."
"Err, is that when one fires at one, or a bunch fire at one, or one fires at many, or many fire at many?"
"It's great. Everyone in the office loves the rule!."
>.<
THAT is a cluster-feth waiting to happen. A word that important simply cannot use the same for both singular and plural and avoid confusion (willful or otherwise).
Well, they can, but it'd involve a lot more clear and precise language than I'd expect of a company doing the above. :-(
I changed the above for you as you had the very unrealistic expectation of Palladium providing a faux clarification to a rule. Judging from the RPG side of the business, they don't bring themselves down to that level to answer rules questions (even in an unclear manner). The best we have to hope for is Mike answering a rules question post wave 1, Redduke chiding people for asking one, and Wayne saying that only a tiny portion of the fanbase cares about why the square peg doesn't fit into the round hole.
Likely an NDA in place, but it is funny to have WRRD swinging through the thread just to repost something I'd already mentioned, and not bothering to even lay down some rules on us.
That'd have been a much better way to curry some favour than whatever the hell that was supposed to be.
I mean, unless his assessment of Mike doing a good job was meant to indicate that we SHOULD take Mike's word as gospel.
In which case, lead on, Brother Mike! To the promised land!!
Since he is the playtest coordinator for dozens of people according to his blog post pre-KS, I'd hope that they're making updated rules with the tweaks and adjustments to the rules based on feedback available for actual testing to those under NDA and not just taking Kevin's helpful hints in the manner than the Kim's of North Korea have happen. I don't want rules changes that go straight from Kevin's mouth (or other sunshine filled orifices) to the printer like with the RPG.
Well, the RPG is the only thing we have so far to go by and they don't bother fixing that stuff. The books published around 1998-2002 that were the most broken examples of power creep still are unchanged.
Well Kevin didn't wast any time throwing out the nurgle excuse for con crud at the beginning of the latest update.
It’s a dreary day and I’m feeling droopy. It has been a struggle to stay focused and the day has just flown by.
I’m wondering if its fallout from the hard push to get Rifts® Northern Gun Two finished and to the printer. Gosh, what a monster that book was. My fault for making the NG-2 so darn big. There were just so many ideas and great concept art -- combine with my feelings of obligation to make Rifts® Northern Gun 2 special because everyone has waited so long for it -- and . . . I don’t know, I just could not stop. It is an outstanding book, so I’m glad for that, but still. After Julius had finished proofreading the finished book, I asked him what he thought. “I think the fans are going to be delighted.” he said.
Julius enjoyed it quite a bit and he’s not even a tech-guy, so I know we were spinning pure gold. I hope so, because everyone gave it their all to make NG-2 something special. I expect the printer will have digital proofs for my review and approval in another day or two.
Saturday was a strange day. I was feeling pumped up and hot to write the next book. There is always an adrenaline rush and sense of accomplishment when you finish a book. Especially a big one that you’re proud of like Rifts® Northern Gun 2. I was going strong when we lost power at the office. We were pretty much out all afternoon. Lights were back on by the evening, but I was done for the day. I took all of Sunday off. Lazed around the house spending time with Kathy. It was nice.
Today the weather and I are both blah. Not down, just blah. Wayne and I have been trying to catching up with other things today (it’s always a juggling act). Then its finishing up The Rifter® #66. I want to see it go to the printer by Friday. I’m hoping to wrap up my work up on The Rifter® in a couple days and dive headlong into Megaverse® in Flames. Another epic book, but then we have so many cool books we want to get into your hands. Including a number of surprises.
This coming weekend will be taken up by Penguicon. A local convention where I’ll be one of the featured guests.
I can’t believe it’s 7:00 PM already. I need to head home. That’s if for now. More tomorrow or the next day. I want to get back into the groove of posting several times a week.
Kevin Siembieda
Publisher, Writer and Game Designer
Rifts®, The Rifter®, RECON®, Splicers®, Palladium Books®, The Palladium Fantasy Role-Playing Game®, Phase World®, Nightbane®, Megaverse®, The Mechanoids®, The Mechanoid Invasion®, Coalition Wars® and After the Bomb® are Registered Trademarks of Palladium Books Inc. RPG Tactics™, Beyond the Supernatural, Chaos Earth, Coalition States, Dead Reign, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas & Superspies, Minion War, Mysteries of Magic, SAMAS, Thundercloud Galaxy, Three Galaxies, Vampire Kingdoms, and other published book titles, names, slogans and likenesses are trademarks of Palladium Books Inc., and Kevin Siembieda.
Yes.... advertise the convention appearance. No chance that somebody will be waiting patiently outside in a running car gently revving a high powered V8 engine... no chance at all
Kalamadea wrote: To be fair, Mecha was the term used in all the novels as well and was both the singular and plural. It's not that hard to understand, though hopefully they tone down the amount of times it appears in the revision
Does the use of 'mechs' cause potential issues if the game includes non-mecha at a later time? Robotech has a number of conventional tanks, planes, etc. in canon as I remember,e ben if they tend to be squishy compared to the mecha.
(And, to my understand, technically 'mecha' can refer to any mechanical designs when used in the context of anime.)
At this point, I'm looking for great miniatures and that's about it. The rules... should have been the first thing done. There has been so much garbage back and forth between Palladium and Ninja Division that it's just sad. It would have been nice if the RPG company that makes RPG's would have listened to the company that makes models for table top games. Maybe we would have had a game by now.
I'm happy that Palladium didn't just take my money and run, though the KS is so late, they might as well have.
Are we actually going to have a game at Gencon this year? I know last year that the game was, IMHO, bad. Really, really bad with clunky rules, an inexplicable melee system, and obvious broken combo's (missiles+anything!). I had a hard time trying to understand why a kick or punch could do more damage then my GU-11 55mm tri-barreled gun pod.
Reading over this thread and seeing the rules re-written (again!) makes me sad.
I hope to see the Invid Invasion some day, but I doubt it's going to happen if Palladium keeps the license and continues to screw this up.
Tamwulf wrote: Are we actually going to have a game at Gencon this year?
It is possible that they'll have something to sell at Gencon but less likely as each day passes. Forar did some napkin math a while ago but in a nutshell they'd have to make over a half million sprues, package them in China, ship by slow boat to the US, clear through customs, and then possibly repackage them into the correct retail boxes (assuming that isn't done in China) for shipment to pledges in the next 100 days. This all assumes that *nothing* needs additional tweaking like the valkyrie that they've been waiting for one or two weeks but never was sent according to the last update. They can obviously shave a few weeks off by air shipping some boxes to either demo at gencon or even sell there while the pledgers just languish. Personally, I suspect they'll have a few boxes to do official demo games with and to show off and/or raffle off but pledgers won't get anything by the con.
I may have been unclear, I was estimating around half a million figures, probably closer to 100k-150k sprues.
But yeah, depending on how many machines they're running/molds they make per figure (I sincerely doubt more than one) and production time, they really, really cannot miss this supposed mid May start up.
Even if they start mid May and finish by the end of the month (which in itself could be cutting it close), that gives a whole 2 months to load things onto the ship, have the ship ready to go (unless it's the last container loaded, who knows how many days or weeks it might be sitting around), plus the trek across the ocean, hopefully not getting held up in customs, and however long it takes to unload their container and get their stuff trucked to the warehouse before they can even begin to assemble BC packages and fire them off into the mail, something that may also take them weeks, depending on how much help they can get, and knowing that every day closer to August is another day potentially lost to the black hole that is Gencon (weeks leading up to and coming down from).
Now, some time may be saved in that EU stuff will be compiled and fired over the ocean again (as in, they aren't fulfilling all 5k+ backer boxes on their own from one location), but assuming North America covers a significant portion of their work (1/2? 2/3?) it's still going to count in the thousands and be very time consuming/manpower intensive (doubly so that any screw up and the need to box and mail out replacement parts hurts so very much more now that shipping is an increased cost).
Thanks for the clarification. You were likely clear but I was just not remembering what you wrote correctly. And because it hasn't been posted in a few days:
warboss wrote: Thanks for the clarification. You were likely clear but I was just not remembering what you wrote correctly. And because it hasn't been posted in a few days:
Mecha being both singular and plural is due to the term being from Japanese origin where they don't change the word for context of numbers, samurai and ninja for example each remain the same word regardless of if you are speaking about 1 or 20. In English we are so used to plural verbage that we bastardize Japanese words without thinking about it. Typical somebody will say 20 ninjas or a group of ninjas when the correct wording is 20 ninja or a group of ninja.
That's why I stick to Mecha as both singular and plural in my setting and game rules. However in the rules I try and stick to unit or units whenever possible, in part because it helps avoid confusion but also because there is a mechanical difference between mecha and non-mecha units. Mecha I treat as a keyword so it's only used in specific criteria where unit is the universal standard.
No idea how PB is running things, just wanted to offer up background on the traditional usage of the Mecha word.
Forar wrote: I may have been unclear, I was estimating around half a million figures, probably closer to 100k-150k sprues.
Well, that's also assuming the first print run is "made to order". From a purely business expense, they'd likely want a substantial amount in excess to cover GenCon, website preorders, and retail distribution, at least in the short term. Because the costs to book a slot, and set up the machines, could run into 25% of a print run of that size. Because there's switching out the molds, cleaning out the machines, and general maintenance and bureaucracy.
So say it costs 100K to run the backers merchandise. Running twice that amount would save them significant amounts of outlay, and depending on volume, significant amounts on shipping. Half a container costs more than half the cost of a full container. Yes, that would extend the time taken to produce the models, and there's a suicide pact in place, but if there's big bucks to be made, I expect the backers to get thrown under the bus.
EDIT: That's not to say they can't do a full print run of backers + retail, and ship the backers stuff as soon as it's done, and the rest shortly after. But that'd still hit two lots of shipping, and likely incur mold change fees, as they'd have to run through the backer's run of each (unless they're planning on running a seperate machine for each sprue, which isn't economical, as some sprues will be done in comparatively bugger all time, if Destroids are done as pairs, for example).
Very true. Even if they just popped out an extra 5-10% to help cover miscasts/short shots/breakage/errors, that'd add some time. Adding a few hundred boxes for Gencon becomes more time, and going to a wave of retail would be a hefty chunk of time. If they ignored the latter initially and just went backers/gencon/personal site sales (since retail is supposed to follow a month afterwards anyway), that could shave off some time, but you're right on the costs. Once a print or whatever is set up, knocking out extras is just a matter of time, barely one of cost.
I have a friend that had a calendar made for her business, and as the story goes, she could get 300 prints done for a sum of money, or she could get 1000 prints for that same amount plus 3 (yes, three) dollars. So she snagged the extra 700, knowing that even if she barely moved the first set, the remainder were essentially 'free'.
Obviously this wouldn't necessarily hold true to the same scale, but yeah, I see your point. If they're punching out 50,000 battlepod sprues, why not make it 60k or 75k? Adds 25 or 50% more time, but especially if it looks like they're going to miss Gencon anyway, what's the rush? (other than cranky backers, but y'know, frak 'em)
Anyone know where I can get 3d models of buildings in the same scale as the RRT figures so I can 3D print them? I backed a kickstarter for a 3D printer and wanted to get resources together to print some stuff out!
Update #139 May 1 2014
Regult and Glaug Command Pack Sprues, and a Message from the Publisher
Hey, all. Another busy week. Here are the highlights:
Valkyrie sprue layouts are done, at last.
Latest word on the Valkyrie prototypes is that “they should be mailed this week to the USA.” Our fingers are crossed.
All of our edits for the Destroids have been addressed, so tooling for them should begin any time.
Jeff and I have been making our final adjustments to the painting guide. Primarily, Jeff collected all the hex color codes, and modified the Valkyrie Battloids and a handful of other mecha images to show one arm turned, so you can see all four sides.
Final plastic colors have been chosen for the production game pieces. Zentraedi mecha will be in a light gray, and UEDF forces in a light brown. I’ll get a good photo to show you how they compare as soon as I can.
Tooling for the Regult Battlepods and Glaug Command Pack is done, and the molds have had some test runs. As the title above says, we've got some photos of those to show you, and I’ll put them below. But first, a word from the publisher.
UPDATE Robotech® RPG Tactics™ - May 1, 2014
Based on some rumblings we have been hearing, I would like to try to clear up what seems like a misunderstanding by some people. Robotech® RPG Tactics™ has not been delayed because Palladium Books is continuing to produce role-playing products or putting our efforts elsewhere. In fact, it is the other way around; many of the RPG products we had planned for 2013 release were delayed until this year and they are only now just starting to be released in 2014. That’s because we have been devoting so much time to Robotech® RPG Tactics™. The Robotech® Kickstarter has been our top priority since day one.
The manufacturer is NOT waiting on Palladium, we are waiting on them. When we get prototypes for approval we jump on reviewing them, making any necessary adjustments and contacting Ninja Division to pass them on to the manufacturer. We are every bit as dismayed and frustrated as you when it comes to why there have been so many delays and why EVERYTHING seems to be taking so long. It has been driving us absolutely bonkers, so we understand exactly how you feel. It was Palladium Books’ honest and sincere expectation that Robotech® RPG Tactics™ would be released last November or December, and then in the Spring. We've been waiting weeks now – since the GAMA Trade Show – to get the prototypes and final sprue layout for the iconic and pivotal Valkyries. Apparently, there were delays and problems getting the molds broken down into sprues and done right. We've only been getting final sprue layouts in recent weeks.
As you know, Palladium is completely new to the wargame business. That’s why we joined forces with the talented gents at Ninja Division – the combined talents of Soda Pop Miniatures and Cipher Studios. Palladium is trusting their knowledge and expertise in all aspects of sculpting, mold making, sprue breakdowns and manufacturing. Like you, we assume they are doing everything in their power to make this the best product possible and to get Robotech® RPG Tactics™ to market as quickly as possible. You know the Ninja Division/Soda Pop/Cipher Studios reputation for quality, so you KNOW what you can expect from them with regard to Robotech® RPG Tactics™. In fact, both Palladium Books and Ninja Division (Soda Pop/Cipher Studios) are known for their quality products. And our goal from the start has been to make Robotech® RPG Tactics™ a fun, quality game that wargamers and Robotech® fans will go wild over.
For reasons beyond our control and full understanding, this project has proven to be much more challenging than I think any of us at Palladium or Ninja Division anticipated, but we are working hard to give you a product that captures the look, detail and experience of Robotech®. A game with gorgeous sculpts and that is a ton of fun to play.
We have put our hearts and souls into this product line. Palladium Books has NEVER put Robotech® RPG Tactics™ aside to work on something else. In fact, while we've been waiting for molds, sprues and manufacturing to be finalized, we have been fine-tuning and adding to the things we have some direct control over, such as the creation of a comprehensive color guide, reworking the decal sheet to include as many vital images as possible, and other aspects of the product. As soon as the last prototypes and sprue breakdowns are hammered out, we are off to the races with Wave One.
We want Robotech® RPG Tactics™ NOW, just like you! And if we could have made it happen more quickly, we would have done so. But it’s not as easy as that. And so we wait, with you, until it is all done right, without sacrificing quality. Every day, we get a little closer. We have tried to be positive about it all, because wringing our hands and complaining won’t make things go any faster. We know how hard we are all working to make Robotech® RPG Tactics™ great. We are confident you’ll be pleased with the final product. And it is coming. I promise.
As for missing Adepticon. Palladium has been so busy working on various products, including Robotech® RPG Tactics™, that Adepticon was not even on our radar. My apologies for that. I wish the guys at Ninja Division had reminded us about this important convention, and we would have been there. But I’m sure they have a lot on their plate. That’s where you, our Kickstarter supporters, can help. Please point out the 3-6 most important wargame/miniature game conventions you think Palladium Books should attend and we’ll look into being at some of them. Remember, we are new to your world and we could use your help to get better acquainted with it. We always appreciate constructive and positive suggestions, so please give us a hand. Your help is super-important and greatly appreciated.
Sincerely – Kevin Siembieda, Publisher
New Sprues
And now, as promised, the new photos.
Here we see, fresh off the presses, the Regult Tactical Battlepods. Sorry for the poor lighting in this pic. Don’t worry, when we get our test runs from the factory, we’ll take more photos and show them to you.
Here are the Glaug Officer’s Battlepod and Quel-Regult Recon Pod. Note: This plastic is a darker gray than what will be used for the final product.
And here’s the Quel-Gulnau Recovery Pod.
I haven’t gotten to assemble the Artillery Pod yet. I've got my X-acto knife and model glue ready, but I just haven’t been able to find a spare moment these last few days. Soon, I swear. Believe me, I'm looking forward to it.
Oh man, the responses should be good. I can't wait to see them.
It's late and the 2 things I caught when I skimmed....
You forgot about Adepticon. Really? I.... wow... that has to be one of the worst BS lines I've heard since someone told me the check is in the mail.
Secondly, I love the "pass the buck/blame ND & Soda Pop" lines. Total class right there. If ND/Soda Pop are supposed to be the lead on the minis... why do the RRT ones look like they do compared to those companies products?
TalonZahn wrote: Oh man, the responses should be good. I can't wait to see them.
It's late and the 2 things I caught when I skimmed....
You forgot about Adepticon. Really? I.... wow... that has to be one of the worst BS lines I've heard since someone told me the check is in the mail.
Secondly, I love the "pass the buck/blame ND & Soda Pop" lines. Total class right there. If ND/Soda Pop are supposed to be the lead on the minis... why do the RRT ones look like they do compared to those companies products?
Curious that.
That's what infuriates me about the fanboi defense. "I don't care about the delays, as long as we get quality!". Well, I don't care that much about the delays (it's the lack of communication and apparent ineptness, more than the time loss itself). But we're getting IMO, crap, not quality. They're not going to be suitable for game pieces, they're more likely to be error prone (either as cast, or in attempting to get them off-sprue and assembled), they're not really posable (which I couldn't care less about) and it's not like they're even really dynamic. The base Spartan looks like the base Archer BT made 20+ years ago, except with the option to have missile pods open. And while they're more detailed than the old BT ones, it's not OMG levels of magnitude. So, umm... yay?
And it's always been about "quality over timeliness". Except now. Because of GenCon. It's "Screw it, need to get it done, need to get it done now!". Which leads to stuff like "Valkyrie Sprue Layouts are done. We should see what the prototypes look like next week. Maybe. We don't know.". Doing the sprue layout before you've seen the pre-prod prototypes is essentially hoping they're acceptable. Which means anything short of a major issue is either going to be ignored, or changed at the source without rechecking from PB. Which has the capacity to be a HUGE cluster for the most iconic mecha of the era.
And that's assuming they're done by GenCon. Even though the last two comments on deadline were May/June in an actual Update, and June/July "as they've said before" (Note, they'd never said it before). And that June/July statement says it will DELIVER in June/July. Not ship. Deliver. As it takes about 3 weeks to ship to Aus at the cheaper rate, I'm not seeing that. Sure, they could express post it, but they're already spending 30-50% of what I paid them to ship. Express posting that could easily double that.
But it's 100 days to GenCon. Even if they blow off the KS backers (and I have very little doubt they will, their disdain for us, and the cheerleaders who think it's acceptable aiding in that), it's 14 weeks. No estimate given on how long production will take. How long to the start because it's not like the company will be keeping the machines idle, how long to run the required numbers through and what those numbers are (are they going to do a run just for backers? Include GC stock? Include retail stock?), and how long to get it to the shipping company. No estimate on how long shipping will take. No estimate on how long it'll take them to fulfill 6500+ boxes, across 5342 orders, with 6 staff, a couple of Ninjas, and some volunteers.
So even though there's progress, and I'll admit there is, there's still so much unknown, that having faith they can deliver even this substandard (again, IMO) quality, on the timeframe they've revised twice already (more than twice, but I'm concentrating on their firmer dates, December and February), is next to nil, given their track record, and lack of transparency.
Clearly you guys should all write Ninja Division and ask them to not mention GenCon to Palladium; that'll get you a full month of attention since evidently PB has never heard of a calendar and will simply forget about it.
A statement like that does make clear where the source of snafus can be found...not that it was really in doubt of course.
Krinsath wrote: Clearly you guys should all write Ninja Division and ask them to not mention GenCon to Palladium; that'll get you a full month of attention since evidently PB has never heard of a calendar and will simply forget about it.
A statement like that does make clear where the source of snafus can be found...not that it was really in doubt of course.
Yeah, that was ludicrous. So it makes the whole blame game suspect. "We can't find our own arse, with both hands! Must be someone else's fault!".
Krinsath wrote: Clearly you guys should all write Ninja Division and ask them to not mention GenCon to Palladium; that'll get you a full month of attention since evidently PB has never heard of a calendar and will simply forget about it.
A statement like that does make clear where the source of snafus can be found...not that it was really in doubt of course.
Yeah, that was ludicrous. So it makes the whole blame game suspect. "We can't find our own arse, with both hands! Must be someone else's fault!".
Could have been worse, it could have been an anomaly.
That's where they can find a cheek with one hand, but not the other!
(This post in no way reflects a belief that PB could find a single ass cheek with BOTH hands and an ass detector.)
Whelp, at least we have the Zentraedi Wave One stuff sprue'd out. 3 expansions down, 3 to go.
2 weeks from production starting (supposedly) and only half the sprues have been test molded? I'm no expert, but I continue to feel wary about this.
But hey, we've finally gone from 1/6 shown to 3/6. Progress! Not sure it's fast enough to keep pace with what they need to do in the next 3 months, but progress all the same.
Forar wrote: Whelp, at least we have the Zentraedi Wave One stuff sprue'd out. 3 expansions down, 3 to go.
2 weeks from production starting (supposedly) and only half the sprues have been test molded? I'm no expert, but I continue to feel wary about this.
But hey, we've finally gone from 1/6 shown to 3/6. Progress! Not sure it's fast enough to keep pace with what they need to do in the next 3 months, but progress all the same.
Indeed. At least we're being shown something and that is progress. We're not just hearing about how Kevin showed his masseusse the minis and she couldn't stop raving about it. I still don't think it'll get out to any of us by gencon but there is a chance that Palladium can get a few hundred air freighted over to sell at gencon to ebay scalpers.
That'll just be the cherry on top. "So, anyone who was thinking of speculating a bit to fluff up our funding numbers? Feth you. Enjoy watching people sell Core Boxes for like 2 or 3 times MSRP while you wait for yours to deliver. Maybe you'll get a chunk of that, but oh well, enjoy your discounted models. I mean miniatures. Feth it, they're tiny models."
I mean, full disclosure, I do have a hefty list of gak that'll be going up for sale, and I can recoup tons even selling below retail, but yeah, I can see some people getting frustrated as ebay buyers potentially get their stuff before the people who funded the damned thing in the first place (let alone convention goers likely picking up Exclusives Wave 3 on our dime as well.
TalonZahn wrote: You forgot about Adepticon. Really? I.... wow... that has to be one of the worst BS lines I've heard since someone told me the check is in the mail.
That's almost as brazen as Harmony Gold's explanation of why they didn't file suit when Macross Plus was released in the US without their "permission" - "We weren't paying attention."
Definitely not going to have the patience for assembling this one. I see this going into the closet when it arrives and only pulling a sprue out when I want to paint something different as a one off. So, probably get to a figure every 2 or 3 months.
PapaSmurf wrote: sigh....why is it I see the cool AVP models i backed and then have to look at the overly complicated gak that these assh@ts are showing me....sigh
cheers
Papasmurf
Not to mention Prodos announced AVP is starting manufacturing today.
TalonZahn wrote: You forgot about Adepticon. Really? I.... wow... that has to be one of the worst BS lines I've heard since someone told me the check is in the mail.
That's almost as brazen as Harmony Gold's explanation of why they didn't file suit when Macross Plus was released in the US without their "permission" - "We weren't paying attention."
I heard that Saban had swept through and hired away all of HG's licensing lawyers in while preparing to release Mighty Morphin Power Rangers in America.
I decide to sign up on their forums and post the following.
Hi
It would seem that even amongst Palladiums supporters their reputation for meeting deadlines and Kevin's exaggeration on project completion is less than favourable.
I started playing Palladium RPGs back in the late eighties and early nineties. At the time there was a group of about 20 players and there was never trouble getting a game. A few years later everyone had moved on to other systems. No real reason was given, but there was a definite lack of enthusiasm towards the end and no interest shown in ever going back.
That was my last contact with Palladium until Robotech RRT. Robotech, awesome right? I'll get every one I know on board, they'll all love it!
Turns out no, none would have a bar of it because of Palladiums reputation. This was the first I'd heard about peoples "issues" with Palladium, and is that widespread I can't find another player anywhere near me. Oh well, I decided to jump in anyway, it's Robotech, right? I've played games by Alessio Cavatore and his rules were solid, and the quality of the miniatures in Super Dungeon Explore is excellent, I have them all, what could go wrong? They'll all see after their worries were for nothing and will be all over this game on release.
So, now here we are, everything these naysaying friends said would happen, has.
While I can't claim to be angry, I'm disappointed. Even now in the kickstarter we're being told we should have done our research on Palladium and known what to expect, and that's coming from your defenders!
I'd like to know what's the plan for Palladium to turn things around? Not just in regards to RRT, but the companies reputation as a whole?
Why haven't we seen Kevin take the bull by the horns and adders the problems?
My first reaction as a project manager would be to jump on kickstarter and say right, here's the problems, here's what we're going to do by this date. Then keep on it every week. Earn back that trust.
Same here on the forums for the RPG stuff.
I'm sure suggestion in regards to this gave come up before, has anything ever been accomplished?
Joyboozer wrote: I decide to sign up on their forums and post the following.
Hi
It would seem that even amongst Palladiums supporters their reputation for meeting deadlines and Kevin's exaggeration on project completion is less than favourable.
I started playing Palladium RPGs back in the late eighties and early nineties. At the time there was a group of about 20 players and there was never trouble getting a game. A few years later everyone had moved on to other systems. No real reason was given, but there was a definite lack of enthusiasm towards the end and no interest shown in ever going back.
That was my last contact with Palladium until Robotech RRT. Robotech, awesome right? I'll get every one I know on board, they'll all love it!
Turns out no, none would have a bar of it because of Palladiums reputation. This was the first I'd heard about peoples "issues" with Palladium, and is that widespread I can't find another player anywhere near me. Oh well, I decided to jump in anyway, it's Robotech, right? I've played games by Alessio Cavatore and his rules were solid, and the quality of the miniatures in Super Dungeon Explore is excellent, I have them all, what could go wrong? They'll all see after their worries were for nothing and will be all over this game on release.
So, now here we are, everything these naysaying friends said would happen, has.
While I can't claim to be angry, I'm disappointed. Even now in the kickstarter we're being told we should have done our research on Palladium and known what to expect, and that's coming from your defenders!
I'd like to know what's the plan for Palladium to turn things around? Not just in regards to RRT, but the companies reputation as a whole?
Why haven't we seen Kevin take the bull by the horns and adders the problems?
My first reaction as a project manager would be to jump on kickstarter and say right, here's the problems, here's what we're going to do by this date. Then keep on it every week. Earn back that trust.
Same here on the forums for the RPG stuff.
I'm sure suggestion in regards to this gave come up before, has anything ever been accomplished?
Unfortunately I think the last update was KS versions of taking thing in hand. Keep in mind that not everyone thinks that or accepts the "you should have done your homework" idea. I think that argument would have been better left unsaid. Of course there are many things on both sides that would have been better left unsaid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think that the internal fan fighting keeps PB in the status quo because they see ardent defenders and point them out as fans and the others as not fans. What is needed are level heads and not hotheads that can bring the arguments to PB in a way that they are more likely to listen.
Mike1975 wrote: I think that the internal fan fighting keeps PB in the status quo because they see ardent defenders and point them out as fans and the others as not fans. What is needed are level heads and not hotheads that can bring the arguments to PB in a way that they are more likely to listen.
PB is who made them all "not fans".
And PB has zero, or more probably, negative interest in actually being approached and told how terrible their KS and their company are. PB is only interested in keeping the status quo: Everyone shows up to work, types 50 words a day and collects a paycheck. HOW they collect enough money to pay everyone and keep the lights on is a complete mystery, but they do. So no reason to change anything. Sunshine blowers are encouraged. Everyone else is ignored.
I hope everyone that can goes by the PB booth at Gencon and tells them they suck.
Well, according to Kevin, he's showing off RRT at "Penguicon" or whatever little thing they're doing (no offense, but apparently the visitor pool is listed around a thousand or two? We're talking small time even compared to the Detroit Fanfare, let alone Adepticon or Gencon), and apparently a dozen backers approached them to tell him how happy they were with what they saw, and everyone's super excited, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
It was Palladium Books’ honest and sincere expectation that Robotech® RPG Tactics™ would be released last November or December, and then in the Spring. We've been waiting weeks now – since the GAMA Trade Show – to get the prototypes and final sprue layout for the iconic and pivotal Valkyries.
I am glad they can admit to the Nov/Dec date release they had said.
I am not glad they had an "honest and sincere expectation" to release at that time.
Based on what logic?
Basic manufacturing principles: design time, design approval stage, production part approval, prototype/initial build, limited run then full production.
Apparently, there were delays and problems getting the molds broken down into sprues and done right. We've only been getting final sprue layouts in recent weeks.
They produce books for RPG, they understand the importance of layout and how long that takes for efficient use of space and logical placement of media, molds are no different.
Funny only in recent weeks they are getting them now, how long ago did the die manufacturer receive what they needed for the layouts?
Probably a similar timeline for their books.
For reasons beyond our control and full understanding, this project has proven to be much more challenging than I think any of us at Palladium or Ninja Division anticipated
It is all out there to demystify the process if you chose to look.
I am tired of general statements, just say : "here is where we are at", "here are all the steps", "here is our estimated timeline for each element".
The "gee-wiz we had no idea how darn complicated this all is!" is garbage, they either did not want to know and really did a breach of trust with us OR knew and just felt it was better to spin everything and keep it to themselves. This may be a new thing to PB but this is an old as the hills process that could have been estimated down to the day if the tooling supplier finally got all the design elements they needed.
I am sure at the very least if they found all the parting line options too difficult, they could have looked at other models that exist out there: http://www.collectiondx.com/toy_review/1982/tactical_pod_regult Heck, many of us fanboys would give feedback on these decisions of what was good or bad about the sprue...
But I am sure they were happily recreating the wheel because they know best... er, are new to this process... er, ND knew best but fumbled it... er, what is the official line now?
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
hey Forar, sorry about that, the extra detail was for those that are following/reading the conversation.
