67730
Post by: stanman
So bad.... even for a demo piece. And this qualifies as a piece "professionally" painted by BTP? ugh.
Bunch of pictures here: http://imgur.com/a/e7zqm
Once you get past the Robotech barf city pictures, you get to some quality minis by real companies.
38255
Post by: vitae_drinker
Mouthwatering. Just makes you want to buy thebgame, right?
*puke*
1478
Post by: warboss
 stanman wrote:So bad.... even for a demo piece. And this qualifies as a piece "professionally" painted by BTP? ugh.
You've clearly never posted in Dakka's own "pro painted!" Ebay thread.  I agree that the paint jobs are pretty bad but they scream of Palladium sending several dozen minis to be assembled, prepped, and speed painted in less than two weeks INCLUDING mailing time both ways across the country and the weekends. They likely had one set/squadron/model (depending on which model) done nicely (see the "official" paint scheme zentraedi) with the rest 3 color basic standard. In the end, that isn't the most worrisome to me. The fact that even with blurry out of focus shakey hand cam pics that the seams are glaringly obvious on the RDF minis is. Hell, my solution of only playing my RDF while drunk won't work as that bottom right destroid is pretty much beer goggled yet the seams are visible. 
51394
Post by: judgedoug
I think these were the ones painted by BTP - whoever the painter was who did the plain base ones (with the logos) is excellent
And here's a Monster in the wild
Product samples
Demo game - these painted models definitely don't look as good as the ones in the display case
Sorry gents, I officially went from "meh" to "gimme my stuff!"
21002
Post by: megatrons2nd
What are the games/companies for some of those miniatures. I really like the demon looking one under the 30mm scale Ares from about 3/4 the way down. I also like the red guys above the Ares, but not the little big head guys.
Hell just give me company or game names and I'll find them.
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
Kevin got at least one earful today. Didn't overhear what he was saying, but he appeared quite irate.
9883
Post by: Cyporiean
 megatrons2nd wrote:
What are the games/companies for some of those miniatures. I really like the demon looking one under the 30mm scale Ares from about 3/4 the way down. I also like the red guys above the Ares, but not the little big head guys.
Hell just give me company or game names and I'll find them.
Guessing these are the photos you're talking about..
http://i.imgur.com/qNZNsQ7.jpg <- Relic Knights from Soda Pop/Ninja Division
http://i.imgur.com/HJZWk2t.jpg <- Unsure, I think Helldorado from Chiper/Ninja Division
http://i.imgur.com/Rxtjcm1.jpg <- Super Dungeon Explore from Soda Pop/Ninja Division
http://i.imgur.com/oeTmfbm.jpg <- Looks like Helldorado on the Left and Relic Knights on the Right
21002
Post by: megatrons2nd
57438
Post by: Kendachi
 Sinful Hero wrote:Kevin got at least one earful today. Didn't overhear what he was saying, but he appeared quite irate.
This! This is what I want to hear more of. Or see video of!
9883
Post by: Cyporiean
First two are Relic Knights, not sure on the last one. Edit: Wait, I recognize the Kitsune in the background.. those are likely Bushido figs.
67621
Post by: Forar
I imagine that with the general public gettin in tomorrow, we'll start to hear more reactions and they'll start getting more praise and critique.
Also be interesting to see how busy their rpg/RRT area is. I imagine the kind of person to pay to get in early is also the kind to thoroughly research such locations, and there'll also be he matter of finding them through crowds and with every vendor vying for their attention through said crowds.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Does Gencon attendance ramp up Thursday through Saturday, with Saturday being the highest?
1478
Post by: warboss
 Alpharius wrote:Does Gencon attendance ramp up Thursday through Saturday, with Saturday being the highest?
Pretty much. It's been almost 10 years since I went but for the almost 15 years I did attend, there was Fantasy Friday and Scifi Saturday with the latter having the absolute longest lines for a one day badge. Sunday is a very steep drop. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Kendachi wrote: Sinful Hero wrote:Kevin got at least one earful today. Didn't overhear what he was saying, but he appeared quite irate.
This! This is what I want to hear more of. Or see video of!
Indeed. I'll believe it when I see it posted. So far we just have bad syntax on the KS comments drinking the kool aid. He heard their sob story and believes them that everyone else is so mean and they're just trying so hard! Except that the exact same type of unacceptable delays, lack of clarity, and poor communication happened with BOTH of their previous crowdfunded books that NO ONE else worked on and that were 100% their own fault regarding the massive 1-2 year delays (depending on which book) when they were supposed to go to the printers within weeks for one and a month for the next. Don't get me wrong... I'm sure that ND and HG both share in the blame ALONG WITH palladium but to try and spin the tale to get pity for them is ridiculous.
9883
Post by: Cyporiean
Alpharius wrote:Does Gencon attendance ramp up Thursday through Saturday, with Saturday being the highest?
Saturday's sales are usually equal to the rest of the weekend combined for us.
21002
Post by: megatrons2nd
 Cyporiean wrote:
First two are Relic Knights, not sure on the last one.
Edit: Wait, I recognize the Kitsune in the background.. those are likely Bushido figs.
Looked up Bushido. The Kitsune doesn't look the same. Thanks for the Relic Knight tip.
Last one http://i.imgur.com/7HT6ejT.jpg I think it is Infinity, but I am not sure.
9883
Post by: Cyporiean
Yeah thats Infinity.
The other one might be Anima Tactics, but i'm not overly familiar with the range. (and I'm not sure if its still being overly supported)
67730
Post by: stanman
It's pretty funny, the stuff that Ninja Division/Soda Pop did on their own looks killer in the display cases and even their demo stuff looks good, shift over to the Palladium side and you have rushed half assed stuff. It really tells you which end the failure belongs to in that partnership.
88171
Post by: Koltoroc
megatrons2nd wrote: Cyporiean wrote:
First two are Relic Knights, not sure on the last one.
Edit: Wait, I recognize the Kitsune in the background.. those are likely Bushido figs.
Looked up Bushido. The Kitsune doesn't look the same. Thanks for the Relic Knight tip.
Last one http://i.imgur.com/7HT6ejT.jpg I think it is Infinity, but I am not sure.
that demon is the Jorogumo from the Kensei range http://shop.zenitminiatures.es/product.php?id_product=160
78043
Post by: Mike1975
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0VSNzmthd1vUmNldkt3T1h0Ylk&usp=sharing
I put all the pics and videos I could find in one spot. I also remember Jeff saying something about painting some of those minis so those bad ones are likely his. I doubt BTP would even consider sending jobs like that out.
67730
Post by: stanman
I wonder if they'll forgot to charge the camera again?
Plenty of this stuff should have been in earlier updates, but they need to keep their newsfeed updated with pictures of geese and commenting on recent movies.
Why promote your own product when fans with shaky and fuzzy cams can do it right?
51394
Post by: judgedoug
stanman wrote:It's pretty funny, the stuff that Ninja Division/Soda Pop did on their own looks killer in the display cases and even their demo stuff looks good, shift over to the Palladium side and you have rushed half assed stuff. It really tells you which end the failure belongs to in that partnership.
The stuff in the display case looks pretty great to me? Certainly better than what I feel like doing (to preserve my sanity) on 1/285 scale models.
85037
Post by: Korias1004
Noir wrote:Korias1004 wrote:If I were going I would go spend $500 on GW stuff (dunno if they offer discounts there or not through the various vendors), show up to PB's booth, and tell them that I just purchased all those items with the money I (hope) to get by hocking my kickstarter stuff on Ebay once I get it.
LOL, buy a bunch of crap from a company that doesn't give a damn about you to say to a different company I'm not go to buy your crap becouse you don't give a damn about me, nice. I might spend my money on good companies products to get my point across, but to each their own.
Games Workshop has never lied to me, tried to make me "feel bad" about their situation, asked me to vote for something where if I didn't vote then it would be automatically counted as a consent to something for which I previously did not care, and produces very nice, albeit expensive, miniatures/models.
They are an organization that seeks my money and I give it to them via a great discount through my FLGS. I may not think certain rules are fair, fluffy, or written well at times but I still willingly give them my money because they have never once tried to be my friend that is only my friend for my financial means.
PB and Kevin, however are a completely different animal. Had it not been for his pathetic plea for yes votes, crappy your non-reply equates agreement to our decision standpoint, and his I'm-just-a-fanboy-trying-to-make-a-great-game-we-can-all-play-together-around-a-campfire-while-singing-kumbaya when in reality he is a fan boy seeking to make a great game off which he can make money, I would have not cared about the delays, poor management, or even the Gen con issue. ... but insult me by treating me like I'm an idiot and then pretend our relationship is anything more than just business by pulling some emotional whiny bull crap and yeah, I'll be happy to give my disposable income to another company.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
It's also from a spanish company, but no. That one (and the rest from that pic) is from Anima Tactics. This one:
http://www.edgeent.com/v2/edge_tienda_detalle.asp?etidi=1823
25853
Post by: winterdyne
Wow, that paintwork. Um... yeah.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 warboss wrote:[qote=stanman 521733 7116686 068bd85beba650c6f7cb90d81844be37.jpg]
You've clearly never posted in Dakka's own "pro painted!" Ebay thread. I agree that the paint jobs are pretty bad but they scream of Palladium sending several dozen minis to be assembled, prepped, and speed painted in less than two weeks INCLUDING mailing time both ways across the country and the weekends. They likely had one set/squadron/model (depending on which model) done nicely (see the "official" paint scheme zentraedi) with the rest 3 color basic standard.
]
Plenty of time, IMO. I painted 11 mierce axe drunes, 4 trolls, and 6 Infinity models in a week and a half and they're to a much much much higer standard. Any knucklehead, like me, with an airbrush could knock out better paint jobs on those things in 2 hours.
I was very surprised they didn't have any for sale tho.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
 cincydooley wrote: warboss wrote:[qote=stanman 521733 7116686 068bd85beba650c6f7cb90d81844be37.jpg]
You've clearly never posted in Dakka's own "pro painted!" Ebay thread. I agree that the paint jobs are pretty bad but they scream of Palladium sending several dozen minis to be assembled, prepped, and speed painted in less than two weeks INCLUDING mailing time both ways across the country and the weekends. They likely had one set/squadron/model (depending on which model) done nicely (see the "official" paint scheme zentraedi) with the rest 3 color basic standard.
]
Plenty of time, IMO. I painted 11 mierce axe drunes, 4 trolls, and 6 Infinity models in a week and a half and they're to a much much much higer standard. Any knucklehead, like me, with an airbrush could knock out better paint jobs on those things in 2 hours.
I was very surprised they didn't have any for sale tho.
I'm pretty sure those were painted by Palladium's Jeff Burke, obviously an RPG guy.
More pics that someone posted
http://theback40k.blogspot.com.ar/2014/08/gencon-palladium.html?m=1
1478
Post by: warboss
I was referring to the dark colored pods below that were definitely painted by BTP and are pretty bad rushed job of 3 colors minimum standard quality. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zeQHgQIwFpA/U-1qqxhJXtI/AAAAAAAAOJM/G7YhN8Tb8Mo/s800/2014-08-14+14.41.24.jpg But, yeah, the ones Stanman originally posted look fan made.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Yeah, I'm not familiar with BTP but someone said they usually take 6+ weeks, these were definitely rushed. Automatically Appended Next Post: Just the same, that's about the limit of my skill, so I'd be happy to have mine like some of those.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just glad they did not do any in pink
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Purple one
Automatically Appended Next Post:
top left
1
25853
Post by: winterdyne
They're all just a bit gak.
Posted my opinion on the KS page, so some copypasta:
The minis themselves appear to be reasonably good actually - some visible seams/joins which look like they should be simple enough to correct during build (nothing I wouldn't expect really). The tailplane on the guardian / gerwalk mode valkyries is a bit strange - would probably have done that as a separate part to get thinner wings, but with good paintwork it's easy enough to hide. The paintwork on the demo stuff is dire. Really really bad - the sort of stuff you see brand new 'pro painters' (ie 15 year old kids) attempt to put out. The display stuff is not great either - very shaky freehand, poor wash work, and very little effort put in to build them properly (the aforementioned fix for the seams would have taken maybe 5-10 mins per model). And the OSL (lighting effect) on some of the models is amateur level at best. Not having the time to do a good job does not mean a poor job should be shoe-horned in. It'd have been better to be late, or display fewer painted pieces of better quality. That's my 2p's worth anyway.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Wow, it's almost like you guys are bitching just to bitch. The paint jobs for the models in the display case are just great for being 1/285 models. Specifically, whoever the painter was for the mecha that have the symbols on the bases is fantastic. I don't think many of you quite realize how small these bastards are. As a long time Battletech player with like at least two hundred and some 'mechs, I cannot _wait_ to see the gak that everyone starts producing when they're not used to painting at such a small scale. There's a huuuuge difference between painting a 35mm tall Warmachine or Space Marine model with giant ham fists and melon heads and easy detail versus that goddamn 3d printed MWO Centurion I painted the other week with what is I swear knuckle joints measured in microns.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Agreed Judgedoug, long ago I traded everything I had for Batteltech minis. The Battletech guys seem really happy with these too if Facebook is any indication.
70376
Post by: Cypher-xv
@ judgedoug
I agree that the ones with rdf symbol are better painted. Except when you look at some of the zent pods with the guns in black they look half finished. The demo pieces are atrocious, but then again there going to be manhandled so it's forgivable. I have the GC exclusives so I know how small they are. The zent stuff is as big as a dreadnought. The valkyrie is taller than a space marine. It may not be exaggerated with giant hands or a melon sized head but these aren't tiny figures either. Your right about how some want to bitch just for the heck of it. In this case it's understandable considering it was a rush job. PB has given a sloppy presentation of themselves and RRT GC.
The valks themselves are taller than the BT minis. So again for those who bitch it's understandably so in this case. If you have the GC figs yourself then you already know this. If not you shouldn't talk bub. 
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Yup, Mike, It's pretty much the hardest scale to paint because details are so small, but are significant enough that you can't ignore them like you can ignore in picoarmor 1/600 to 1/2400 scale. You can't just airbrush all over everything like the current sculpting and models trend in Warmahordes and Warhammer/40k to make everything as big as possible.
I feel like a lot of people just have zero experience with 1/285 stuff, and their minds are telling them these models are like 5 or 6 inches tall as they have no frame of reference, or their only frame of reference are maybe Epic titans, which are still far more massive than these guys.
So I'm just like the Battletech guys... with a stupid amount of experience in painting the tiniest things ever: those models and those display case paint jobs look just great.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
 judgedoug wrote:Wow, it's almost like you guys are bitching just to bitch. The paint jobs for the models in the display case are just great for being 1/285 models. Specifically, whoever the painter was for the mecha that have the symbols on the bases is fantastic. I don't think many of you quite realize how small these bastards are. As a long time Battletech player with like at least two hundred and some 'mechs, I cannot _wait_ to see the gak that everyone starts producing when they're not used to painting at such a small scale. There's a huuuuge difference between painting a 35mm tall Warmachine or Space Marine model with giant ham fists and melon heads and easy detail versus that goddamn 3d printed MWO Centurion I painted the other week with what is I swear knuckle joints measured in microns.
I know *exactly* how small they are. And they're still gak. Paulson's prototypes are if anything a hair smaller:
In terms of speed; I could churn 10-15 pods of this standard or 20 destroids in around a week.
So yeah, I feel justified in stating these are crap. Have a look at the shots of the Heavy Gear display models for some really nice work.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
winterdyne wrote:
I know *exactly* how small they are. And they're still gak. Paulson's prototypes are if anything a hair smaller:
Yours are really nice, certainly, but I think I like the ones on the bases with the symbols in the display case better, as they are really clean and smooth and look like they're actually in a cel of animation, which is what I think I may personally be painting mine as. Currently all my Battletech stuff is super gritty.
edit: I must say though I really love your work in general though. Actually your paint job on Mantic's mawbeasts is what convinced me to get an entire cavalry army of Mawbeasts and Mincers for Kings of War. Of course they're all still unpainted, haha.
70376
Post by: Cypher-xv
Judgedoug
I don't think you have any idea on the sizes of these things. 
47462
Post by: rigeld2
judgedoug wrote:Wow, it's almost like you guys are bitching just to bitch. The paint jobs for the models in the display case are just great for being 1/285 models. Specifically, whoever the painter was for the mecha that have the symbols on the bases is fantastic. I don't think many of you quite realize how small these bastards are. As a long time Battletech player with like at least two hundred and some 'mechs, I cannot _wait_ to see the gak that everyone starts producing when they're not used to painting at such a small scale. There's a huuuuge difference between painting a 35mm tall Warmachine or Space Marine model with giant ham fists and melon heads and easy detail versus that goddamn 3d printed MWO Centurion I painted the other week with what is I swear knuckle joints measured in microns.
Um.
Most everyone is saying the ones in the display case are acceptable and the ones being used for demos are gak.
And I've got a similar amount of mechs as you, and the demo ones are still gak. I can do better and I hate painting.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
 Cypher-xv wrote:@ judgedoug
I agree that the ones with rdf symbol are better painted. Except when you look at some of the zent pods with the guns in black they look half finished. The demo pieces are atrocious, but then again there going to be manhandled so it's forgivable.
Yeah, definitely, the ones on gravel bases are just fine, not great. They pass the "3 foot rule", it looks good from three feet, but not good up close.
The demo pieces are just awful, but I think those are the same ones from the last demo they did, right? Regardless, they should look much much nicer for demos to show off your product.
But again, the only pieces I've been specifically praising are the ones painted by the guy who kept the bases blank/with faction symbols.
Cypher-xv wrote:
I have the GC exclusives so I know how small they are. The zent stuff is as big as a dreadnought. The valkyrie is taller than a space marine. It may not be exaggerated with giant hands or a melon sized head but these aren't tiny figures either. Your right about how some want to bitch just for the heck of it. In this case it's understandable considering it was a rush job. PB has given a sloppy presentation of themselves and RRT GC.
The valks themselves are taller than the BT minis. So again for those who bitch it's understandably so in this case. If you have the GC figs yourself then you already know this. If not you shouldn't talk bub.
I also have the Max and Miriya. The Max is smaller than most Battletech mechs - about 3/4 the size of a Battlemaster for anyone who might have that as a reference, so I know the Robotech mecha are a straight up bitch to paint for any level of details. Automatically Appended Next Post: Cypher-xv wrote:Judgedoug
I don't think you have any idea on the sizes of these things.
Then you would be 100% mistaken!  Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote:
Um.
Most everyone is saying the ones in the display case are acceptable and the ones being used for demos are gak.
And I've got a similar amount of mechs as you, and the demo ones are still gak. I can do better and I hate painting.
As someone who only occasionally visits this thread and usually agrees with the Palladium hate, it seemed like people were criticizing the paint jobs as collateral damage for just being really angry at Palladium all the time. Palladium pretty much deserves 100% of everything people throw at them, certainly. But I saw the display case pieces and was like 'dayum! Those are sweeeet! Now I am really looking forward to getting stuff, even if the rules blow chunks and I use Alpha Strike instead!" and then see a page or two of more indiscriminate hate, I was like "hold up now, these paint jobs are excellent."
The demo ones are definitely gak. I probably have some mechs that look like that because I did paint a company when I was drunk and tired a while back, but I don't even think they've seen the tabletop, haha. Certainly nothing I'd want to use to showcase to the public.
70376
Post by: Cypher-xv
I stand corrected. I didn't have a hard time painting my max fig. I'm no pro painter but it was pretty simple.
1478
Post by: warboss
judgedoug wrote:Yup, Mike, It's pretty much the hardest scale to paint because details are so small, but are significant enough that you can't ignore them like you can ignore in picoarmor 1/600 to 1/2400 scale. You can't just airbrush all over everything like the current sculpting and models trend in Warmahordes and Warhammer/ 40k to make everything as big as possible.
I feel like a lot of people just have zero experience with 1/285 stuff, and their minds are telling them these models are like 5 or 6 inches tall as they have no frame of reference, or their only frame of reference are maybe Epic titans, which are still far more massive than these guys.
So I'm just like the Battletech guys... with a stupid amount of experience in painting the tiniest things ever: those models and those display case paint jobs look just great.
I have no idea where you're getting this idea. The SMALLEST stuff in this project bigger than the size of a space marine (for the RDF stuff) and between a terminator and centurion for most of the zent stuff. The scale "number" might indicate a smaller model in theory but in actual practice these will be easier to paint than your average 40k mini as the details on the robotech models will in the vast majority of cases be bigger than even 28mm "heroic" scaled models like humans in 40k and warmahordes.
85037
Post by: Korias1004
I'm not a great painter, but I feel for just getting into the hobby my painting on an amateur level is decent quality. Not as good as the display case, which I think looks pretty good, but definitely better and cleaner than the demo pieces.
That being said, I don't really care one way or the other. I'm more concerned about actually receiving my product and whether or not the game plays well. Realistically though, as I'm starting to get into MtG *edit* on top of my current 40k habit (Tyranids currently, would like to start a SM and Necron army) */edit*, I'll just ebay it and fund my 40k/Magic habits.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Perhaps the paint jobs are gakky because the base models they are working with are gakky?
33816
Post by: Noir
Cypher-xv wrote:Judgedoug
I don't think you have any idea on the sizes of these things.
Plus it is rude to just assume we don't own hunderd of Battletech models are self. My unseen would like a word.
38255
Post by: vitae_drinker
If you ladies are done with the "Who has the bigger Battletech collection" d!ck measuring contest, can we get back to hating on Palladium? K thx bye!
33816
Post by: Noir
vitae_drinker wrote:If you ladies are done with the "Who has the bigger Battletech collection" d!ck measuring contest, can we get back to hating on Palladium? K thx bye!
Your right we should be talking about how PB hired one of the worse painting company (BTP) to paint their demo models. Must of been cheap.
1478
Post by: warboss
It's likely that the "rush rush" factor significantly added to the cost.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
 Easy E wrote:Perhaps the paint jobs are gakky because the base models they are working with are gakky?
Looking at the unpainted ones, they look fine to actually quite good.
68764
Post by: Killionaire
This level is painting is abysmal. Literally, they look like everyone's first ever painted space marine or whatnot. The very fact that it was clearly just slathered blue on those pods with thinning over black primer is horrific.
I've painted a lot of models, with far, far, far greater detail (I have over 90 painted Infinity models), and it's pretty clear those pods took a grand total of an hour from priming to painting.
Seriously shameful. Even rush commission jobs do NOT look like that. Think of it this way: Those things look worse than pre-paints, and this is your DEMO kit? Yes, Demo kits need to be durable and don't need to be perfect. But any half decent painter could do them better justice in 8 hours, then hardcoat the hell out of them.
Nice to see them demoing with the Dropzone Commander card city at least
84647
Post by: PallyDrone
How much actual RRT demoing is going on anyway.
Looking at the Gen Con catalog it looks like only 4 4-hour sessions are being run. That's it.
4 games in a room off the beaten path in a side room off the main Mariott ballroom.
85963
Post by: MangoMadness
 Killionaire wrote: But any half decent painter could do them better justice in 8 hours, then hardcoat the hell out of them.
Yup
block colour, wash, base, hardcoat.
I wonder if many people defending the paint jobs have ever walked into a GW store. They dont spend weeks on each model that sit on their demo tables, quick tidy efficient paint jobs to get them done and onto the demo table and they look great.
16233
Post by: deleted20250424
I see Kevin has finally got you all to turn on each other for something unrelated to the actual delivery of this product in a timely manner.
For shame.
Get back to the real issues, like... where's my minis? Are the large gaps for ventilation of the mecha? Why are there no hilarious videos of Kevin squirming while being asked questions?
84647
Post by: PallyDrone
 TalonZahn wrote:I see Kevin has finally got you all to turn on each other for something unrelated to the actual delivery of this product in a timely manner.
For shame.
Get back to the real issues, like... where's my minis? Are the large gaps for ventilation of the mecha? Why are there no hilarious videos of Kevin squirming while being asked questions?
Yeah I want to see some actual jazz hands, so hemming, some hawing, some full on, bull fecal recitation.
87301
Post by: lliu
Kick starters are so tempting. I pledged $100 to Oculus VR, and $100 to an alien game.
70376
Post by: Cypher-xv
Possible explanation on why Kevin was vexed yesterday.
"I believe the conversation with Kevin that is in question may have involved the phrases 'class-action lawsuit' and 'random searches are not so random when customs receives anonymous tips' as well as mentioning both that the current Attorney General in Washington State has filed a lawsuit against a company that failed to deliver a tabletop game in full on Kickstarter and that at least one complaint has been filed with the Attorney General in Michigan concerning Palladium Books. "
And here's why.
"Palladium Books really should have not made so many enemies and refused to pass out refunds to those that requested them. They may not have suffered so many headaches these past few months." Automatically Appended Next Post: Forgot to add that's from the update comments.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
I really think that conversation is just made up
14765
Post by: paulson games
Just got back from Gen Con and had a gander at the PB booth, the display models were decent although compared to the display models that Ninja Division (and most every other company has) they are really lacking. I found it funny that they were next to the Infinity booth which probably has the best display minis at the convention. The RRT demo models were terrible, a blind ten year old could have done better.
They had the tables set up with Drop Zone Commander terrain and it works well, however considering there were at least 3 other booths all using the same terrain to promote products they all kind of ran together visually. This was even more noticible in the gaming hall as there were about 12-15 tables of DZC terrain all fairly close together, being used for battletech, DZC (duh) and some other 15mm game (tomorrows war?) I love their terrain and use it for my own stuff as well, it was kind of surprising just how much of it there was around the convention which did give all the games a kind of generic look.
There was a lot of empty space in that booth almost like they had expected mountains of stock that never arrived. Stuff had been rearranged but it was pretty obvious they had a huge amount of booth space without a lot of content. Also one oddity I noticed was in their row of mugs they had several Robotech ones but what stood out was the mug using the artwork for their Macross II cover, which I don't think they are licensed to do as Harmony Gold doesn't own rights to that series or the designs. It would be funny if they got sued over some silly little mugs.
Battletech had a pretty big presence there compared to Adepticon, at the time I swung through there they had six or seven games being played there as well as having a dedicated painting area for their stuff. It looks like the 25th an boxed sets have perked up interest and I think a new source for unseens has also contributed. It'd be pretty amusing if Battletech sees a strong revival due to Robotech models becoming available while the Robotech game itself dies on the vine because of poor management.
Got to talk with Ninja John for a bit as usual he was a really cool guy, I remarked at just how professional and kick ass looking their display models were compared to another certain company... which was met by a sly smile and nod. They have a cool looking ninja/samurai chibi game in the works, and based on the banner artwork I expect I am going to be ears deep in.
Also Marie Claude one day you are going to kill somebody with those, but they will die very happy indeed.
70376
Post by: Cypher-xv
Paulson what did ninja John say about PB or RRT?
14765
Post by: paulson games
It's not polite to repeat secret ninja words.
70376
Post by: Cypher-xv
Wow, that scathing huh?lol. Thanks anyway
14765
Post by: paulson games
oops
70376
Post by: Cypher-xv
Oh great I missed it.
56277
Post by: Eldarain
Me too :(
I was hoping you'd quoted it in time.
70376
Post by: Cypher-xv
Didn't anybody screen save it. lol
67730
Post by: stanman
This about sums up the whole KS for me.
Also, this may have slipped past people but anyone notice how large the Palladium booth is vs the amount of product space they actually use? (or vs the booth space that other vendors are using) it's 2-3 times larger then what they needed which would have been fitting if they had RRT product to stock and move, not a 100-200 copies as we were told, but *palettes worth* the booth size pretty clearly indicates at just how much RRT stuff they really planned on unloading at gen con.
take a gander at the Gen Con Layout: http://images.gencon.com/GenCon2014-ExhibitHallmapwithlinks.pdf
Booth size was about the same as ND's and ND was promoting far more games and included demo space for each of their games (which eats up lots of room) While it's not shown on the map upper right corner of ND's space was actually the Games and Gears stuff. Palladium has a monsterous booth and there's enough empty space in there that you could set up a camping tent and have spare room for a campfire surrounded with chairs. (It's roughly the size of 8-10 of the basic vendor spots) Considering you are paying by the square foot and that Palladium prefers the cheapest route possible I doubt they'd spring for that much extra elbow room, unless it was reserved for lots and lots of inventory.
Based on the booth it looks like they planned on having tons of stock in place and the 100-200 copies was completely BS.
67621
Post by: Forar
That's also gotta sting. The booths my crew rents for local conventions are expensive enough. Did a double sized booth at fan expo last year and it was spicy. From what we saw on the map, I'm sure that set them back a good amount of cash.
9883
Post by: Cyporiean
On Palladium booth space: Gen Con sold out by September for this year, which at the time they still thought they'd be done shipping by now.
They could have tried to sublet some space (I would have taken some), but that would take them realizing they have no chance of getting product in time a few months ago.
84554
Post by: Morgan Vening
stanman wrote:Also, this may have slipped past people but anyone notice how large the Palladium booth is vs the amount of product space they actually use? (or vs the booth space that other vendors are using) it's 2-3 times larger then what they needed which would have been fitting if they had RRT product to stock and move, not a 100-200 copies as we were told, but *palettes worth* the booth size pretty clearly indicates at just how much RRT stuff they really planned on unloading at gen con.
take a gander at the Gen Con Layout: http://images.gencon.com/GenCon2014-ExhibitHallmapwithlinks.pdf
Booth size was about the same as ND's and ND was promoting far more games and included demo space for each of their games (which eats up lots of room) While it's not shown on the map upper right corner of ND's space was actually the Games and Gears stuff. Palladium has a monsterous booth and there's enough empty space in there that you could set up a camping tent and have spare room for a campfire surrounded with chairs. (It's roughly the size of 8-10 of the basic vendor spots) Considering you are paying by the square foot and that Palladium prefers the cheapest route possible I doubt they'd spring for that much extra elbow room, unless it was reserved for lots and lots of inventory.
Based on the booth it looks like they planned on having tons of stock in place and the 100-200 copies was completely BS.
Actually, based on last year, it seems to be about the same. Last year had the same "This booth seems way too big based on what they've got to offer.". I remember last year, it was the couple of demo tables for RRT, the RPG section which was at best a quarter of the area, and a large area of empty space with a couple of chairs, cordoned off by tables with some merchandising on it. Definitely felt weirdly wasteful last year too.
For something that size, it definitely doesn't stand out though. Thursday I walked right past it twice, then on the third time actually noticed. Yesterday was similar, even knowing it was there, I walked right past it,and only realized when my friend pointed it out. Granted, I wasn't seeking it out (I'm pretty much done with the game), but it should have had some kind of visual impact, and it didn't.
The Ninja Pop booth on the other hand, you couldn't help but notice. Instead of the single 8' tall RRT banner PB had, ND's booth was significantly taller, with a hanging spinner banner above it. Noticed it from several aisles away. I'll see about getting some pictures for comparison.
67730
Post by: stanman
Cyporiean wrote:On Palladium booth space: Gen Con sold out by September for this year, which at the time they still thought they'd be done shipping by now.
They could have tried to sublet some space (I would have taken some), but that would take them realizing they have no chance of getting product in time a few months ago.
Well they did sublet at least one table, no idea what the game or company was although it looked like some fantasy miniatures thing but largely ignored it as I was looking at the robotech stuff. They also had a separate table for Palladium's card stock rpg character cut outs. So there was quite a bit in there acting as space filler and it still seemed pretty empty given the overall costs of the booths.
If they had to book that far back they had some pretty high hopes, and the shipment running late had to have stung the wallet badly. Although I don't see the ship as being the sole factor as the entire KS process has been a non-stop series of mishaps and delays largely stemming from poor planning.
1478
Post by: warboss
Can you take some scale shots of the Robotech minis next to other common minis like a space marine, Morgan? Palladium apparently can't be bothered to do stuff like update backers with the contents in the past few weeks.
1478
Post by: warboss
Yes, that would be the photo that desperately needs updating to show the DIFFERENT plastics.
60720
Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured
I'd imagine they had to book the space back when they expected everything would go smooth and fast, so they'd have already fulfilled all backers and thus be able to sell huge stacks of the game,
the 'we'll sell 200 copies if that's ok with you' business is far to recent to have allowed them to book so much gencon table space
25853
Post by: winterdyne
Booking space for product that has any chance whatsoever of not arriving is foolish. I have no sympathy for it. You make bookings when you definitely positively are going to have the product.
1478
Post by: warboss
winterdyne wrote:Booking space for product that has any chance whatsoever of not arriving is foolish. I have no sympathy for it. You make bookings when you definitely positively are going to have the product.
In their "defense", it wasn't impossible back apparently last September when they booked it. If they had been competent instead of a 50/50 mix of ignorant and arrogant, they'd have made it easily along with keeping one of only a few promises they had remaining unbroken.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
Given what I know about model development and release marketing (via mantic etc), no, they had no guarantees whatsoever.
66741
Post by: ced1106
winterdyne wrote:Booking space for product that has any chance whatsoever of not arriving is foolish. I have no sympathy for it. You make bookings when you definitely positively are going to have the product.
So it seems like an even better reason not to have the models in the mini's room.
Easier to make a non-decision of having the same space in the same room as last year.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
Yep, that's what I would have done. Especially if I were unsure about what I'd be getting. This said, there'd have been nothing wrong with showing well painted resin cast prototypes.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Personally, I don't think those metal Paulson pods look as good as even the gappy plastics. The comparison shot actually makes me happier to be getting these meh plastics than I have been since the first disappointing photos came out of PB.
25853
Post by: winterdyne
I'm surprised to hear that. The Paulson pods certainly have detail the official ones are missing, such as the vents on the front of the leg, and the small recessed panels on the main front plate.
53523
Post by: Sining
I'm pretty sure that's called sarcasm -_-
1478
Post by: warboss
From Bad Syntax's folder... The edits below correspond to the success pic attachments as I'm commenting as I go through the gallery.
That knee doesn't fill me with QA hope considering it is one of the only 4 dozen showcase figs and I'm only 10 pics into the gallery so far.
edit 1: And the very next pic has a similar issue with knee bubbles although in a slightly different spot (and now both legs).
edit 2: It appears BTP painted it up as battle damage as it happened on the painted minis as well?
edit 3: Is the discolored crud green stuff putty covering more defects on the back of the excaliber? Sorry but I'm more familiar with the old names this early in the morning.
edit 4: Looks like the Spartan (phalanx?) has the same bubbles although less pronounced. It seems like it will be a CONSTANT issue for destroids.
edit 5: Yup, it's on the sprues as well if you closely zoom in. You can see an irregularity on the legs as you follow the outside border of the pieces on the sprues. Look at the leg piece closest to the command bit on the sprue. Automatically Appended Next Post: On a positive note though, I assume Mike Arnold is Mike Morpheus and he is the first listed playtester! Yay alphabetical listings!
51394
Post by: judgedoug
You thought you were getting prepainted miniatures or something?
While the one on the left is funny - especially since it's being compared to what was one of the PB staffer's personal minis (just saw that posted on the fb group), the one on the right is what's been flittering through my imagination since the KS was running. Minis that look like their cel-art counterpart.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote:From Bad Syntax's folder... The edits below correspond to the success pic attachments as I'm commenting as I go through the gallery.
That knee doesn't fill me with QA hope considering it is one of the only 4 dozen showcase figs and I'm only 10 pics into the gallery so far.
edit 1: And the very next pic has a similar issue with knee bubbles although in a slightly different spot (and now both legs).
edit 2: It appears BTP painted it up as battle damage as it happened on the painted minis as well?
edit 3: Is the discolored crud green stuff putty covering more defects on the back of the excaliber? Sorry but I'm more familiar with the old names this early in the morning.
edit 4: Looks like the Spartan (phalanx?) has the same bubbles although less pronounced. It seems like it will be a CONSTANT issue for destroids.
edit 5: Yup, it's on the sprues as well if you closely zoom in. You can see an irregularity on the legs as you follow the outside border of the pieces on the sprues. Look at the leg piece closest to the command bit on the sprue.
Those are lights. The Tomahak, Defender, and Phalanx, since they share a common log motive module, all have lights in their knees. Now, the casting looks quite bad and that makes me unhappy, but those are supposed to be there.
82487
Post by: fruitlewps
Mike1975 wrote:https://www.flickr.com/photos/126258081@N08/sets/72157646540359845/
Hey Mike, I would appreciate it if you would give me credit whenever you link to my pics and galleries. Thanks!
Chuck
1478
Post by: warboss
judgedoug wrote:
Those are lights. The Tomahak, Defender, and Phalanx, since they share a common log motive module, all have lights in their knees. Now, the casting looks quite bad and that makes me unhappy, but those are supposed to be there.
Those are lights? Sigh.. they're the worst sculpted "lights" then that I've seen on models that size ( 40k terminator size). In any case, it still looks like the tomahawk/excaliber has a casting bubble as it has TWO lights (queue Jean Luc voice) on one side whereas the art you posted only has one on each on the lowest flat surface.
edit: It appears that the upper "hole" is the "correct" one whereas the lower hole is just a malformed set of the tabs that are on the upper shins of the destroid.
The destroids were never going to be my favorite models after spartangate but the quality shown above puts them even further down. I'll likely assemble a zentraedi army as I think PB/ND did a good job with those baring some mould lines (like on the officer pod canopy) and just assemble enough valkyries to run as x-wing squadrons.
67730
Post by: stanman
judgedoug wrote:
You thought you were getting prepainted miniatures or something?
No I was expecting "mouth watering detail" not sprues full of plastic swiss cheese and soft details. I'd also explained on FB that it goes far beyond that, it's a representation of all the things that have been so wrong with this kickstarter. So much of it has felt like a bait and switch, Ninja Division will be running things, but switching to full on Palladium derp as soon as funding closes. We'll have regular communication, which has been anything but. Spartan gate. Expected delivery dates that keep sliding "because they demand quality", except when they suddenly need to rush everything for gencon. The Zentraedi mechs are ok, but the Valkyries being the most iconic of the mech for the series look like garbage and the destroids aren't all that much better.
The last year and a half has been nothing but Bait® and Switch Tactics™ as far as I'm concerned and I will never support another robotech or palladium product again.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
winterdyne wrote:I'm surprised to hear that. The Paulson pods certainly have detail the official ones are missing, such as the vents on the front of the leg, and the small recessed panels on the main front plate.
The Paulson ones just look wrong. They have a chunky "definitely a metal mini" look to them, and their proportions or textures make them look sculpted as opposed to manufactured. Perhaps it's just the overly weathered and paint-chipped paint job, but the pods have a strong "clay" texture that just ruins them for me. Plus, they will be harder to pose, convert and paint than the plastics will be, even despite PB's incompetence.
I guess the missing details don't bother me that much. I'm not so wedded to the source material that it will distract me. I like the idea of mecha more than the specific name brand. Then again, I'm excited for Bones CAV minis, so I'm clearly not in the same demographic as Paulson's biggest fans.
14765
Post by: paulson games
The ones I did were all resin casts, the original master model was handsculpted so maybe that's what you're picking up on, could also be the paint texture.
Everyone has their own individual tastes for sculpting styles, so I don't mind the comment
One of the lines I'm continually baffled by is Kingdom of Death, very good sculpts in a technical sense, but I'm continually left scratching my head as to what the appeal is as the game just isn't in my interest range.
46016
Post by: IK-Painter
Does anyone find it weird, that in all the posts regarding GenCon, RRT is not mentioned once on ND's Facebook?
1478
Post by: warboss
Considering that they've apparently ignored it except for a small handful posts over the past year or so where they're not just copy pasting Palladium updates, no... it is SOP for them since the KS closed. That is however unfortunate. Even those posts were generally made because of constant and (to them) annoying comments about the project they're trying their best to ignore and convince others doesn't exist. I don't go to their facebook page (or anyone's) much but if there is some drama I make the trip and look at the previous ones and I almost never saw anything robotech that wasn't just a copy paste of the previous week's or two week's prior update. I doubt they'll be back for a second KS.
67621
Post by: Forar
A buddy of mine has a sister that works for one of the digital effects companies that works on Game of Thrones. Despite this prestigous position, and winning awards for their efforts, it's my understanding they've had to drop the contract. This was heavily in part due to the simply staggering number of revisions requested, getting things big and small just right.
Basically what I'm saying is that if ND's contract stipulated doing all of the sculpts and necessary revisions and didn't have limits/stipulations present on such things, they might've just been ground into the dirt between PB and HG constantly tweaking things, not to mention the file incompatibility. If that wasn't some how billable, an otherwise lucrative contract can suddenly be paying out pennies on the dollar, when what was anticipated to be say 50 hours of work and profitable at even 100 hours is now suddenly 200 hours and everyone hates the entire thing because they'd like to sleep again sometime that quarter.
60720
Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured
Ninja division posted on their facebook when asked if they would have robotech demos at gencon
"Ninja Division
Hey Richard, Ninja Division was hired to doing initial rules creation and design the miniatures for Robotech RPG Tactics. The Ninja Corps, our volunteer program does not presently include Robotech RPG Tactics."
so basically they've done their bit (how well or badly backer will need to judge when it's in their hands) but are not involved in the sales or promotion of the game
78043
Post by: Mike1975
And rightly so, they made their money on the design. Sales will not effect them. It will only reflect upon their reputation not their pocketbooks once everything is rolled up.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Just for fun and because my Battle Systems terrain should be arriving soon..... 
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not a lot of quality work but it's functional. If you wanted to spend a lot of time you could make these look really good.
1478
Post by: warboss
Looks good! The only recommendation I might make is if you have the tools make the gun barrels a bit more curved like in the cartoons. If not, no big deal at all. You could also make them as well as of sheets of foam if you have a foam cutter although they'll obviously be more fragile in that case.
24256
Post by: FacelessMage
That is pretty awesome looking Mike.
66741
Post by: ced1106
Thanks for the dropbox!
Executive Producer: Kevin Siembda. MegaDamage.
Can anyone familiar with the Palladium mecha RPG comment on the ruleset?
5880
Post by: sqir666
I just watched the unboxing video that Bad_Syntax posted up and it seems that the cards aren't laminated and neither are the tokens colored.
Fan freaking tastic way to live up to your stretch goals Palladium.
67621
Post by: Forar
The first thing I noticed as I started perusing the Rulesbook was that it makes sure to note Palladium's copyright on terms like SDC, ISP, PPE, and a whole host of other gak that does not appear in the game.
I recall from one of the books some of the races have latent psychic abilities. Maybe the invid will kill people with their brains.
... okay it's probably from the tie ins to the RPG. Still.
53523
Post by: Sining
So a reply to that is given but this is totally ignored. Cool
fruitlewps wrote:Mike1975 wrote:https://www.flickr.com/photos/126258081@N08/sets/72157646540359845/
Hey Mike, I would appreciate it if you would give me credit whenever you link to my pics and galleries. Thanks!
Chuck
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Sining wrote:So a reply to that is given but this is totally ignored. Cool
fruitlewps wrote:Mike1975 wrote:https://www.flickr.com/photos/126258081@N08/sets/72157646540359845/
Hey Mike, I would appreciate it if you would give me credit whenever you link to my pics and galleries. Thanks!
Chuck
Sining, I didn't see it. I've been kinda busy and was still catching up on the comments here.
The link I posted was pics done up by Chuck Mays. Thanks Chuck.
24256
Post by: FacelessMage
Sining that was you that made those?
I then transfer my compliment to you good sir.
Those Look Awesome!
28305
Post by: Talizvar
Odds and sods I noticed in the rulebook:
Looks like a GW 40k rule book as well as the "special abilities" section... I know, get the torches and pitchforks...
In my defense, it has the same order, even listing of timeline... I know ALL games cover a similar order one way or another, it just is too similar. Aha! "River Horse (Alessio Cavatore)" under special thanks, that may have done it.
I have to check if the Battlefield setup is presented in the same order as 40k. Wow, less of an adjustment than I thought...
Yep, Re-rolls, rounding, line of sight, pre-measure, automatic success / failure (6, 1), D3 similar wording. Have GW lawyers looked at this? I must check the order these are listed and compare rule books...
Gah! written in the "friendly" entertainment style of GW rule books... prepare for grey-zone rules wording.
Oooh! Pilots with special rules like in X-wing!
Funny, in the credits I found no mention of Ninja Division and having a heck of a time finding "Big Idea Miniatures". Weird stuff.
I so badly want to do a "Find" of "MDC" / "MD" and see if there are 200 instances of it in the book.
Activation: Yikes! wall of text! We are no longer in Kansas Toto. Steal / Theft of Activation is looking rather funny.
Command Points: "Hero Points" ways to get that added boost when you really need it... = pay as you go magic phase?
Arrghhh!! The dreaded "Parry" from Palladium RPG! They weaseled it in. I am suffering painful flashbacks now.
Love the incorporating the "Role Playing Game Application" this was a paid for public announcement by Kevin. I say "Apply ruler into spine, grab top corner of sheet(s) and pull out page. Repeat until all offending material is removed."
Painting guide looks nice and detailed. Took me a minute to figure out those codes in the middle are hex colors for RGB. Not sure how that translates into RAL, Pantone or whatever actual paint system we will have to use but will work great on an online painter program...
Anyway not sure if I have my black hat on, grey, but I think it is not white.
Oddly, I DO like the book. I can follow it well, it has an index, and I do not jump around too much with the rules. Not bad.
<edit> (not-Mike!!!) Fruitlewps(?!) Thanks for the view of the rule book, I feel a bit better now. If for some silly reason I find I really dislike a certain element of the game, it does look easy enough to modify due to it's similarity to other systems.
Now I may have to pester for Army Builder files for the game and touch-up my Excel sheet.
Anyone read this far: THANKS! and you are hard-core.
67621
Post by: Forar
As Mr. Dachi requested in the comments, I've been thinking of giving it a once over myself, especially since I have no familiarity with Warhammer of any kind. I mean, I know of it, but I've never played it, own none of the figures, etc.
Part of me can't be bothered trying to read it in the format as presented (prefer a dead tree copy if I'm going to knock out 100+ pages on this, image heavy as it may be), part of me doesn't want the waveform to collapse by actually looking at it. I mean, I know it's probably bad. I have no delusions of that. But as long as I don't know it's bad, at least there's a measure of questioning remaining.
Meh. Maybe I'll get around to it in the coming weeks, but every time I think of starting deeper into it past ISP and PPE, I just sigh and go back to leveling Diablo 3 Hardcore characters.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
 FacelessMage wrote:Sining that was you that made those?
I then transfer my compliment to you good sir.
Those Look Awesome!
Chuck Mays or FruitWlps (hope that's right) took the pics. I don't always remember the people that have different names in different places.
1478
Post by: warboss
I took a look at it. Absolutely none of the issues that I brought up in the comments, in KS messages to PB, on multiple independent threads on the Palladium forums, and here via Mike passing on the info were addressed. Is it horrible? No... but it seems like the last year's worth of comments, questions, and criticisms were just completely ignored.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Yup, mecha hiding behind lamp posts is a thing in the official rules. Awesome.
Mecha that can jump really high can't move "through" (over) buildings or other mecha? O.o
High roll wins is in there for cover. Yay. Or not.
Close formation is as far as I got. He uses a lot of words to say the same thing over and over.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
rigeld2 wrote:Yup, mecha hiding behind lamp posts is a thing in the official rules. Awesome.
Mecha that can jump really high can't move "through" (over) buildings or other mecha? O.o
High roll wins is in there for cover. Yay. Or not.
Close formation is as far as I got. He uses a lot of words to say the same thing over and over.
LampPost:
As much as I understand this concern, I think the whole idea is flawed and shows as 40k or many other game point of view. When you play tactics you can pre-measure and you move by squadron and before firing. Just move your mini the 1/8th of an inch to one side or another and forget the dang lamppost. This is something that only will ever ever ever happen and be a concern when one player is a newbie and playing against a complete rules lawyer and it will happen only once because anybody would realize after the first occurrence that this is completely avoidable.
That being said I did propose the fix produced in discussion here and have suggested that same fix in the FAQ.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Mike1975 wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Yup, mecha hiding behind lamp posts is a thing in the official rules. Awesome.
Mecha that can jump really high can't move "through" (over) buildings or other mecha? O.o
High roll wins is in there for cover. Yay. Or not.
Close formation is as far as I got. He uses a lot of words to say the same thing over and over.
LampPost:
As much as I understand this concern, I think the whole idea is flawed and shows as 40k or many other game point of view. When you play tactics you can pre-measure and you move by squadron and before firing. Just move your mini the 1/8th of an inch to one side or another and forget the dang lamppost. This is something that only will ever ever ever happen and be a concern when one player is a newbie and playing against a complete rules lawyer and it will happen only once because anybody would realize after the first occurrence that this is completely avoidable.
That being said I did propose the fix produced in discussion here and have suggested that same fix in the FAQ.
It's an exaggeration of a problem. Sure, the lampost itself issue is pretty meaningless, but the fact is that the LoS rules are poorly written.
Another issue I personally have is swapping models in and out during the game. It will lead to arguments - guaranteed.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
Mike1975 wrote:Lamppost... This is something that only will ever ever ever happen and be a concern when one player is a newbie and playing against a complete rules lawyer and it will happen only once because anybody would realize after the first occurrence that this is completely avoidable.
That being said I did propose the fix produced in discussion here and have suggested that same fix in the FAQ.
Agreed on the avoidable in most cases.
There will be a FAQ?! 
1478
Post by: warboss
rigeld2 wrote:Mike1975 wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Yup, mecha hiding behind lamp posts is a thing in the official rules. Awesome.
Mecha that can jump really high can't move "through" (over) buildings or other mecha? O.o
High roll wins is in there for cover. Yay. Or not.
Close formation is as far as I got. He uses a lot of words to say the same thing over and over.
LampPost:
As much as I understand this concern, I think the whole idea is flawed and shows as 40k or many other game point of view. When you play tactics you can pre-measure and you move by squadron and before firing. Just move your mini the 1/8th of an inch to one side or another and forget the dang lamppost. This is something that only will ever ever ever happen and be a concern when one player is a newbie and playing against a complete rules lawyer and it will happen only once because anybody would realize after the first occurrence that this is completely avoidable.
That being said I did propose the fix produced in discussion here and have suggested that same fix in the FAQ.
It's an exaggeration of a problem. Sure, the lampost itself issue is pretty meaningless, but the fact is that the LoS rules are poorly written.
Another issue I personally have is swapping models in and out during the game. It will lead to arguments - guaranteed.
That this is an extreme exaggeration example has already been explained AT LENGTH to Mike repeatedly but he continues to miss the forest for the trees. It is a symptom of poor rules writing that was brought to their attention and ignored. A more reasonable example would be a model behind terrain were 40% of it is completely visible like a low building yet the center is covered and the model is effectively invisible. That it not a TFG situation or a rules lawyer freebie but rather a common everday/game example of where this incredibly important basic rule falls flat on its face.
That doesn't even include the situation about players arguing where the not defined center actually is! Two very reasonable gamers can come up with different definitions that affect LOS. It is about the most piss poor way of determining Los I've seen in a game. Either go with an abstract method OR go with TLOS. Don't screw the pooch and borrow from both to make something worse than either.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Attached an image that shows the problem perfectly.
According to RTT's rules, the Veritech is invisible. Go ahead - tell me that won't cause a single argument at the table. I dare you.
Also, I am an expert artist at drawing buildings. I would estimate I can see about 40% of that veritech - likely more (as in the rules they said one leg is 25%).
1
78043
Post by: Mike1975
warboss wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Mike1975 wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Yup, mecha hiding behind lamp posts is a thing in the official rules. Awesome.
Mecha that can jump really high can't move "through" (over) buildings or other mecha? O.o
High roll wins is in there for cover. Yay. Or not.
Close formation is as far as I got. He uses a lot of words to say the same thing over and over.
LampPost:
As much as I understand this concern, I think the whole idea is flawed and shows as 40k or many other game point of view. When you play tactics you can pre-measure and you move by squadron and before firing. Just move your mini the 1/8th of an inch to one side or another and forget the dang lamppost. This is something that only will ever ever ever happen and be a concern when one player is a newbie and playing against a complete rules lawyer and it will happen only once because anybody would realize after the first occurrence that this is completely avoidable.
That being said I did propose the fix produced in discussion here and have suggested that same fix in the FAQ.
It's an exaggeration of a problem. Sure, the lampost itself issue is pretty meaningless, but the fact is that the LoS rules are poorly written.
Another issue I personally have is swapping models in and out during the game. It will lead to arguments - guaranteed.
That this is an extreme exaggeration example has already been explained AT LENGTH to Mike repeatedly but he continues to miss the forest for the trees. It is a symptom of poor rules writing that was brought to their attention and ignored. A more reasonable example would be a model behind terrain were 40% of it is completely visible like a low building yet the center is covered and the model is effectively invisible. That it not a TFG situation or a rules lawyer freebie but rather a common everday/game example of where this incredibly important basic rule falls flat on its face.
That doesn't even include the situation about players arguing where the not defined center actually is! Two very reasonable gamers can come up with different definitions that affect LOS. Do you only include the main body/torso or do you include the spindly appendages, weapons, and antenna? It is about the most piss poor way of determining Los I've seen in a game. Either go with an abstract method OR go with TLOS. Don't screw the pooch and borrow from both to make something worse than either.
I understand very well the rest of the argument there Warbossy. I was just commenting on the lamppost idea specifically. You are assuming that I am unaware of the other ideas that can come with it and modeling for advantage et al. So your griping about Y when I'm commenting specifically about X.
If you want to talk about other points we can. Even if you talk about cover, whether 25% or 40% that can also be disputed quite easily and some love the systems used by some other games. Many use LOS and TLOS and even other systems. Where is the center of gravity or center of mass? Yes, there are a lot of points we could rehash....We could have two mecha looking at each other with a magical flying ball between them perfectly blocking LOS per the rules according to where one person says the center of mass is vs another. If you want, in your games use the Warmachine version of LOS. If you play in a tourney you will have to play according to the rules and FAQ that they have at that time. If you don't play in tourneys this should not be much of an issue.
57438
Post by: Kendachi
rigeld2 wrote:Attached an image that shows the problem perfectly.
According to RTT's rules, the Veritech is invisible. Go ahead - tell me that won't cause a single argument at the table. I dare you.
Also, I am an expert artist at drawing buildings. I would estimate I can see about 40% of that veritech - likely more (as in the rules they said one leg is 25%).
This, a thousand times this.
The lamp post statement was damn hyperbole, people. When I said something about this, both BS and Mike dismissed it with "Just move, only a newbie would fall for that!"
This will cause arguments, if you can't see it then maybe your center is behind a lamp post?
1478
Post by: warboss
Mike1975 wrote: If you want, in your games use the Warmachine version of LOS. If you play in a tourney you will have to play according to the rules and FAQ that they have at that time. If you don't play in tourneys this should not be much of an issue.
Got it. The solution is to play with one set of house rules in games with friends, the TO's house rules in tournies, and the standard broken nonsensical rule with strangers in pick up games. That sounds like a great classic Palladium solution to an avoidable problem of their own making. Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:Attached an image that shows the problem perfectly.
According to RTT's rules, the Veritech is invisible. Go ahead - tell me that won't cause a single argument at the table. I dare you.
Also, I am an expert artist at drawing buildings. I would estimate I can see about 40% of that veritech - likely more (as in the rules they said one leg is 25%).
Bah! You give yourself too little credit. I think your buildings would look just beautiful nonsensically blocking LOS to mouth watering painted demo minis like this!
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
 paulson games wrote:The ones I did were all resin casts, the original master model was handsculpted so maybe that's what you're picking up on, could also be the paint texture.
Everyone has their own individual tastes for sculpting styles, so I don't mind the comment
Yeah, I think the hand-sculpted effect is what I was thinking about. Also, the legs look thicker than the plastics, which always makes me think "metal". The more I look at them, though, the more I'm convinced that the painted-on texture is what really ruins them for me; they look rough and pitted, not smooth like an anime mecha should.
Your Mecha Front minis are far superior to both, of course, and if WGF ever help you get them into plastic I will be all over them like beard on a neck.
One of the lines I'm continually baffled by is Kingdom of Death, very good sculpts in a technical sense, but I'm continually left scratching my head as to what the appeal is as the game just isn't in my interest range.
I grew up on Fangoria and Clive Barker, so the appeal for me lies with the monsters (well, some of them). The game itself sounds like no fun at all to me, and the focus on pin-ups and anime-flavored, impractical 'survivors' leave me cold, but there's obviously a market there. It seems like KDM's success id by hitting the narrow niches it fills with as much quality and collectible-boutique charm as the market will bear.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
warboss wrote:Mike1975 wrote: If you want, in your games use the Warmachine version of LOS. If you play in a tourney you will have to play according to the rules and FAQ that they have at that time. If you don't play in tourneys this should not be much of an issue.
Got it. The solution is to play with one set of house rules in games with friends, the TO's house rules in tournies, and the standard broken nonsensical rule with strangers in pick up games. That sounds like a great classic Palladium solution to an avoidable problem of their own making. Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:Attached an image that shows the problem perfectly.
According to RTT's rules, the Veritech is invisible. Go ahead - tell me that won't cause a single argument at the table. I dare you.
Also, I am an expert artist at drawing buildings. I would estimate I can see about 40% of that veritech - likely more (as in the rules they said one leg is 25%).
Bah! You give yourself too little credit. I think your buildings would look just beautiful nonsensically blocking LOS to mouth watering painted demo minis like this!
Which is why you can measure ANYTHING AT ANY TIME, so that if you have some lovely flowers blocking the way like in that picture and LOS is questionable you can move your mini over a bit or even ask the other player BEFORE you complete your move and start attacking. This is not like chess where if you take you hand off the mini you are done. Like I said, I understand and have had these same arguments in my own games. I think your making mountains out of molehills. Regardless, I did ask and this is something that was not going to change. Now if a few tourney happen to have this issue and it comes up and is called attention to it might just get PB to add an FAQ on it or rules alteration.
67621
Post by: Forar
You're far too focused on the fringe case. The 25% thing is going to have issues. Say you intentionally hug the corner of a building. One person thinks it's 20%, the other thinks it's 30%. Even with miniature wargamers, people are terrible at estimating measurements, especially estimating such small numbers. We're talking about a different of 4 millimeters here on most bases, or less than half a centimeter, or less than a quarter of an inch. It's actually around 1/6th. That is not a large margin for error.
It's missing the forest for the trees to take the hyperbolic examples used for humour value and assert 'those don't happen, this isn't an issue', when the reality is that reasonable people in the course of moving up to a hundred miniatures around a board for an hour or two will likely have some sort of questionable situation come up, especially if anyone bothers to, y'know, actually use the terrain.
Plus, when I scanned the rules, they seem to still be using the "draw imaginary lines through the models shoulders/center" bit, which is more estimating shenanigans, and becomes another matter entirely when people start modeling their figures in non-standard poses. Is the model literally and entirely "WYSIWYG?" If so, are my crouching Battloids that I thought were just a cool pose now hindered/benefited by low cover?
Another thing that people suck at? Estimating volumes/surface area. 25% of a humanoid figure like a VT is one thing. 25% of an oddly shaped figure like a Battlepod? Another.
Ugh. If my buddy leaves early enough tonight maybe I will settle in to subject myself to the full rules. I'll probably have had enough drinks to keep the suffering to a minimum, but Alph, please don't be too harsh on me. I'll try to avoid bypassing the profanity filter too much. >.>
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Mike1975 wrote:Which is why you can measure ANYTHING AT ANY TIME, so that if you have some lovely flowers blocking the way like in that picture and LOS is questionable you can move your mini over a bit or even ask the other player BEFORE you complete your move and start attacking. This is not like chess where if you take you hand off the mini you are done. Like I said, I understand and have had these same arguments in my own games. I think your making mountains out of molehills. Regardless, I did ask and this is something that was not going to change. Now if a few tourney happen to have this issue and it comes up and is called attention to it might just get PB to add an FAQ on it or rules alteration.
We're playing a game. I move my dude men, intending to have LoS to your dude men. I begin to shoot and you say "You can't see my dude men!" I look and, lo and behold, I can't see them based on the picture above.
Solutions are:
a) I suck it up and go "oops!" (the right thing to do)
b) I ask to move my dude men a little - potentially farther than they could possibly move - to get LoS. (what most people would do "Well, *OF COURSE* I wouldn't have moved there without the chance to shoot... DUH)
c) say "Of course I can see him, the center is above the building!" (Also a common occurrence when the center is not defined at all)
None of those are welcome outcomes. It's not a mountain out of a molehill - if they want tournament support (and they should) it's something that will have to be dealt with.
You can handwave it away all you want Mike, but you're incredibly naive if you actually think that.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
And to reiterate
Which is why you can measure ANYTHING AT ANY TIME, so that if you have some lovely flowers blocking the way like in that picture and LOS is questionable you can move your mini over a bit or even ask the other player BEFORE you complete your move and start attacking. This is not like chess where if you take you hand off the mini you are done.
If you move and don't check or measure or ask the other player before you decide to shoot and he say no joy you can't really blame him.
67621
Post by: Forar
Dude, this is supposed to be a fast paced game. If I have 48 battlepods on the table with good debris cover, it is going to take like 10 minutes just to get them all in place while ensuring that my opponent and I both agree that none are inopportunely 3mm too far in a given direction.
32851
Post by: Swabby
Also do the rules state that you can stop movement to ask about line of sight? Do they state anything about stopping movement?
Believe or not that is also important.
1478
Post by: warboss
 Forar wrote:Dude, this is supposed to be a fast paced game. If I have 48 battlepods on the table with good debris cover, it is going to take like 10 minutes just to get them all in place while ensuring that my opponent and I both agree that none are inopportunely 3mm too far in a given direction.
Duh.. the solution is to measure twice, ask your opponent about LOS thrice, and move each of your models once! That is what makes a palladium rpg tactical game fast paced. When put that way, doesn't it seem much more fun than a rule that is clear and makes some sense in the first place?
85963
Post by: MangoMadness
Mike1975 wrote:
If you move and don't check or measure or ask the other player before you decide to shoot and he say no joy you can't really blame him.
What?
player 1 - "Im moving this model so i can shoot at your model, an you confirm that is a legal attack please"
player 2 - "confirmed"
player 1 - "im now moving this model so................"
You REALLY think thats how a game should be played?
REALLY?
*insert dumbfounded emoticon here*
Mike1975 wrote:If you want, in your games use the Warmachine version of LOS. If you play in a tourney you will have to play according to the rules and FAQ that they have at that time. If you don't play in tourneys this should not be much of an issue.
Or, you know, they could just make rules that are easy to follow and make sense.
68764
Post by: Killionaire
This is a really, really basic rules issue that's been solved and identified in modern game design for the last 10 years or so: Do NOT use arbitrary 'see 2/3rds of a model' sort of stuff for determining LOS. Use a cylinder, which is unambiguous, doesn't penalize (or reward) people who do creative model posing or sculpting, and eliminates uncertainty.
You know, sort of like how measurements should be standardized (ie, define base to base measurements instead of arbitrary center to center), and define where LOS comes from (Do I 'see' out of my model's eyeballs? What if my model's head is turned to the side? Or much more playably, from any spot in the cylindrical area of the base?)
That diagram earlier of the 'untargettable' VF is pretty bad.
33816
Post by: Noir
Mike1975 wrote:
Which is why you can measure ANYTHING AT ANY TIME, so that if you have some lovely flowers blocking the way like in that picture and LOS is questionable you can move your mini over a bit or even ask the other player BEFORE you complete your move and start attacking. This is not like chess where if you take you hand off the mini you are done. Like I said, I understand and have had these same arguments in my own games. I think your making mountains out of molehills. Regardless, I did ask and this is something that was not going to change. Now if a few tourney happen to have this issue and it comes up and is called attention to it might just get PB to add an FAQ on it or rules alteration.
Thats the thing people always think it will not be a issue in many TT games. But, in every TT game with this vaugeness it is to one level or another. LOS should be as clear and non-opinion based as possible.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Mike1975 wrote:And to reiterate
Which is why you can measure ANYTHING AT ANY TIME, so that if you have some lovely flowers blocking the way like in that picture and LOS is questionable you can move your mini over a bit or even ask the other player BEFORE you complete your move and start attacking. This is not like chess where if you take you hand off the mini you are done.
If you move and don't check or measure or ask the other player before you decide to shoot and he say no joy you can't really blame him.
I think it's a clear shot - I can see the center of my target. In addition, I've moved my maximum and literally can't "move my mini over a bit" to get a more clear LoS.
It comes to shooting. I attempt to fire, because remember - I checked LoS. You and I disagree as to what the center of the mini is. To you, it's blocked. To me, I have a shot.
This situation is going to happen - guaranteed. And the fact that you have to dice it off is horribly stupid and simply bad game design. The fact that you don't see that doesn't speak much for your "house" rules, Mike.
57438
Post by: Kendachi
Oh wow, I just thought...
Playing RaW - Won't those Battloids be at a cover disadvantage by being up on a flying stand? Less able to take cover?
ugh!
87945
Post by: Merijeek
Kendachi wrote:Oh wow, I just thought...
Playing RaW - Won't those Battloids be at a cover disadvantage by being up on a flying stand? Less able to take cover?
ugh!
That's why you model everything crouching...and preferably with their arms pulled in tight so you can take advantage of as small cover as possible!
1478
Post by: warboss
Merijeek wrote: Kendachi wrote:Oh wow, I just thought... Playing RaW - Won't those Battloids be at a cover disadvantage by being up on a flying stand? Less able to take cover? ugh!
That's why you model everything crouching...and preferably with their arms pulled in tight so you can take advantage of as small cover as possible!
Indeed! In fact, you're just being faithful to the anime that the game is based on. The correct way to completely legal model your battlepods is as such:   Totally legit! In fact, you could even legally model your battlepods in a special "Attack on Macross Island" theme and have them half submerged in the water on their bases with only the center "eye" just barely above the waterline. The above is a exaggeration made in good humor to illustrate a point. Certain posters should not feel the need to refute it.
53523
Post by: Sining
FacelessMage wrote:Sining that was you that made those?
I then transfer my compliment to you good sir.
Those Look Awesome!
Nope, not mine.
Also, considering a lot of times I play true LOS with friends, we always have a slight squabble about what can truly see each other and that's just true LOS-can see any part of the mini = clear not this 25% cover bs, this should make for lots of fun times at the game shop.
53572
Post by: griffen127
There will be problems. I do not see that this will cause some kind of game breaking slowness or soul destroying imbalance. So make this house rule. If both parties cannot agree it counts as visible. Boom its solved.
87945
Post by: Merijeek
griffen127 wrote:There will be problems. I do not see that this will cause some kind of game breaking slowness or soul destroying imbalance. So make this house rule. If both parties cannot agree it counts as visible. Boom its solved.
Or, you know, your rule just completely removed cover from the table.
67621
Post by: Forar
So play on an open green mat/starfield mat?
Whelp, that's one way to speed up setup time....
32851
Post by: Swabby
"So make this house rule"
The only official FAQ to palladium rule problems.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Do you gents know if/how one can order a RoboTech battlefoam case at this late stage?
9883
Post by: Cyporiean
 Manchu wrote:Do you gents know if/how one can order a RoboTech battlefoam case at this late stage?
eBay in a few months when they finally ship out to backers.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I saw them at GenCon but did not like to tote one home.
1478
Post by: warboss
Manchu wrote:I saw them at GenCon but did not like to tote one home.
They were on the gencon order sheet but it said the numbers were extremely limited (<50). I'd call palladium direct and ask on the phone.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Not a bad idea!
6846
Post by: solkan
Killionaire wrote:This is a really, really basic rules issue that's been solved and identified in modern game design for the last 10 years or so: Do NOT use arbitrary 'see 2/3rds of a model' sort of stuff for determining LOS. Use a cylinder, which is unambiguous, doesn't penalize (or reward) people who do creative model posing or sculpting, and eliminates uncertainty.
Yet, if you look at games that made that "mistake" in their early editions and are in the process of changing it, you'll still see hatred and fear concerning the vile cylinder.
For example, see Corvus Belli's Infinity. Or go digging through the Games Workshop edition change archives.
There's a much greater element of fashion to various game mechanics than one might expect.
32851
Post by: Swabby
And yet the one thing the fashionable cylinder gives us is a game with 98%(tm)(r) less los arguments.
6846
Post by: solkan
Ties are useless silk cloth garrotes that people willingly put on themselves. Yet they're fashionable. High heel shoes. Any number of other elements of clothing design, especially in video games...
I wasn't defending anything by calling it fashionable. Just explaining why the choice continues to be made.
32851
Post by: Swabby
I was defending it though, with a heavy dose of sarcasm.
68764
Post by: Killionaire
 solkan wrote: Killionaire wrote:This is a really, really basic rules issue that's been solved and identified in modern game design for the last 10 years or so: Do NOT use arbitrary 'see 2/3rds of a model' sort of stuff for determining LOS. Use a cylinder, which is unambiguous, doesn't penalize (or reward) people who do creative model posing or sculpting, and eliminates uncertainty.
Yet, if you look at games that made that "mistake" in their early editions and are in the process of changing it, you'll still see hatred and fear concerning the vile cylinder.
For example, see Corvus Belli's Infinity. Or go digging through the Games Workshop edition change archives.
There's a much greater element of fashion to various game mechanics than one might expect.
Many games use it, because it makes sense
You have zero ambiguity in LOS with a cylinder, and zero issues with creative modelling. The game is enhanced to be more playable.
That is why Infinity is adopting it. And anyone who disagrees really doesn't have a good reason. It's worked marvelously for Warmachine, works great for Malifaux, and is currently working just fine for that new Relic Knights game. Dark Age has been using it for a long time, as has that new WW game. It's really a very, very sensible way to handle dynamic models.
GW is never a model you should use, and there's very good reasons. By their rules, 'Wings and Guns' dont count as LOS. So what did people do? Model frigging giant demons hiding behind their wings, or guys crawling with a gun in the air.
'Fear' over the cylinder model is overblown when it comes to making a solid ruleset for widespread adoption. All it does is enhance gameplay. Isn't that the point after all? To make a game that more people can play and enjoy by having it have clear and fun rules?
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Forar wrote:Dude, this is supposed to be a fast paced game. If I have 48 battlepods on the table with good debris cover, it is going to take like 10 minutes just to get them all in place while ensuring that my opponent and I both agree that none are inopportunely 3mm too far in a given direction.
And if you have a buddy that is picky like that no matter what kind of LOS rules you use you will have similar problems and take just as long.
Now what you could do instead of just saying this is wrong is write up a rule on how it should be done, debate it, and I'll put it in the FAQ. Until then we really are wasting our breath. Automatically Appended Next Post: warboss wrote: Forar wrote:Dude, this is supposed to be a fast paced game. If I have 48 battlepods on the table with good debris cover, it is going to take like 10 minutes just to get them all in place while ensuring that my opponent and I both agree that none are inopportunely 3mm too far in a given direction.
Duh.. the solution is to measure twice, ask your opponent about LOS thrice, and move each of your models once! That is what makes a palladium rpg tactical game fast paced. When put that way, doesn't it seem much more fun than a rule that is clear and makes some sense in the first place?
Ok, maybe you could write one instead of just saying it's done wrong? I'll see if I can add it to the FAQ. That was the first thing I took to KS way back and was told that it would not change but if enough players consider it a problem he might change his mind. Automatically Appended Next Post:  MangoMadness wrote:Mike1975 wrote:
If you move and don't check or measure or ask the other player before you decide to shoot and he say no joy you can't really blame him.
What?
player 1 - "Im moving this model so i can shoot at your model, an you confirm that is a legal attack please"
player 2 - "confirmed"
player 1 - "im now moving this model so................"
You REALLY think thats how a game should be played?
REALLY?
*insert dumbfounded emoticon here*
Mike1975 wrote:If you want, in your games use the Warmachine version of LOS. If you play in a tourney you will have to play according to the rules and FAQ that they have at that time. If you don't play in tourneys this should not be much of an issue.
Or, you know, they could just make rules that are easy to follow and make sense.
That's just as ridiculous as people saying look I have 26% cover and not the 25% that you say so you can't shoot me. Propose a WRITTEN alternative. Automatically Appended Next Post: Killionaire wrote: solkan wrote: Killionaire wrote:This is a really, really basic rules issue that's been solved and identified in modern game design for the last 10 years or so: Do NOT use arbitrary 'see 2/3rds of a model' sort of stuff for determining LOS. Use a cylinder, which is unambiguous, doesn't penalize (or reward) people who do creative model posing or sculpting, and eliminates uncertainty.
Yet, if you look at games that made that "mistake" in their early editions and are in the process of changing it, you'll still see hatred and fear concerning the vile cylinder.
For example, see Corvus Belli's Infinity. Or go digging through the Games Workshop edition change archives.
There's a much greater element of fashion to various game mechanics than one might expect.
Many games use it, because it makes sense
I'm not a fan of the cyclinder because then you have to place the dang thing on the table and check every freaking time and that takes more time than just asking. Like asking someone takes soooooo muucchh time and effort. I've never used it though and when this LOS stuff came up months ago the group here did talk about it. Again, if you guys propose a well written alternative I'll add it to the FAQ. The smaller the actual change to game mechanics the more likely it is going to happen. The rules are written and printed so the only other choice is for the FAQ.
You have zero ambiguity in LOS with a cylinder, and zero issues with creative modelling. The game is enhanced to be more playable.
That is why Infinity is adopting it. And anyone who disagrees really doesn't have a good reason. It's worked marvelously for Warmachine, works great for Malifaux, and is currently working just fine for that new Relic Knights game. Dark Age has been using it for a long time, as has that new WW game. It's really a very, very sensible way to handle dynamic models.
GW is never a model you should use, and there's very good reasons. By their rules, 'Wings and Guns' dont count as LOS. So what did people do? Model frigging giant demons hiding behind their wings, or guys crawling with a gun in the air.
'Fear' over the cylinder model is overblown when it comes to making a solid ruleset for widespread adoption. All it does is enhance gameplay. Isn't that the point after all? To make a game that more people can play and enjoy by having it have clear and fun rules?
67621
Post by: Forar
A) *facepalm* Again. For the third time. It doesn't have to be about having a friend or opponent be 'that guy'. The system, as described/written, will cause *entirely reasonable people to disagree*, and that kind of slowdown when dozens or even a hundred figures are moving per turn is not 'fast paced'. Moving a half dozen or up to a dozen figures in a skirmish game is one thing. Needing this level of preventative judging and nitpicking when a side might have 50+ figures on it is a potential issue they should have recognized years ago.
You keep saying that this isn't chess, that there's time to tweak the exact positioning. My point is that this stance is basically "Hey, take however long you like", which again, is not 'fast paced'. They emphasized this repeatedly over the last year and a half, and it seems like an awfully big stumbling block if their LoS system fails to account for it.
B) It's not my job. I'm not a professional game designer, and I'm sure everyone could pick my ideas apart just as well. Even if we all teamed up to craft a better LoS system, frankly, it's not our job to do PB's homework.
Luckily, I don't have to be a pro to recognize potential pitfalls, and I've waxed at length as to my thoughts on the matter in the past. If they want a thorough breakdown of the matter at this point, point them at the game Malifaux and say "basically that". The 'cylinder volume' approach seems to be fairly common, and having used it, I can see why.
71171
Post by: Ironwill13791
Written proposal: Go read the Malifaux, Warmachine, and Relic Knights LOS systems (apparently Infinity too). It is already written for you.
I said way back when when we were all having the LOS discussion that the "cylinder volume" approach was the way to go, but instead we have tree branches blocking LOS from a battlepod that can easily be seen (and if you have already moved your full X inches then you can't just "move a bit").
32851
Post by: Swabby
And while you are reading the warmachine book read the rest of the rules. That is what a good set of rules looks like and the game is very popular for it
67621
Post by: Forar
And, to snip it out and note it on its own, that's addressing a singular model. My point about moving up to 50+ is that across 200-400+ maneuvers over the course of a game, some of those will likely have questions raised.
A single model moving once is just a data point. Across an entire game, it's far more likely to come up if there's any terrain at all in play and people actually use it, especially if they use it intentionally, in that they have a vested interest in having enough poking out to get a shot, but enough hidden to get the cover bonus, if not be completely protected from at least some return fire.
All this talk of laser pointers and 'getting down to eye level' (note; this is a terrible way to judge such things) or using strings, even if reasonable in the singular moment, because vastly less so across possibly dozens of situations in a single game.
53523
Post by: Sining
Haven't read the rules yet but from the comments on this page, it seems quite laughable
71171
Post by: Ironwill13791
Swabby wrote:
And while you are reading the warmachine book read the rest of the rules. That is a good set of rules looks like and the game is very popular for it.
I agree. Having played some Warmachine and read through the rules, I can say that it is a very solid ruleset.
Unlike another ruleset, * cough*Robotech* cough*, that needs Day 1 FAQ and rules amendments.
Forar wrote:And, to snip it out and note it on its own, that's addressing a singular model. My point about moving up to 50+ is that across 200-400+ maneuvers over the course of a game, some of those will likely have questions raised.
A single model moving once is just a data point. Across an entire game, it's far more likely to come up if there's any terrain at all in play and people actually use it, especially if they use it intentionally, in that they have a vested interest in having enough poking out to get a shot, but enough hidden to get the cover bonus, if not be completely protected from at least some return fire.
All this talk of laser pointers and 'getting down to eye level' (note; this is a terrible way to judge such things) or using strings, even if reasonable in the singular moment, because vastly less so across possibly dozens of situations in a single game.
Exactly. If you are moving squadrons of models, then something will inevitably come up and more than likely multiple times as well. Hand-waving it off with "you can pre-measure at any time", "just move it a little bit", "just house-rule it", etc. is not a solution. This is a major problem that will come up in games. Not only are the rules asking people to do things that are entirely subjective and hanging an important mechanic on it, but it IS going to be very time-consuming with 50-100 models and ample, dynamic terrain.
1478
Post by: warboss
Mike1975 wrote: Ok, maybe you could write one instead of just saying it's done wrong? I'll see if I can add it to the FAQ. That was the first thing I took to KS way back and was told that it would not change but if enough players consider it a problem he might change his mind.
I did a few pages back and you even quoted the suggestion. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/780/521733.page#7130437 Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.
Is it perfect? No. Is it an improvement that gets rid of the nebulous "center" as the crux of the LOS determination? Yes. You can still have the main body/torso be the determining factor in Palladium style but make it less likely to get the situation where a most of the model is visible yet invisible. There is still the issue of having all of your limbs and head visible when some ideally shaped piece of cover like an oak tree (instead of a lamp post) is completely covering your torso but that should be less abusable than just the center. While determining exactly what constitutes the torso is still a potential source of argument, it's is usually but not always better than trying to argue where the pin point center is. Improvement is not the enemy of perfect. I would personally get rid of the LOS system entirely and start from scratch but that suggestion would NEVER be taken under advisement and just ignored given it is Palladium. At least the above placates their pride by incorporating what they came up with and just trimming back the ridiculousness. It can also be done with a simple two line FAQ/errata entry. Ignore all references to the center when determining LOS. Replace it with "any part of the torso". i.e. "When you wish to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from any part of the torso of the acting mecha (or hull for non-humanoid pieces), to any part of the torso (or hull) of the target mecha." pg 11 LOS 2nd paragraph With that simple change, we at least go from Rigeld2's pic below to the less ridiculous but still not perfect situation at the bottom. 
1
30672
Post by: Theophony
its all a cunning plan to get everyone to play one game with their LoS rules. By the time your done with that game the second wave will almost be ready.....and your newborns will be graduated from university with a degree in psychology after writing their doctoral thesis on how Kevin ruined their parents friendships because of a stupid rule.
32851
Post by: Swabby
I think it is a cunning plan to get you so frustrated with the tactics rules that it will make you want to buy the RPG so you can use those rules instead. The twist at the end is that those rules are even worse.
53523
Post by: Sining
Did Kevin have anything to do with the rules? I know before the rulebook was released, mike was saying Kevin had very little to do with this project at all when people were complaining about how bad the rules were likely to be due to Kevin. So as a question for those who have read the rulebook, just how high is Kevin in the list of credits?
1478
Post by: warboss
The very first name listed. Executive Producer.
67621
Post by: Forar
 Swabby wrote:I think it is a cunning plan to get you so frustrated with the tactics rules that it will make you want to buy the RPG so you can use those rules instead. The twist at the end is that those rules are even worse.
Truth.
Sining wrote:Did Kevin have anything to do with the rules? I know before the rulebook was released, mike was saying Kevin had very little to do with this project at all when people were complaining about how bad the rules were likely to be due to Kevin. So as a question for those who have read the rulebook, just how high is Kevin in the list of credits?
Credits, as found in the book:
Executive Producer: Kevin Siembieda
Creative Director: John Cadice
Lead Game Designer: David Freeman
Game Design: Carmen Bellaire
Additional Game Concepts: Kai Nesbit, Kevin Siembieda, Wayne Smith
Background Writing: Carmen Bellaire, Kevin Siembieda
Editing: Jeff Burke, Wayne Smith, Deke Stella
Graphic Design: Kris Aubin, Gunship Revolution
Print Production Manager: Deke Stella
Cover Art: Chester Ocampo
Illustration: Elmer Damaso, Daniel Dussault, Gunship Revolution, Brian Snoddy, Charles Walton
Painting Guide: Jeff Burke
Sculpting: Big Idea Miniatures, Lukasz Krysa, Olivier Nkweti, Tyler Russo, Jason Webb
Robotech Consultants: Jeff Burke, Douglas Wooten, Steven Yun, Tommy Yune
Special Thanks to: Thomas Roache, River Horse (Alessio Cavatore)
Funded with KICKSTARTER, Our sincerest thanks to all of our backers (omg yay! >.> )
And like 100'ish names under playtesting.
53523
Post by: Sining
I was under the impression that alessio and nd were going to be doing the writing for the rules yet I can't really see a nd name in the game design part nor alessio. How does this square with what mike told us
1478
Post by: warboss
Alessio's name was seemingly on everything a year or two ago. I suspect his involvement amounted to being sent the KS rules and probably making a few suggestions just so they could attach his name to the project.
32851
Post by: Swabby
All I know is that anywhere there is a description of concept it reads like Kevin wrote it.
30616
Post by: 02Laney
There are several ways of sorting out decent LOS rules. PB have chosen to pick a terrible way of determining LOS which I will ignore and use an alternative from a game that works - like Malifaux.
Problem solved? No, because the official rules for this aren't right and this is true of every PB game I have ever played. The woolly BS needs to stop.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
 Ironwill13791 wrote:Written proposal: Go read the Malifaux, Warmachine, and Relic Knights LOS systems (apparently Infinity too). It is already written for you.
I said way back when when we were all having the LOS discussion that the "cylinder volume" approach was the way to go, but instead we have tree branches blocking LOS from a battlepod that can easily be seen (and if you have already moved your full X inches then you can't just "move a bit").
Not going to go out and buy another book just for LOS and the system needs to be close to what we have already if anybody wants any chance at all for it to be accepted as part of an FAQ.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote:Mike1975 wrote:
Ok, maybe you could write one instead of just saying it's done wrong? I'll see if I can add it to the FAQ. That was the first thing I took to KS way back and was told that it would not change but if enough players consider it a problem he might change his mind.
I did a few pages back and you even quoted the suggestion.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/780/521733.page#7130437
Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.
Is it perfect? No. Is it an improvement that gets rid of the nebulous "center" as the crux of the LOS determination? Yes. You can still have the main body/torso be the determining factor in Palladium style but make it less likely to get the situation where a most of the model is visible yet invisible. There is still the issue of having all of your limbs and head visible when some ideally shaped piece of cover like an oak tree (instead of a lamp post) is completely covering your torso but that should be less abusable than just the center. While determining exactly what constitutes the torso is still a potential source of argument, it's is usually but not always better than trying to argue where the pin point center is. Improvement is not the enemy of perfect. I would personally get rid of the LOS system entirely and start from scratch but that suggestion would NEVER be taken under advisement and just ignored given it is Palladium. At least the above placates their pride by incorporating what they came up with and just trimming back the ridiculousness. It can also be done with a simple two line FAQ/errata entry.
Ignore all references to the center when determining LOS. Replace it with "any part of the torso". i.e. "When you wish to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from any part of the torso of the acting mecha (or hull for non-humanoid pieces), to any part of the torso (or hull) of the target mecha." pg 11 LOS 2nd paragraph
With that simple change, we at least go from Rigeld2's pic below to the less ridiculous but still not perfect situation at the bottom.
Link did not work, believe it or not I did send PB that suggestion we came up with here. I even called KS personally about it a while back and was told it was not going to change. Hopefully if the change is shown as important enough and not a major change I can sneak it in on them. As before we con only try.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Theophony wrote:its all a cunning plan to get everyone to play one game with their LoS rules. By the time your done with that game the second wave will almost be ready.....and your newborns will be graduated from university with a degree in psychology after writing their doctoral thesis on how Kevin ruined their parents friendships because of a stupid rule.
Agreed, everyone has their preferences, I think the cyclinder format is effective but will take too much time. Plus there is no way a change that big will ever be accepted.
38255
Post by: vitae_drinker
I think it's hilarious that Mike thinks there is going to be a FAQ.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Sining wrote:Did Kevin have anything to do with the rules? I know before the rulebook was released, mike was saying Kevin had very little to do with this project at all when people were complaining about how bad the rules were likely to be due to Kevin. So as a question for those who have read the rulebook, just how high is Kevin in the list of credits?
KS does not even know the rules really. If you ask him to play you'll likely have to explain to him how it works. That's what Jeff and the rest are for.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I'll say this much, the book looks great. I would love to get a hardcover edition.
71171
Post by: Ironwill13791
Mike1975 wrote: Ironwill13791 wrote:Written proposal: Go read the Malifaux, Warmachine, and Relic Knights LOS systems (apparently Infinity too). It is already written for you.
I said way back when when we were all having the LOS discussion that the "cylinder volume" approach was the way to go, but instead we have tree branches blocking LOS from a battlepod that can easily be seen (and if you have already moved your full X inches then you can't just "move a bit").
Not going to go out and but another book just for LOS and the system needs to be close to what we have already if anybody wants any chance at all for it to be accepted as part of an FAQ.
It shouldn't have to be in an FAQ. It should have been designed correctly in the 1st place. ND has shown already that they know something about making good rules (see Relic Knights); so obviously this is all KS and his inability to keep his hands off the book (like he promised at the onset of this whole thing).
I would say go with Warboss's suggestion though. At least that will eliminate some of the glaring issues (Not like it will actually be implemented anyway. That would require KS to admit there are serious issues with his rules).
P.S. The cylinder method wont take too much time. It will actually end up being exceedingly quicker then this crap (with almost no arguments to boot). I speak from experience. Automatically Appended Next Post:
What does he think this is GW?
86322
Post by: Dark Severance
warboss wrote:Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.
I would prefer instead of center of the torso, that the center of the base be used to determine LOS. It is easier to determine the center of the base, chances are if you see the center of the base you are also seeing the center torso (unless they based it strangely). All the miniatures should be using the same size base so this seems easier to use. Get rid of the 25%/75% because it will confuse people. The only way that works is if they actually have a template outline that can be placed behind a miniature to show what would be considered LOS and what wouldn't be.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Ironwill13791 wrote:Mike1975 wrote: Ironwill13791 wrote:Written proposal: Go read the Malifaux, Warmachine, and Relic Knights LOS systems (apparently Infinity too). It is already written for you.
I said way back when when we were all having the LOS discussion that the "cylinder volume" approach was the way to go, but instead we have tree branches blocking LOS from a battlepod that can easily be seen (and if you have already moved your full X inches then you can't just "move a bit").
Not going to go out and but another book just for LOS and the system needs to be close to what we have already if anybody wants any chance at all for it to be accepted as part of an FAQ.
It shouldn't have to be in an FAQ. It should have been designed correctly in the 1st place. ND has shown already that they know something about making good rules (see Relic Knights); so obviously this is all KS and his inability to keep his hands off the book (like he promised at the onset of this whole thing).
I would say go with Warboss's suggestion though. At least that will eliminate some of the glaring issues (Not like it will actually be implemented anyway. That would require KS to admit there are serious issues with his rules).
P.S. The cylinder method wont take too much time. It will actually end up being exceedingly quicker then this crap (with almost no arguments to boot). I speak from experience.
Dude, you say this as if I have not tried. The source told me no. Now that time has gone by and things are about to be released and an FAQ will be appropriate it's time to try again. Going for the stars is NOT going to help. Any suggestions have to be what could be passed off as a minor change or correction or it's likely going to get a no.
Ideally would it be sweet to have a game that magically makes everyone happy? Yes. Is that realistic? No. Why? Because everyone has a different idea of what perfect is. Can we try to make it better? Absolutely. But the bigger the change the more likely the answer will be no.
53523
Post by: Sining
tl;dr don't rock the boat. The system may be crappy but we're not fixing it. We can't please everyone anyone so we're just going to stock with our crap system because that requires the LEAST effort
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Sining wrote:tl;dr don't rock the boat. The system may be crappy but we're not fixing it. We can't please everyone anyone so we're just going to stock with our crap system because that requires the LEAST effort
Oh yeah, really productive
1478
Post by: warboss
 Dark Severance wrote: warboss wrote:Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.
I would prefer instead of center of the torso, that the center of the base be used to determine LOS. It is easier to determine the center of the base, chances are if you see the center of the base you are also seeing the center torso (unless they based it strangely). All the miniatures should be using the same size base so this seems easier to use. Get rid of the 25%/75% because it will confuse people. The only way that works is if they actually have a template outline that can be placed behind a miniature to show what would be considered LOS and what wouldn't be.
The center of the base is even more problematic and you may not have considered it. Take the building that is covering the center of the torso on rigeld's pic that I posted last page. Now take off HALF the height and make the building even smaller... and move it over to the right. It is now covering the entire base and only reaches to the knees of the model yet the model is "invisible". I'm sorry but using the base while ignoring the model just doesn't work at all.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
warboss wrote: Dark Severance wrote: warboss wrote:Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.
I would prefer instead of center of the torso, that the center of the base be used to determine LOS. It is easier to determine the center of the base, chances are if you see the center of the base you are also seeing the center torso (unless they based it strangely). All the miniatures should be using the same size base so this seems easier to use. Get rid of the 25%/75% because it will confuse people. The only way that works is if they actually have a template outline that can be placed behind a miniature to show what would be considered LOS and what wouldn't be.
The center of the base is even more problematic and you may not have considered it. Take the building that is covering the center of the torso on rigeld's pic that I posted last page. Now take off HALF the height and make the building even smaller... and move it over to the right. It is now covering the entire base and only reaches to the knees of the model yet the model is "invisible". I'm sorry but using the base while ignoring the model just doesn't work at all.
Yeah, so base is not ideal, center of mass is not ideal, cyclinder based is NOT going to happen. Thing is to reword/rework TLOS so that it can handle some of these odd situations without breaking down into rules lawyering. Automatically Appended Next Post: Then your back to parts or percentages of the torso or model....
67621
Post by: Forar
Hey, don't get exasperated with us! You said "you write something" and we're like "man, why would we re-invent the wheel? Half a dozen companies are using a thing, and it's pretty sweet and works pretty well" and your response is "woah, wait, no, gotta be a little tiny tweak".
Also, nobody expects YOU to buy the books, but surely Palladium has petty cash around to splurge on a $20 game book. Hell, they SHOULD have bought a bunch of modern systems and researched what was being done in the field, or even better, the people making the rules ideally would've been familiar with modern mechanics.
Hell, they may very well have been. So assuming they did their homework, the intentionally chose this method out of all the others out there. "True Line of Sight" or whatever it's referred to as was deemed superior to these other methods, and those of us that feel it's a poor choice are, imo, expressing ourselves fairly clearly as to why that isn't necessarily ideal mechanically, especially for what is apparently going to be asked of the game 'engine', as it were.
Look, I'm trying really hard to not make an appeal to authority or popularity or any of the other fallacies that pop up like bad pennies on the PB forums or the comments, but look at the numbers. There comments have dozens of people chattering, maybe hundreds during a busy time. The PB forums biggest spike of activity was 250'ish people eight years ago. This site has seen 150 times that activity. It is a bustling hub of wargamers, all with their own experiences and opinions, but they represent the market share that PB wants to break into and rake in some of that sweet sweet lucrative money from.
And the responses to just one section of the rules has been pretty solidly critical.
Does it mean *everyone* will hate them? No. Of course not. But poorly chosen or worded rules become just another barrier to entry, especially when they're essentially just cribbing off what a bunch of other games do, but apparently they've chosen poor source material.
As always, I applaud you putting in the work, but I'm not sure what middle ground there is to be found when the big boss will probably thumbs down 95% of our suggestions, and doesn't even necessarily understand the game or genre well enough to recognize why we're making them/choosing those mechanics.
It can't be both ways. He's the final say but he's not even cognizant of the system, and yet he's the top billing name AND listed under "additional game concepts". Believe me, I would be happy to question at length why someone doesn't understand the game forwards and backwards is being credited with game concepts. That's not sounding like a good recipe for making informed choices/judgement calls.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Not exasperated, but a big change is much less likely to happen then a small one. You know that.
Regardless of what or how this method was chosen, since MANY games out there use it that could have something to do with it, the idea is to find something that we can all live with and see if we can sneak it in there.
Stand back and put yourself in my shoes. I go and tell them to change to whole LOS system because theirs sucks, I get a thank you for your idea.
I go with them saying that I have a clarification and here it is and here is how it will help and I'm 20x more likely to get a positive response.
So you can complain about what is OR you can help change it to something you are more likely to live with. Your choice.
Fact is his name is on the top, get over it, he makes the final decisions, that may be like me deciding if the Challenger should have launched or not, something I have only basic knowledge about but there it is.
You can rail against it and bash your head and complain or you can try to change and alter what you can for the better no matter how small.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Forar wrote:Palladium ... SHOULD have bought a bunch of modern systems and researched what was being done in the field
What fairy dream land of lollipops and rainbows are you living in?
67621
Post by: Forar
What you ask may simply not be possible.
If the problem is a page of gak, changing 2 or 3 sentences may not be able to correct it.
As I said before, I'm not a professional game designer, and as I've been saying for the last two years, I gave up 'fixing' Palladium systems a decade and change ago. I expected this gak to be handled by professionals.
And no. Wrong. You don't get to say he has final say AND that he doesn't know sweet feth all about the very product. If he's making final judgements on rules and adding content/mechanics, he should know it. He should be one of those that knows it best. If you see it as some sort of personal attack, perhaps you're the one that should step back.
If I'm working on a project enough that I'm in the top names, and someone asks me about Chapter 4, and I'm like "Chapter 4?", I'm about to have a very bad day.
As Warboss pointed out, we've given feedback. Over a variety of locations, but apparently none of it was listened to, so kindly drop the charade.
Tell you what, when they publicly publish the Errata/FAQ version 1.0, we can start talking about the 1.1 update. But until I see evidence that they're even willing to put that information out there, I'm not going to waste hours fixing what I see as their oversights.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Mike1975 wrote: warboss wrote:Ignore all references to the center when determining LOS. Replace it with "any part of the torso". i.e. "When you wish to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from any part of the torso of the acting mecha (or hull for non-humanoid pieces), to any part of the torso (or hull) of the target mecha." pg 11 LOS 2nd paragraph
believe it or not I did send PB that suggestion we came up with here. I even called KS personally about it a while back and was told it was not going to change. Hopefully if the change is shown as important enough and not a major change I can sneak it in on them. As before we con only try
Warboss's suggestion seems like a minor change. If that is still too major then I would ask you to give an example of what you think qualifies as "minor" for your source at PB.
67621
Post by: Forar
Manchu wrote: Forar wrote:Palladium ... SHOULD have bought a bunch of modern systems and researched what was being done in the field
What fairy dream land of lollipops and rainbows are you living in?
I'd tell you, but it's pretty exclusive, and I'm kinda happy keeping the population low. As always, the problem is people.
More to the point, Palladium likes to hide behind "we're new to miniatures!", but they are NOT new to games.
And one of the first steps of starting a new business venture is understanding the market and the audience. If they failed to do that, that's on them.
I mean, hell, has *anyone* here defended TLOS as a good choice yet? Even Mike himself dislikes it, but it's what we're stuck with, so... yay?
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Forar wrote:What you ask may simply not be possible.
If the problem is a page of gak, changing 2 or 3 sentences may not be able to correct it.
As I said before, I'm not a professional game designer, and as I've been saying for the last two years, I gave up 'fixing' Palladium systems a decade and change ago. I expected this gak to be handled by professionals.
And no. Wrong. You don't get to say he has final say AND that he doesn't know sweet feth all about the very product. If he's making final judgements on rules and adding content/mechanics, he should know it. He should be one of those that knows it best. If you see it as some sort of personal attack, perhaps you're the one that should step back.
If I'm working on a project enough that I'm in the top names, and someone asks me about Chapter 4, and I'm like "Chapter 4?", I'm about to have a very bad day.
As Warboss pointed out, we've given feedback. Over a variety of locations, but apparently none of it was listened to, so kindly drop the charade.
Tell you what, when they publicly publish the Errata/ FAQ version 1.0, we can start talking about the 1.1 update. But until I see evidence that they're even willing to put that information out there, I'm not going to waste hours fixing their oversights.
And no. Wrong. You don't get to say he has final say AND that he doesn't know sweet feth all about the very product. If he's making final judgements on rules and adding content/mechanics, he should know it. He should be one of those that knows it best. If you see it as some sort of personal attack, perhaps you're the one that should step back.
It's called delegation of authority. You can know almost nothing about something and still be responsible. Shipping container is the perfect example. PB is held accountable but left everything to a broker to handle. You don't have to know about something in detail to be responsible for it. That's what Project Managers do.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Mike1975 wrote:KS does not even know the rules really. If you ask him to play you'll likely have to explain to him how it works. That's what Jeff and the rest are for.
So it is actually "Jeff and the rest" who are making final calls on rules right? Instead of the guy who "does not even know the rules"? Right???
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Manchu wrote:Mike1975 wrote: warboss wrote:Ignore all references to the center when determining LOS. Replace it with "any part of the torso". i.e. "When you wish to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from any part of the torso of the acting mecha (or hull for non-humanoid pieces), to any part of the torso (or hull) of the target mecha." pg 11 LOS 2nd paragraph
believe it or not I did send PB that suggestion we came up with here. I even called KS personally about it a while back and was told it was not going to change. Hopefully if the change is shown as important enough and not a major change I can sneak it in on them. As before we con only try
Warboss's suggestion seems like a minor change. If that is still too major then I would ask you to give an example of what you think qualifies as "minor" for your source at PB.
I already have that change in the FAQ....
16387
Post by: Manchu
Dude they are new, in the sense of having no apparent exposure, to everything that is not a 24-year old RPG that may be one of the worst in history.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Manchu wrote:Mike1975 wrote:KS does not even know the rules really. If you ask him to play you'll likely have to explain to him how it works. That's what Jeff and the rest are for.
So it is actually "Jeff and the rest" who are making final calls on rules right? Instead of the guy who "does not even know the rules"? Right???
I think that is more than likely.
16387
Post by: Manchu
So PB has already accepted that change? Mike1975 wrote: Manchu wrote:Mike1975 wrote:KS does not even know the rules really. If you ask him to play you'll likely have to explain to him how it works. That's what Jeff and the rest are for.
So it is actually "Jeff and the rest" who are making final calls on rules right? Instead of the guy who "does not even know the rules"? Right???
I think that is more than likely.
I would hope so; in fact, I cannot imagine how it could be otherwise. Hyperbole aside, KS is not some maniac completely detached from reality after all, even if he does have a hermit empire in terms of RPGs.
67621
Post by: Forar
Mike1975 wrote:It's called delegation of authority. You can know almost nothing about something and still be responsible. Shipping container is the perfect example. PB is held accountable but left everything to a broker to handle. You don't have to know about something in detail to be responsible for it. That's what Project Managers do.
And like the container snafu (note, still waiting to hear *anything* about the 1-2 containers that are flat out missing in action), it still boils to the top, and either he made a bad call, or one of the people he chose did.
But when yous say , walking it back to "well, he makes the final decisions on the final decisions of other people" still requires insight into how the system works, because otherwise he's making calls based on incomplete information.
I work with project managers. One of them has put himself through crash courses in IT infrastructure, access control management systems, CCTV systems, Duress systems, and a variety of other fields, to the point that any meeting he sits down in, someone is either going to be answering hard questions or having a very bad day if they try to pull the wool over his eyes.
Palladium is a "small company" with only like 6 people working for it, and it's well known that Kevin is a micromanger that requires everything come past his desk, but you expect me to believe that his name 3 times in the credits isn't intended to indicate he had a hand in crafting the mechanics as we see them? That he's the supreme authority that doesn't know how to play the game?
Seriously not inspiring confidence over here.
And again, you're asking for help with fixing the game before it even releases. I'm perfectly familiar with how "Day 1 Patches" can be a thing in software, but a game that has had upwards of 1.5-2 years cooking really ought to not have "so, LOS is kind of gak, but how can we make it less gak?" as point 1.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Like I said I tried a ways back, not that it's going to hit the street, it's time to try again. I could simply get a no, but it's worth trying just the same.
And knowing the basics as a PM does not require you to know the entire system or series of systems. I've taken courses in PM. PMBOK.
1478
Post by: warboss
Forar wrote:
I mean, hell, has *anyone* here defended TLOS as a good choice yet? Even Mike himself dislikes it, but it's what we're stuck with, so... yay?
I actually like and prefer TLOS systems. That said...despite dropping the term into the rules, the Robotech version is NOT true line of sight based but rather a Frankenstein mess of TLOS and abstracted LOS because of the whole "center" thing. Therein lies the problem.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the center of the acting figure’s body or center of gravity to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
1
1478
Post by: warboss
Manchu wrote:Mike1975 wrote: warboss wrote:Ignore all references to the center when determining LOS. Replace it with "any part of the torso". i.e. "When you wish to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from any part of the torso of the acting mecha (or hull for non-humanoid pieces), to any part of the torso (or hull) of the target mecha." pg 11 LOS 2nd paragraph
believe it or not I did send PB that suggestion we came up with here. I even called KS personally about it a while back and was told it was not going to change. Hopefully if the change is shown as important enough and not a major change I can sneak it in on them. As before we con only try
Warboss's suggestion seems like a minor change. If that is still too major then I would ask you to give an example of what you think qualifies as "minor" for your source at PB.
Feel free to pass on my suggestion. I purposefully based it on the palladium terms and robotech rules to be as functional as possible while still stroking their fragile egos.
Manchu, any chance you'll bring up the LOS issue during your battlefoam call? Promising them more $$ might sooth the reception regarding potential rules problems. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mike1975 wrote:When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the center of the acting figure’s body or center of gravity to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
I'd drop the center of gravity stuff unless you plan on players hanging up each model at multiple points on a string to find it. I suggested the terms torso and/or main body because theyre existing terms and consistency is part of good game design.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
It is difficult for me to think that other systems were not looked at in developing the rules: there are too many similarities to be a coincidence.
For some reason the LOS mechanic was chosen and determined to be good, contrary to our popular belief or not, it had plenty of time to be revised.
It may have very well been a change Kevin wanted to justify his credits, he always has to get his fingerprint on any product they make.
(Was there a last minute editing frenzy? I cannot believe he broke from tradition.)
The rule book is printed, Palladium is not going to spend more money on it now: that ship has sailed literally.
It is great to hear Mike is working on an FAQ, I just am unsure Kevin will let it see the light of day for a very long time.
Please do not give any new excuses to delay at least getting our dreaded "Wave 1" package out.
Being in discussions with Ninja Division for the "Wave 2" is really not looking good with just that statement.
Forar, I never thought I would show much sympathy for anyone on a forum but Mike is working with a rather socially challenged individual so he is caught between a rock and a hard place (been there!). Having to make excuses for someone when you know they are in the wrong and being kicked in the danglies by people you agree with is the strangest feeling on earth. He is probably thinking "Be grateful for what did go right, other things proposed I had to fight tooth and nail would have curled your hair...".
Putting words into someone's mouth who can easily defend themselves is what I do... let the flaming commence!!!! 
1478
Post by: warboss
As much as I want to rag on Kevin with everyone else, I strongly suspect Ninja Division came up with the boneheaded idea. Its in their white board intro videos they published during the KS before they washed their hands off promoting it. I don't think Palladium was the cause but they sure seem intent on not changing it thus far.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the center of the mecha’s torso to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
67621
Post by: Forar
@Talizvar
I respect that it's an awkward position to be in. Pretty sure I noted it at least once or twice today.
I just don't believe it'll go anywhere, and after reviewing and giving feedback several times, in depth, on this very forum, only to be told variations on 'that's just how it is, that won't change, I already tried/asked that', I'm wary of committing more hours to yet another request for the same.
If I'm going to have to rewrite the damned thing myself, I might as well do it from the ground up where necessary and know that I/my group will be happy with the final outcome. For every suggestion that's made that seems to get remotely any traction, there are a half dozen that are non-starters.
Maybe it's simply that PB and I don't see eye to eye on game mechanics anymore (if we really did, considering the pages of tweaks and fixes my old Rifts group had). Maybe Mike and I just don't communicate effectively enough to really get something concise through. But I have expressed my disbelief that the FAQ will be our salvation. We were asked for feedback, we gave it, I will be shocked if any of my suggestions were implemented, so why waste hours and frustration going through that again.
Unintentionally as it might have been, "fool me twice..."
16387
Post by: Manchu
warboss wrote:Manchu, any chance you'll bring up the LOS issue during your battlefoam call? Promising them more $$ might sooth the reception regarding potential rules problems.
I sent an email, er, opened a work ticket? something digital. So if ... when I don't hear back in a few days, I will call and ask them about the TLOS thing. But I have a feeling I will talk to "someone who doesn't know anything about it," which is my usual luck when talking to game companies, even ones with very few employees.
1478
Post by: warboss
Mike1975 wrote:When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, if an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the active mecha's torso or hull to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso or hull is not completely blocked by another figure, LOS blocking effect like smoke, or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
The "center" term is the crux of the issue; why did you add it back? Ive edited the quote above as it is easier than rewriting on android. I added the smoke part in case there is such an effect in the game although I'm not sure there is but also to future proof it.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Damn, sorry, got people coming in and out of the office here.
When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the attacking mecha’s torso to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
16387
Post by: Manchu
What is the purpose of the 25% clause anyway? TLOS + cover works in every other game. I can understand a percentage rule to benefit from cover but I am coming up with nothing to justify a percentage rule to negate TLOS.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
25% was just so that someone can't say I see that mecha's shoulder and arm so I can shoot it. There has to be some cutoff so that a player cannot just see a shoulder and fire. Where and how would you suggest a cutoff point? There's no good way that I can see.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Why can't you shoot at a shoulder? The clear solution is to give a heavy cover penalty/bonus.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
ok, so what do you guys think? Warboss?
remove the 25%
When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the attacking mecha’s torso to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target. If there is a difference of opinion then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
Or remove the resolve with D6 too?
86322
Post by: Dark Severance
warboss wrote:The center of the base is even more problematic and you may not have considered it. Take the building that is covering the center of the torso on rigeld's pic that I posted last page. Now take off HALF the height and make the building even smaller... and move it over to the right. It is now covering the entire base and only reaches to the knees of the model yet the model is "invisible". I'm sorry but using the base while ignoring the model just doesn't work at all.
LOS is only an issue when it isn't clearly line of sight. If there was shrub blocking the whole base but not the whole upper body, then there is obviously no line of sight issue. Now granted that is probably why they used 75%/25% to portray that, the problem is that as a rule it is taken literally.
If you can clearly see the upper body, then there is absolutely no reason anyone should be arguing line of sight. Sure I get that if we just say center of the base, then in your example someone could just say the small building blocks the base... so it isn't line of sight. So you use the first explanation of of line of sight is determined by if you see an equivalent part of the miniatures body (the most obvious yes I can see it clearly) rule. You add for when it gets questionable to if it is slightly blocked, determining the base. Then add in LoS is reciprocal, to adjust for any issues where terrain could block one model but not another from view (ie: Infinity).
"The Line of Fire is an imaginary straight line that runs from the centre of a miniature’s base to an enemy miniature. If there are any obstacles in the way that completely block an enemy miniature from sight, then there is no LoS. A target may only be selected by a figure if the miniature can “see” it, at least partially. An enemy model may not be shot at if any object, figure, or scenery element blocks totally the LoS. A miniature must be able to see the target’s head or a body area of equivalent size to be able to fire at him. The LoS is reciprocal, applying the rule “If I can see you, you can see me”. If a figure can draw LoS to its target, then the target can draw LoS to the figure as well.
Sometimes, due to the dynamism of the miniatures, it is difficult to determine visually if there is Line of Fire or not. In those cases, if the player can draw a LoS from the centre of his miniature’s base (For example using a tape measure or a laser pointer) that touches or passes through the diameter of the base of the enemy figure, without being blocked, then it is a legal target. But the player must not forget it is necessary to see, at minimum, the target’s head or a body area of equivalent size to be able to fire at him. Additionally, the Line of Sight is reciprocal, so if a figure can draw LoS to its target, then the target can draw LoS to the figure as well."
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Dark Severance wrote: warboss wrote:The center of the base is even more problematic and you may not have considered it. Take the building that is covering the center of the torso on rigeld's pic that I posted last page. Now take off HALF the height and make the building even smaller... and move it over to the right. It is now covering the entire base and only reaches to the knees of the model yet the model is "invisible". I'm sorry but using the base while ignoring the model just doesn't work at all.
LOS is only an issue when it isn't clearly line of sight. If there was shrub blocking the whole base but not the whole upper body, then there is obviously no line of sight issue. Now granted that is probably why they used 75%/25% to portray that, the problem is that as a rule it is taken literally.
If you can clearly see the upper body, then there is absolutely no reason anyone should be arguing line of sight. Sure I get that if we just say center of the base, then in your example someone could just say the small building blocks the base... so it isn't line of sight. So you use the first explanation of of line of sight is determined by if you see an equivalent part of the miniatures body (the most obvious yes I can see it clearly) rule. You add for when it gets questionable to if it is slightly blocked, determining the base. Then add in LoS is reciprocal, to adjust for any issues where terrain could block one model but not another from view (ie: Infinity).
"The Line of Fire is an imaginary straight line that runs from the centre of a miniature’s base to an enemy miniature. If there are any obstacles in the way that completely block an enemy miniature from sight, then there is no LoS. A target may only be selected by a figure if the miniature can “see” it, at least partially. An enemy model may not be shot at if any object, figure, or scenery element blocks totally the LoS. A miniature must be able to see the target’s head or a body area of equivalent size to be able to fire at him. The LoS is reciprocal, applying the rule “If I can see you, you can see me”. If a figure can draw LoS to its target, then the target can draw LoS to the figure as well.
Sometimes, due to the dynamism of the miniatures, it is difficult to determine visually if there is Line of Fire or not. In those cases, if the player can draw a LoS from the centre of his miniature’s base (For example using a tape measure or a laser pointer) that touches or passes through the diameter of the base of the enemy figure, without being blocked, then it is a legal target. But the player must not forget it is necessary to see, at minimum, the target’s head or a body area of equivalent size to be able to fire at him. Additionally, the Line of Sight is reciprocal, so if a figure can draw LoS to its target, then the target can draw LoS to the figure as well."
Opinions???
16387
Post by: Manchu
That seems fine, as it is pretty standard.
The issue is, what is the subject of the disagreement?
(a) whether the model can be seen at all ( TLOS)
(b) whether at least 25% of the model can be seen
In my experience, (a) is an easier question than (b).
85963
Post by: MangoMadness
Surely that should be in the rules preamble to lay a clear method of resolving disagreements with any rule interpretation.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Dark Severance wrote:The Line of Fire is an imaginary straight line that runs from the centre of a miniature’s base to an enemy miniature.
This does not match up to this: Being able to draw a straight line to [any part of] Y from the center of X does not necessarily mean one can draw a straight line from the center of Y to X. I like TLOS because it makes sense. "If you can see it, even just a little bit, you can try to shoot it." This rule does not mean that something almost entirely obscured is as easy to hit as something that is almost entirely visible. As I mentioned, this is where rules about cover come in -- but this is not the right place for rules about whether or not you can even take a shot.
86322
Post by: Dark Severance
Manchu wrote:Being able to draw a straight line to [any part of] Y from the center of X does not necessarily mean one can draw a straight line from the center of Y to X.
I didn't write the rules. I'm waiting to see if anyone recognizes them though. ^_^ I can tell you that they work just fine. The reason that LoS is reciprocal is for a couple reasons. One it gets rid of the issue of someone just being way too clever with terrain to where they are lined up perfectly and the other person can't see them yet they can shoot. Rules are meant as a means to facilitate and allow gameplay, not hinder it, no one likes a rules lawyer argument in the middle of a game. The reality is if you are able to shoot at someone, then they would definitely be able to see you and shoot back. (Granted there is cover but we aren't talking about cover, we're simply talking about LoS at this point.)
Manchu wrote: like TLOS because it makes sense. "If you can see it, even just a little bit, you can try to shoot it." This rule does not mean that something almost entirely obscured is as easy to hit as something that is almost entirely visible. As I mentioned, this is where rules about cover come in -- but this is not the right place for rules about whether or not you can even take a shot.
It isn't practical when you have dynamic miniatures with different poses, representing the same miniature. If all Veritech miniatures had a monopose and were exactly the same then TLOS would be something that could work. Since they do not TLOS doesn't make sense because the pose is meant to make the miniatures be cool and unique, so they don't all look alike. They however shouldn't effect game play and if you base it completely on what you see then gameplay is being effected by how the miniature is based and posed. The other issue with simply "If you can see it, even just a little bit, you can shoot" is that what a person claims they can see is debatable. It sounds easy to do but in a game tournament situation it isn't. For example a snipe miniature laying down prone on a base, obviously is harder to see vs a sniper that is kneeling or standing (even if they are the same miniature).
"I can see your arm so I can shoot"
"That is only because I'm using miniature pose B. If I was using A then you couldn't see me".
16387
Post by: Manchu
Dark Severance wrote:One it gets rid of the issue of someone just being way too clever with terrain to where they are lined up perfectly and the other person can't see them yet they can shoot.
Punishing clever tactical movement in a miniatures game seems counterintuitive. And it is certainly not "realistic" that being a clear target for someone necessarily means they are a clear target for you. Dark Severance wrote:It isn't practical when you have dynamic miniatures with different poses, representing the same miniature.
I am not sure these models are capable of enough posability to make a difference. For one thing, I believe the flight stands are identical. For another, they fit pretty neatly into the space of the base, excepting only the barrel of their rifle or wingtips. This actually brings up a further question: isn't this a squad based game? Therefore, should units be drawing LOS on units, rather than all this talk about individual models? Dark Severance wrote:The other issue with simply "If you can see it, even just a little bit, you can shoot" is that what a person claims they can see is debatable.
Manchu wrote:The issue is, what is the subject of the disagreement? (a) whether the model can be seen at all ( TLOS) (b) whether at least 25% of the model can be seen In my experience, (a) is an easier question than (b).
33816
Post by: Noir
I think mike biggest issue, that he likely doesn't want to face. Is after all the time he put into the game it is DOA and the most he can hope for is using the models to play a some other game. It sad what PB did to the game and from the pic I seen the models too.
86322
Post by: Dark Severance
Manchu wrote:Punishing clever tactical movement in a miniatures game seems counterintuitive. And it is certainly not "realistic" that being a clear target for someone necessarily means they are a clear target for you.
I don't consider that clever tactical movement. There are a few games that use this same policy though.
Manchu wrote:This actually brings up a further question: isn't this a squad based game? Therefore, should units be drawing LOS on units, rather than all this talk about individual models?
I take it then you haven't actually read the rules.
Here I took the time to type them up so everyone is aware what is being discussed instead of getting bits and pieces.
Squadrons
Soldiers, even ones that are deployed in tanks, planes or mech, are trained to operate in squads, as wingmen, in teams, or in similar groups. These groups are called "squadrons" in Robotech RPB Tactics. In most cases, a squadron will have several mecha in it. While all of the mecha in the squadron are a fighting unit, they are no forced to stay together, and may split up and move around as their player wishes throughout the game.
Line of Sight
Line of Sight is used to determine what a mecha can see. Many different rules and situations rely on whether a mecha has line of sight (LOS) to another mecha or not. Sometimes it will be obvious that a mecha has line of sight to another mecha, while other times you may need to get in close to try and get the "mecha's eye view" so you can determine if there is anything in the way. A piece of string or a laser pointing device can be very useful in determining a true LOS.
When you wish to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the center of the acting mecha's torso (or hull for non-humanoid game pieces) to the center of the target mecha's torso (or hull). If the line isn't completely blocked by another mecha, terrain, or anything else, then the acting mecha has LOS to the target.
Field of view is a sub-concept of Line of Sight. To determine what is in a mecha's field of view, draw an imaginary line from the center of the acting mecha's torso or hull to a given point. If the imaginary line isn't blocked then the point is within the Mecha's field of view.
If the LOS line can be drawn, the mecha can see enough of its target to affect it. It is possible to draw LOS but 25% or more (a leg or more) of the mecha is blocked from the opposing mecha's field of view, the target is in cover and will get cover bonuses against any attack made against it (see the Cover section in the Ranged Combat rules). A mecha is only out in the open if more than 75% of the mecha is within the field of view of the mecha drawing Line of Sight.
Mecha in the same squadron as the mecha that is attempting to establish a Line of Sight never block the LOS or Field of View to the target, as it is assumed that all of the mecha in a squadron are in communication and will shift around slightly to clear the Line of Sight for each other. Note, however that this does not actually allow you to physically move your mecha out of the way.
Cover
When the LOS to a target can be drawn, but 25% or more of the target is blocked from the attacker's Field of View by intervening scenery, terrain or or some other obstacle, the target mecha is in cover. A mecha is only out in the open (no cover bonus at all) if more than 75% of the mecha is within the attacker's Field of View.
Cover comes in two different forms, hard and soft. First there is soft cover that only provides concealment from ranged attacks; obstacles like stands of trees, billboards, tall fense and so on. Then there is hard cover that provides significant protection against incoming fire; hard obstacles like crashed spaceships, fortifications, buildings, rock outcroppings and other terrain features, mecha of a different squadron than the target, and similar solid objects. If a mecha is completely hidden from view by cover, then there is no LOS to the target at all.
If a target is in cover then ranged attacks made against it suffer a penalty of -1 to Strike for soft cover and -2 to Strike for hard cover. If the LOS is completely blocked, the mecha cannot be attacked at all.
Before your game beings, you and your opponent should designate what scenery and terrain pieces represent soft and hard cover. When the LOS is drawn through both soft and hard cover, only the hard cover penalty applies. Likewise, the penalty can only be claimed once for a given ranged attack, so no matter how many individual obstacles the LOS is drawn through, a -2 to Strike is the largest cover penalty possible, and even multiple pieces of soft cover still only inflict a -1 penality to Strike in ranged combat. If there is any dispute when determining cover, roll a die to determine with interpretation to use, high roll wins.
85963
Post by: MangoMadness
Manchu wrote:Punishing clever tactical movement in a miniatures game seems counterintuitive. And it is certainly not "realistic" that being a clear target for someone necessarily means they are a clear target for you.
There is a significant difference between
a) clever tactical movement in a miniatures game
b) abusing the ruleset to your advantage by manipulating your models and terrain to gain an unfair advantage.
The models that sit on the bases are an abstract representation of the statline and description provided by the ruleset, the model doesnt move its legs when running, flap its wings, sway about in the breeze or stick its head around corners. Most (good) rulesets acknowledge this and use rules that allow for the figurine to be modelled anywhere on the models base and use a system that represent that the actual game figure would be dynamic within its base rather than a static statue.
True line of sight would probably be really good when shooting at immobile objects like buildings, gun emplacements or statues but for dynamic mobile figures it falls very short and is open to abuse.
1478
Post by: warboss
Mike1975 wrote:ok, so what do you guys think? Warboss?
remove the 25%
When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the attacking mecha’s torso to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target. If there is a difference of opinion then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
Or remove the resolve with D6 too?
I'm fine either way on the 25% as I've had arguments with both. I've had folks try to fire main battle tank leman russ shots through pin holes in terrain because they can see a tiny splash of color and I've had people argue 20% vs 25% cover as well. If pressed for an answer, for the sake of simplicity and a faster game, I'd say leave out the 25% and leave in the d6 dice off for disagreements. The above is similar enough to what is already there to placate their fragile egos whereas the base idea is too different and would likely be rejected outright (and frankly I'm not a fan of using the base anyways for the reasons I stated earlier).
78043
Post by: Mike1975
I'll give it a bit to let people argue both sides a bit more. We might have more people chime in. The more the merrier.
34899
Post by: Eumerin
paulson games wrote:There was a lot of empty space in that booth almost like they had expected mountains of stock that never arrived. Stuff had been rearranged but it was pretty obvious they had a huge amount of booth space without a lot of content. Also one oddity I noticed was in their row of mugs they had several Robotech ones but what stood out was the mug using the artwork for their Macross II cover, which I don't think they are licensed to do as Harmony Gold doesn't own rights to that series or the designs. It would be funny if they got sued over some silly little mugs.
Palladium released a Macross II RPG with multiple books way back when. So they likely have permission for Macross II artwork and products. Note that Macross II is the *only* other Macross series that they've covered.
Big West was involved in Macross II, but Studio Nue was not, which might have influenced how the rights worked out on that and why Palladium was able to secure them. Or it might have been before HG's views about the Macross rights evolved to what they currently are (similar to how Macross Plus was able to be licensed for US release without HG's interference).
87945
Post by: Merijeek
Manchu wrote:Mike1975 wrote:KS does not even know the rules really. If you ask him to play you'll likely have to explain to him how it works. That's what Jeff and the rest are for.
So it is actually "Jeff and the rest" who are making final calls on rules right? Instead of the guy who "does not even know the rules"? Right???
The Kevin is ALL THINGS and he is NO THINGS. Why can't you understaaaaaaand?
53523
Post by: Sining
There's been no real answer to that
16387
Post by: Manchu
Dark Severance wrote:Here I took the time to type them up so everyone is aware what is being discussed instead of getting bits and pieces.
Thanks, that's quite helpful! So to summarize: - miniatures are deployed in units but shoot as individual miniatures at other individual miniatures - an acting miniature needs LOS on its target to affect it - an acting miniature draws LOS from the center of its own torso to the center of its target's torso - a miniature's field of view is whatever falls on any line drawn from the center of its own torso - if the acting miniature can draw LOS on its target but 25% of the target is not in the acting miniature's field of view then the target gets a cover bonus - miniatures in the same unit do not block each other's LOS or field of vision The first issue I see is, shouldn't it say the FRONT center of the acting miniature's torso? Can I draw my imaginary line from the back of my Veritech's torso? That is obviously not the spirit of the rules but if we're going to judge them from the perspective of folks who model for advantage ... Second, the "center torso to center torso" LOS model is IMO not as good as TLOS. It certainly doesn't entirely obviate modelling for advantage plus it adds the wrinkle of determining what is the center of what is the torso, which is more complicated than the question of whether one miniature can see anything at all of another miniature. OTOH, it is hardly a terrible rule. I can even imagine a reason for it: given that a miniature stands for a moving vehicle/being, center mass is probably the best/most likely target point. @Mike1975 I don't mind the "25% = cover bonus" rule at all. The idea of arguing about 25% versus 20% is rubbish,a great indication to avoid someone who makes the argument from that point on. But if you want to avoid the TFG overly literal interpretations then it could be reworded as "about one quarter of the miniature" and keep the d6 dispute settlement rule. That should be a minor enough change.
57438
Post by: Kendachi
Manchu wrote:
The first issue I see is, shouldn't it say the FRONT center of the acting miniature's torso? Can I draw my imaginary line from the back of my Veritech's torso? That is obviously not the spirit of the rules but if we're going to judge them from the perspective of folks who model for advantage ...
Well, some things have Rear Fire, like the Defender, I think.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Manchu wrote: Dark Severance wrote:Here I took the time to type them up so everyone is aware what is being discussed instead of getting bits and pieces.
Thanks, that's quite helpful!
So to summarize:
- miniatures are deployed in units but shoot as individual miniatures at other individual miniatures
- an acting miniature needs LOS on its target to affect it
- an acting miniature draws LOS from the center of its own torso to the center of its target's torso
- a miniature's field of view is whatever falls on any line drawn from the center of its own torso
- if the acting miniature can draw LOS on its target but 25% of the target is not in the acting miniature's field of view then the target gets a cover bonus
- miniatures in the same unit do not block each other's LOS or field of vision
The first issue I see is, shouldn't it say the FRONT center of the acting miniature's torso? Can I draw my imaginary line from the back of my Veritech's torso? That is obviously not the spirit of the rules but if we're going to judge them from the perspective of folks who model for advantage ...
Second, the "center torso to center torso" LOS model is IMO not as good as TLOS. It certainly doesn't entirely obviate modelling for advantage plus it adds the wrinkle of determining what is the center of what is the torso, which is more complicated than the question of whether one miniature can see anything at all of another miniature. OTOH, it is hardly a terrible rule. I can even imagine a reason for it: given that a miniature stands for a moving vehicle/being, center mass is probably the best/most likely target point.
@Mike1975
I don't mind the "25% = cover bonus" rule at all. The idea of arguing about 25% versus 20% is rubbish,a great indication to avoid someone who makes the argument from that point on. But if you want to avoid the TFG overly literal interpretations then it could be reworded as "about one quarter of the miniature" and keep the d6 dispute settlement rule. That should be a minor enough change.
Agreed
Yes, most weapons can also only fire in the front 180 degrees unless they have rear fire, then they have a 360 degree arc. Even the Monster's arc is 180. I don't like that. I think it should be 60 or 90 to the front
16387
Post by: Manchu
TBH I think those rules are pretty much fine as they are. They are not totally immune to abusively overly literal interpretation, sure. It doesn't strike me as a particularly strong criticism.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
so good with this? If not, remind me, been a long day and mind is not working 100%
When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the attacking mecha’s torso to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
32851
Post by: Swabby
For what it is worth Mike, I would much rather have the rule that you just posted in the live version.
It isn't anywhere near perfect, but much better at resolving arguments than what is in the book now.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Mike1975 Here's how I would phrase it: An attacking model draws LOS within its firing arc from the center of its torso/hull to
(a) the center of its target's torso/hull.
OR
(b) any portion of its target.
So (a) versus (b) is one issue. The published rule seems to be (a), which helps with TLOS concerns BUT generates the "where are the centers of the torsos?" issue. So the question is, which issue is more problematic: finding the center of a model's torso/hull or the broader implications of modelling for advantage? If the former, go with (b), if that latter go with (a). Now, as I understand the published rules, LOS has nothing directly to do with cover and therefore the 25% issue. RATHER, cover is a matter of Field of View (FOV), which comprises all points to which a line can be drawn from the acting model's center torso within its firing arc. If at least 25% of the target model is not within the acting model's FOV, the acting model might still have LOS to its target BUT the target gets a cover bonus. The way you have it phrased there, if at least 25% of the model is not within the acting model's FOV then the acting model does not have LOS on the target, which does not seem to be the published rule. And IMO it is not an improvement.
1478
Post by: warboss
Mike1975 wrote:so good with this? If not, remind me, been a long day and mind is not working 100% When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the attacking mecha’s torso to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
I'm not sure why but every time I come back to the thread, your rule gets more complicated with is the OPPOSITE of what I thought we were trying to do. Why is there a mention of Field of View? Just leave it at it's simplest to avoid palladium SCREWING IT UP EVEN FURTHER. Follow the KISS principle. You've also omitted the "hull" clarification for non-humanoid models they had in there. It's pedantic but that is exactly what rules are supposed to be. When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from any point on the attacking mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid game pieces) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso or hull. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target. If there is a difference of opinion regarding LOS then the players should roll a single D6 (reroll ties) with the highest rolling player winning.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:@Mike1975 Here's how I would phrase it: An attacking model draws LOS within its firing arc from the center of its torso/hull to
(a) the center of its target's torso/hull.
OR
(b) any portion of its target.
So (a) versus (b) is one issue. The published rule seems to be (a), which helps with TLOS concerns BUT generates the "where are the centers of the torsos?" issue. So the question is, which issue is more problematic: finding the center of a model's torso/hull or the broader implications of modelling for advantage? If the former, go with (b), if that latter go with (a). Now, as I understand the published rules, LOS has nothing directly to do with cover and therefore the 25% issue. RATHER, cover is a matter of Field of View (FOV), which comprises all points drawn from the acting model's center torso within its firing arc. If at least 25% of the target model is not within the acting model's FOV, the acting model might still have LOS to its target BUT the target gets a cover bonus. The way you have it phrased there, if at least 25% of the model is not within the acting model's FOV then the acting model does not have LOS on the target, which does not seem to be the published rule. And IMO it is not an improvement.
I'd be very against adding an either/or second step that complicates LOS. What purpose does it serve for a supposedly fast mass battle game where you have theoretically dozens of units to individually move and determine LOS? Adding a second step to determine LOS defeats the purpose of simplifying it. When you have 12 pods on average to move, simply looking down at the tabletop level and seeing if ANY torso to torso LOS is enough. YMMV obviously but any extra possible complication/decision point is a lateral step from what we have officially. If this were a dedicated skirmish game then my answer would be totally different but this is ostensibly a mass battle game with dozens of minis per side. One single step for LOS that makes sense and isn't easily abusable is better. Also, the further we deviate from what they have, the less likely they are to change anything. In any case, it'll be likely my last thoughts on the subject as at this point I'd just be repeating myself. My problem has always been that the rule as written (going back to march 2013 and pretty much unchanged since) was easily abusable and more difficult than it should be for a mass battle game. Skirmish robotech is effectively dead despite the KS promises to the contrary so the rules should focus on making a mass battle game as good as possible to use with dozens of models on each side. I'd suggest using the simple quote above either with or without your 25% (preferably without... leave percentages instead only for the cover determination).
16387
Post by: Manchu
@warboss
While we're being pedantic: By removing the center requirement we're narrowing LOS determinations regarding a humanoid model to its torso but we use the prospectively much broader area denoted by the term "hull" for non-humanoid models. This seems like a needless disadvantage to humanoid models.
I am certainly not advocating adding a second step to finding LOS. I am proposing that figuring out if you can target a model should be a different operation from figuring out if the target benefits from cover.
1478
Post by: warboss
Do you mean advantage for humanoid models instead? I don't see any real disadvantage to humanoids when you consider that almost all non-humanoid models will be mounted on flight stands that position them higher where as only a small portion of humanoid models will have that. I think that evens out a potential disadvantage to humanoids. Could you clarify what the perceived disadvantage is? I'm honestly not seeing it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Without referencing centers, a humanoid model must draw its LOS from a smaller area than a non-humanoid. Imagine that the center of a non-humanoid model's hull is obscured behind terrain. Prospectively unlike the humanoid model, it could still draw LOS to targets from the extremities of its hull.
1478
Post by: warboss
Manchu wrote:Without referencing centers, a humanoid model must draw its LOS from a smaller area than a non-humanoid. Imagine that the center of a non-humanoid model's hull is obscured behind terrain. Prospectively unlike the humanoid model, it could still draw LOS to targets from the extremities of its hull.
Ah... but I actually see that as much more of a potential advantage for the humanoid models. With a smaller torso compared with "hulls", it is easier to completely block LOS when you want to as well as utilize cover compared with the usually larger and frequently flight based non-humanoids. The non-humanoids may get easier LOS to other models but they're also much more likely to be seen themselves and less likely to be able to utilize cover, which makes sense IMO. I personally feel that it is an overall advantage to the frequently smaller humanoid models. YMMV. In any case, my suggestion for mike hasn't changed.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Noir wrote:I think mike biggest issue, that he likely doesn't want to face. Is after all the time he put into the game it is DOA and the most he can hope for is using the models to play a some other game. It sad what PB did to the game and from the pic I seen the models too.
Actually that is funny because I bought Alpha Strike, the Companion book, the Mekton KS, plus Heavy Gear all before PB offered to send me the rules. I still plan on using all 4 and seeing what I like best. I've read most of the Heavy Gear and Alpha Strike rules and am waiting on the fulfillment of the Mekton KS to compare that one. All I need are the minis. I'm going to play and have fun and know people are working on stuff for the other generations so if indeed this is DOA, which I don't believe for a second, more like a wounded animal limping onto the stage, I will be able to play all 3 generations and the sentinels regardless of how this ends up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here ya go warboss, just copied and pasted over the wrong one since we've looked at some many yesterday. Added the or hull and changed the any figure to an enemy figures since friendlies do not block LOS.
When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the attacking mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid game pieces) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid game pieces). If the line is not completely blocked by an enemy figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Added the original text for comparison.
have at it
1
16387
Post by: Manchu
warboss wrote:The non-humanoids may get easier LOS to other models but they're also much more likely to be seen themselves
True, I suppose it balances. If nothing else, it certainly lends humanoid mecha (Robotechnology) a distinct feel in the mechanics, which might be thematically desirable. Mike1975 wrote:the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View
I still don't get this part. Draw LOS from torso/hull to torso/hull. That's fine. If one quarter or more of the target is obscured from attacking model's FOV then target has cover. That's fine, too. But why are you making the cover rule part of the LOS rule?
78043
Post by: Mike1975
I see your point Manchu, I wish they had partial and full cover in the rules. Cover and terrain are a bit too simplified for me. I'd want partial cover to be 1/4 to 3/4 cover and full cover >75%. Maybe it's just that I've played too much Battletech.
partial cover light (trees, billboards) +1
full cover light and partial cover heavy (rocks, buildings) +2
full cover heavy (rocks buildings) +3
When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the attacking mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid game pieces) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid game pieces). If the line is not completely blocked by an enemy figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Mike1975 wrote:I see your point Manchu, I wish they had partial and full cover in the rules.
Just to be completely clear, I don't have an issue with the published cover rule. I took exception to splicing it into the LOS rule. Mike1975 wrote:I'd want partial cover to be 1/4 to 3/4 cover and full cover >75%.
To my mind, that granularity implies simulation of slower paced combat -- which is fine for stompy, clunky mecha but a bit thick for the nimble mecha starring in RoboTech. The 25% rule (which I'd rather call the "approx.1/4 rule") plus the hard/soft distinction is probably sufficient to preserve some tactical use of terrain while keeping the game light and fast. Mike1975 wrote:When a player wishes to determine if one model has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting model’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target model’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). If the line is (a) entirely within one of the acting model's firing arcs and (b) not completely blocked by an enemy model or terrain of any sort, then the acting model has LOS to the target. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.
First, I cleaned up the language for consistency of terms. I also replaced "figure" and "mecha" with model. I realize PB used the term "mecha" but that doesn't actually cover every model used in the game. Second, I added another "ANY part of" clause for clarity. Third, I added language about firing arcs. I don't know what the proper term is for this as used in other parts of the rules. Fourth, I think you should delete last sentence and replace it with: If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).
In this clause: not completely blocked by an enemy model or terrain of any sort
what is the function of the word "completely"? Can a line ever be partially blocked? If not, delete the word "completely." Finally, I think that clause is actually incorrect. As I understand the published rules posted above, friendly models NOT in the acting model's squadron do block LOS.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Manchu wrote:Finally, I think that clause is actually incorrect. As I understand the published rules posted above, friendly models NOT in the acting model's squadron do block LOS.
I was going to post the same thing.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Your guys are right on the squadron thing. Friendlies from other squadrons do block LOS.
I think the Firing arc thing is redundant since Firing Arcs are something different than LOS and have their own explanations. It will also increase the length of the explanation. Besides you have 2 arcs in the game, front and rear.
I hate seeing Mecha all over the place, in fact if you read the rulebook you'll get sick of the confusing messages it gives because mecha can be both singular and plural. It's appears way to many freaking times but it's PB's baby and they insist on using the word. Believe me I tried. Try reading a few pages and marking how many times that word appears.
Rigeld: The word Completely was from PB's wording.
The Quick Reply BOX is a PITA, squishes everything.
When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). If the line is not blocked by friendly mecha from a different squadron, an enemy mecha, or terrain of any sort, then the acting model has LOS to the target. If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If this is good, I'll send it to them with the rest later today.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Replace "is not blocked by friendly mecha from a different squadron, an enemy mecha, or terrain of any sort" with "is blocked by anything other than a mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha".
Remove the "If there is a dispute..." sentence. It's poor rules writing, plain and simple.
16387
Post by: Manchu
When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). If the line is blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the acting model has LOS to the target. If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).
Assuming firing arc is adequately covered elsewhere, I think this is good. BUT before sending it out, let's review the changes: (1) clarifying the point about squadron mates not blocking LOS (2) replacing "center of" with "ANY part" The first point is non-controversial so we can skip it. The second point attempts to eliminate potential arguments over finding the center of a model's torso/hull. It does not obviate concerns about modelling for advantage but I think those concerns are minimal anyway considering the miniatures at issue. The question is, are potential arguments about finding the center of a model's torso/hull so (hypothetically) problematic as to warrant FAQing? rigeld2 wrote:Replace "is not blocked by friendly mecha from a different squadron, an enemy mecha, or terrain of any sort" with "is blocked by anything other than a mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha".
Agreed and incorporated above. rigeld2 wrote:Remove the "If there is a dispute..." sentence. It's poor rules writing, plain and simple.
This is a pretty standard way of resolving in situ type disagreements. Perhaps it should be (as someone suggested above) be a preface to all of the rules. But, if it isn't, what is the harm of appending it here (next to an issue where it is most likely to be evoked)?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
I think so. It's sloppy and a poor effort. Why not try and fix it?
Another question is if they do FAQ it (they won't), will they change their source docs so that future printings don't have this issue? If not, I wouldn't bother with getting them to FAQ it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Rigeld2, please see my question above.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
rigeld2 wrote:Replace "is not blocked by friendly mecha from a different squadron, an enemy mecha, or terrain of any sort" with "is blocked by anything other than a mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha".
Remove the "If there is a dispute..." sentence. It's poor rules writing, plain and simple.
Much better, good idea
16387
Post by: Manchu
Here's what we have: When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). If the line is blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the acting model has LOS to the target.
And potentially: If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Like this?
When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). If the line is not blocked by anything other than a mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the mecha has LOS to the target. If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).
16387
Post by: Manchu
Just about. In this clause, other than a mecha from the same squadron
mecha should be plural. So: other than mecha from the same squadron
78043
Post by: Mike1975
I added "Not" to what you had.
If the line is NOT blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the acting model has LOS to the target.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damn little Quick reply box
When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). If the line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the mecha has LOS to the target. If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Manchu wrote:This is a pretty standard way of resolving in situ type disagreements. Perhaps it should be (as someone suggested above) be a preface to all of the rules. But, if it isn't, what is the harm of appending it here (next to an issue where it is most likely to be evoked)?
For the same reason we don't tell people how to roll dice. It's a given at this point (ignoring the fact that it shouldn't ever happen with well written rules).
78043
Post by: Mike1975
I really, really, really hate the term mecha. It'd be better a figure or model....
16387
Post by: Manchu
Right -- great catch! I wonder if it overburdens the sentence stylistically? Compare these two: If the line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the mecha has LOS to the target.
The acting mecha has LOS to its target unless that line is blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
#2 I think is written better and easier to follow.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Okay now I am actually starting to prefer the list version: The acting mecha has LOS to its target if that line is not blocked by terrain, enemy mecha, or friendly mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.
That is the clearest version IMO but I don't know if that list is exhaustive.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). The acting mecha has LOS to its target unless that line is blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha. If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
just to put emphasis on same
47462
Post by: rigeld2
That's my problem with a list - by definition it's exhaustive.
If they want to add something to that list it's more "difficult" to understand than just "Does it block the line? Is it a same-squadron mecha? Blocks LoS."
78043
Post by: Mike1975
so clarity or brevity?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Split the difference? The acting mecha has LOS to its target if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
How is the "everything but squadron mates" not clear? Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Split the difference? The acting mecha has LOS to its target if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.
Like
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Manchu wrote:Mike1975 wrote:I'd want partial cover to be 1/4 to 3/4 cover and full cover >75%.
To my mind, that granularity implies simulation of slower paced combat -- which is fine for stompy, clunky mecha but a bit thick for the nimble mecha starring in RoboTech. The 25% rule (which I'd rather call the "approx.1/4 rule") plus the hard/soft distinction is probably sufficient to preserve some tactical use of terrain while keeping the game light and fast.
I feel both the 25% and the "approx 1/4" are both equally bad. As the mecha are not statues, and are in fact soldiers who are piloting robots and who'd also very much like to stay alive to enjoy their pineapple salads, one can safely assume they will not be specifically trying to get hit. The easiest cover rule is thus:
if ANY part of the model is obscured in ANY amount by ANYTHING, the unit gets cover. Literally, only if the model is in the dead open.
Deadzone does this effectively. Most simulation rulesets do this same thing. Our anime robot mecha are not monopose slow statues sliding around ponderously, they are nimble and constantly moving and are taking advantage of any cover available.
84554
Post by: Morgan Vening
While I'm not really concerned with the eventual mechanics (as I don't intend to ever play the game), I think dispensing with the "both players roll off" and replacing it with "the attacker (or defender) rolls and on a 4+ (or a specified odd/even result), the attacker has LOS".
Rolling off results in at least one additional dice roll every time, and one sixth of the time (iterating) requires two more. There's no need to slow the game down for extra dice rolls unless you suspect your opponent is using biased dice, at which point you've got bigger problems.
16387
Post by: Manchu
They are certainly not equally bad. The issue with using the 25% term is tempting TFG to argue that only 24% of my mecha is obscured from his mecha's FOV. But I understand that kind of abuse is not what you are talking about (although it has been discussed ITT). judgedoug wrote:if ANY part of the model is obscured in ANY amount by ANYTHING, the unit gets cover. Literally, only if the model is in the dead open
This also entails modelling for advantage concerns. judgedoug wrote:Our anime robot mecha are not monopose slow statues sliding around ponderously, they are nimble and constantly moving and are taking advantage of any cover available.
True BUT the miniature stands for where that dynamic unit might currently be at a given moment in time; hence the cylinder rule discussed above. Problem is, Mike has confirmed with PB that the cylinder rule is a No Go. So we would just have to house rule it. Morgan Vening wrote:replacing it with "the attacker (or defender) rolls and on a 4+ (or a specified odd/even result), the attacker has LOS"
This is less of a dispute resolution mechanic and more of a "tough shot" mechanic incentivizing the attacker to always take the roll. In other words, this transforms disputes about LOS into tough shots.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Manchu wrote:They are certainly not equally bad. The issue with using 25% rule is tempting TFG to argue that only 24% of my mecha is obscured from his mecha's FOV. But I understand kind of abuse is not what you are talking about (although it has been discussed ITT).
There is need for rules to be as unambiguous as possible for pick up and play and tournament games. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a large gaming group of friendly gamers.
Manchu wrote: judgedoug wrote:if ANY part of the model is obscured in ANY amount by ANYTHING, the unit gets cover. Literally, only if the model is in the dead open
This also entails modelling for advantage concerns.
Modeling for advantage for the "anything is cover" rule - AKA Jumping Jacks - also now makes it easier to draw LOS on said model. Specifically, the "anything is cover" works when paired with "anything is LOS" as well. ( TLOS)
Manchu wrote: judgedoug wrote:Our anime robot mecha are not monopose slow statues sliding around ponderously, they are nimble and constantly moving and are taking advantage of any cover available.
True BUT the miniature stands for where that dynamic unit might currently be at a given moment in time; hence the cylinder rule discussed above. Problem is, Mike has confirmed with PB that the cylinder rule is a No Go. So we would just have to house rule it.
Unfortunately it is not a dynamic system such as Starship Troopers. It's an I-go-you-go system, so it's already heavily abstracted. Why try to make realistic cover rules involving percentages and awkward line of sight rules? By it's very nature, the rules are already abstracted so there's no need to add pointless rules to slow the game down. "About 1/4 cover + LOS from center to torso" will slow the game down far more than "any cover at all + TLOS" with the net result being nearly identical when averaged over thousands of games.
16387
Post by: Manchu
judgedoug wrote:There is need for rules to be as unambiguous as possible for pick up and play and tournament games.
Every game depends upon the good will of the participants. Even so, I think "approximately 1/4" is actually less ambiguous than 25% unless the intent of the rule is really that a model only 24% obscured is not in cover. judgedoug wrote:Modeling for advantage for the "anything is cover" rule - AKA Jumping Jacks - also now makes it easier to draw LOS on said model.
Again, it's important to keep the models at issue in mind. I am not concerned about Veritechs doing jumping jacks but I don't like the idea of a Veritech getting cover because the tip of its rifle is obscured. judgedoug wrote:Why try to make realistic cover rules involving percentages and awkward line of sight rules?
Both of those rules are abstract rather than realistic. I think the point of both abstractions is to emphasize the 3D character of the game pieces.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Manchu wrote: judgedoug wrote:There is need for rules to be as unambiguous as possible for pick up and play and tournament games.
Every game depends upon the good will of the participants. Even so, I think "approximately 1/4" is actually less ambiguous than 25% unless the intent of the rule is really that a model only 24% obscured is not in cover.
"approx 1/4" is approximately 1% better than "25%" They are both a bit ridiculous. And of course every game depends upon the good will of the participants - but why depend _so heavily_ on the good will of the participants? Why not take the extra little bit of effort to make a rule that doesn't depend at all on anybody's good will?
Manchu wrote: judgedoug wrote:Modeling for advantage for the "anything is cover" rule - AKA Jumping Jacks - also now makes it easier to draw LOS on said model.
Again, it's important to keep the models at issue in mind. I am not concerned about Veritechs doing jumping jacks but I don't like the idea of a Veritech getting cover because the tip of its rifle is obscured.
You see, in my mind, there is no difference, because we are using abstracted toys to represent a vicious firefight. And what's to say that my shot didn't hit the area right where the tip of the GU-11 was, and just saved your GU-11 from exploding and cooking off all those 55mm rounds? By the same token - and with TLOS in play - I can fire at the tip of your gunpod even if it is the only thing visible, and you would get cover. If you model for advantage (tip of gunpod sticking out to get cover), it becomes a disadvantage as well (tip of gunpod sticking out is now targetable).
Manchu wrote: judgedoug wrote:Why try to make realistic cover rules involving percentages and awkward line of sight rules?
Both of those rules are abstract rather than realistic. I think the point of both abstractions is to emphasize the 3D character of the game pieces.
Absolutely both are abstract. That's my point. One is much, much faster and does not require the good will of the player; the other is awkward, slow, and cannot be relied upon in any competitive situation.
I can guarantee you that TLOS + Anything Is Cover plays faster than "center point LOS and approx 1/4 cover" and that the end results over dozens/hundreds of games will be the same.
16387
Post by: Manchu
The best way to account for the physical location of a dynamic object is to demarcate a volume in which it could be at a given moment in time. There is a positive correlation between (a) how much of the surface area of that volume facing the attacker is obscured from the attacker's FOV and (b) the likelihood that the dynamic object has cover against the attacker. For gaming purposes, we choose some threshold above which "likely" becomes "certain." That is, if X amount is obscured then the target has cover.
What is the effect of making that threshold X minimal? I think it is obviously easier, at least generally, to determine if any part of the target is obscured from the attacker's FOV than to determine if approximately 1/4 (for example) of the target is obscured from the attacker's FOV. Therefore, the "any portion" rule will probably generate less disputes. More importantly, however, considering a dispute will occur regardless in the absence of good will, there is a negative correlation between (a) threshold amount and (b) ease of obtaining cover bonuses. That is, minimal threshold implies maximum probability of cover.
This in turn makes tactical movement (that is, the choice about how to move safely) more forgiving. Indeed, using minimal threshold, the emphasis of terrain's effect on movement is a matter of LOS. Absent some other uncertainty (like random activation a la Bolt Action), LOS-focused movement amounts to a boring miniatures game IMO. At least hypothetically, setting the threshold to 25% strikes me as making obtaining cover a more significant tactical choice without being burdensome. I don't think the 25% threshold itself really slows things down, considering PB will apparently not consider using the volume approach and most of the models are vaguely humanoid (such that the rules can give the example of "one leg").
86322
Post by: Dark Severance
judgedoug wrote:["approx 1/4" is approximately 1% better than "25%" They are both a bit ridiculous. And of course every game depends upon the good will of the participants - but why depend _so heavily_ on the good will of the participants? Why not take the extra little bit of effort to make a rule that doesn't depend at all on anybody's good will?
Ultimately that is what everyone is trying to do with as little modification to the rules, make them less dependent on anybody's good will. Some think it is fine with a slight word change, while others think that it needs a lot more.
The biggest issue with using 1/4 or 25% is that it isn't defined clearly. It says 25% (a leg or more), so does that mean a arm with a rifle is not 25%, is that 24%? Is a full arm considered 25% or does it have to include part of the chest, where is the cutoff to part of the chest it has to include.
In games in a store most of this won't matter. They could simply just do the dice rule to resolve disputes, although I still hate that rule. It should be something that doesn't change just based on a die roll. In a tournament environment however it has to be clear or you need to have a judge staff that will always make the same call.
The cover rules should of really had partial cover and full cover, then that helps alleviate the issues between LoS, in cover and out in the open because there is a medium between them.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Distinguishing between full and partial cover still leaves you the question of how much of the model needs to be obscured (and whether the model is obscured) for partial cover, i.e., basically the same predicament.
The dice roll is helpful because both players can be confident in its impartiality. It's not that something changes based on the dice roll; it's just that a dispute is resolved.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Manchu wrote:The best way to account for the physical location of a dynamic object is to demarcate a volume in which it could be at a given moment in time. There is a positive correlation between (a) how much of the surface area of that volume facing the attacker is obscured from the attacker's FOV and (b) the likelihood that the dynamic object has cover against the attacker. For gaming purposes, we choose some threshold above which "likely" becomes "certain." That is, if X amount is obscured then the target has cover.
What is the effect of making that threshold X minimal? I think it is obviously easier, at least generally, to determine if any part of the target is obscured from the attacker's FOV than to determine if approximately 1/4 (for example) of the target is obscured from the attacker's FOV. Therefore, the "any portion" rule will probably generate less disputes. More importantly, however, considering a dispute will occur regardless in the absence of good will, there is a negative correlation between (a) threshold amount and (b) ease of obtaining cover bonuses. That is, minimal threshold implies maximum probability of cover.
This in turn makes tactical movement (that is, the choice about how to move safely) more forgiving. Indeed, using minimal threshold, the emphasis of terrain's effect on movement is a matter of LOS. Absent some other uncertainty (like random activation a la Bolt Action), LOS-focused movement amounts to a boring miniatures game IMO. At least hypothetically, setting the threshold to 25% strikes me as making obtaining cover a more significant tactical choice without being burdensome. I don't think the 25% threshold itself really slows things down, considering PB will apparently not consider using the volume approach and most of the models are vaguely humanoid (such that the rules can give the example of "one leg").
Volume is a good idea but still involves too much calculation (and volume was used in Starship Troopers, in terms of the Size stat, to give a 3D sphere of influence for determining engagement range, etc - and it's still the best ruleset ever written despite what I just said )
Much of our difference in opinion is due to a difference in what miniatures games are. You're approaching it from each turn being a "snapshot" of the battle, and a mecha's pose will be constant at every snapshot. I prefer to think of it much more abstractly: a battloid standing next to a building will be actively taking cover; one should not be measuring to see if his leg is roughly 25% covered; to me, the mecha has at least some cover so the battloid will be actively taking advantage of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Warmachine uses a combination of this? In that volume is the only thing that matters, and as long as model is within 2" of terrain element, it can take the cover bonus?
Rules theory time:
aside: While this does not apply to Robotech as there are no units, I also believe in the "cloud" of a unit; for example, in say a squad based, platoon-to-company level miniatures game, the models in a squad are more of a representation of where the squad is located, the rough area where it is on the battlefield - more on how this concept works in a little bit... *
Now, back to cover, I also implicitly believe any ruleset involving guns and tactical maneouvering should include at it's core rules the fact that cover is all over the place, especially cover that we do not model but would be present, and the rules should in fact be giving bonuses to-hit if a model is demonstrably not within cover. This is actually how effectively Deadzone works, which delighted me greatly. *Tying back to my previous "unit cloud" example: as being a representation of where a squad is on the tabletop, if any models have cover, the unit counts as cover, as the soldiers themselves are not standing bolt upright waiting for incoming bullets. This ties into my belief that rules should assume models always benefit from cover and only give bonuses when caught flat-footed out in the open (if the whole unit cloud is out in the open, for example).
But again, this relies on the fundamental belief that our toy soldiers and the accompanying rules are abstractions and therefore the rules should represent that abstraction; in my mind it makes no sense to play a game that at it's core is an abstraction and then to apply oddly specific rules (such as 25% = cover).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
After a lot of my word vomit, let me put it this way -
Assumption : units/soldiers are at least vaguely trained in the tactical use of cover
The easiest way to deal with cover for a tactical modern/future combat game is to implicity include it within the mechanic for shooting, and only provide a bonus if a target is absolutely not within cover.
16387
Post by: Manchu
judgedoug wrote:You're approaching it from each turn being a "snapshot" of the battle, and a mecha's pose will be constant at every snapshot.
Perhaps but to a far more limited extent than you seem to think. I am assuming each turn represents an amount of time greater than one "photographic" instant. So it's not a snapshot but it is, so to speak, a very short clip. That is exactly why I advocate the volume approach; in acknowledgement of the dynamism of the simulated objects during the turn. That is to say, the volume represents where any portion of the object could be during that period of time. The mistake, I think, is to assume that every portion of the object has a uniform probability of being in every portion of the volume. The volume itself has a center, at which some portion of the object is mostly likely to be even while the object is moving. judgedoug wrote:it makes no sense to play a game that at it's core is an abstraction and then to apply oddly specific rules (such as 25% = cover)
As I tried to explain earlier, 25% is not "oddly specific" in the slightest and only gives that impression when rendered numerically (and therefore evoking in some minds the 1% difference issue) as opposed to saying "about a quarter," which is clearly what is meant given the example of "one leg." judgedoug wrote:Assumption : units/soldiers are at least vaguely trained in the tactical use of cover
One could argue that assumption is subsumed into the bonus cover gives rather than how easy it is to obtain the bonus. Either way, it only comes up when you have units in the game that explicitly aren't trained in the tactical use of cover, thereby defeating the assumption anyway.
86322
Post by: Dark Severance
Manchu wrote:Distinguishing between full and partial cover still leaves you the question of how much of the model needs to be obscured (and whether the model is obscured) for partial cover, i.e., basically the same predicament.
Partial cover is better than no cover. The difference is cover or no cover, which is why it makes it slightly more important. When the difference is full cover, partial cover, no cover then it makes it easier and less likely to be a sticky point. I get no cover because 24% of my mech is obscured... Yes I will definitely argue against that. Partial cover I may still argue against it but I am less likely because at least I'm getting some cover when the obvious intent is to gain cover.
Manchu wrote:The dice roll is helpful because both players can be confident in its impartiality. It's not that something changes based on the dice roll; it's just that a dispute is resolved.
That isn't impartiality, it is just relying on random luck. One game the same situation you are in cover, another game you aren't in cover dependent on the dice. For friendly casual games, sure it makes sense but for a tournament it is a horrible rule.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Dark Severance wrote:I get no cover because 24% of my mech is obscured... Yes I will definitely argue against that.
Me too, and I have been ITT for pages; of course, it's because I don't think that is what the rules intend and I think the proper intent can be phrased more clearly as "at least approximately a quarter." The question of relative location of objects in a miniature game, as opposed to a board game, does not yield precise answers. You've made a distinction without a difference. But I get what you mean here: Dark Severance wrote:One game the same situation you are in cover, another game you aren't in cover dependent on the dice. For friendly casual games, sure it makes sense but for a tournament it is a horrible rule.
The trouble is you are assuming there is some objective truth to the relative location of the miniatures and the terrain. As JudgeDoug and I have been discussing, this is simply false because the models at best represent where the models could be in a given moment. It is therefore impossible to say that two games necessarily represent the exact same situation.
86322
Post by: Dark Severance
judgedoug wrote:In that volume is the only thing that matters, and as long as model is within 2" of terrain element, it can take the cover bonus?
2" is fairly long distance of terrain. Infinity requires the model to be in base contact with the scenery to gain cover modifiers, which works out well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Me too, and I have been ITT for pages; of course, it's because I don't think that is what the rules intend and I think the proper intent can be phrased more clearly as "at least approximately a quarter."
The % wouldn't actually be so bad if they properly had images to give proper examples. Leaving it up to the players to decide the % is horrible. For example Infinity has this type of example:
16387
Post by: Manchu
While that picture is helpful, it is still a judgment call to say "the situation in this particular game is more like B than A." How does Infinity suggest resolving a dispute over such a call?
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Manchu wrote:While that picture is helpful, it is still a judgment call to say "the situation in this particular game is more like B than A." How does Infinity suggest resolving a dispute over such a call?
That Infinity example is the exact problem I have with any "portion of a model" - whether it's "about a quarter" or "25%" or whatever - and immediately makes me never want to play Infinity, considering how dynamic their models are. It's the laziest of game design. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote: judgedoug wrote:You're approaching it from each turn being a "snapshot" of the battle, and a mecha's pose will be constant at every snapshot.
Perhaps but to a far more limited extent than you seem to think. I am assuming each turn represents an amount of time greater than one "photographic" instant. So it's not a snapshot but it is, so to speak, a very short clip. That is exactly why I advocate the volume approach; in acknowledgement of the dynamism of the simulated objects during the turn. That is to say, the volume represents where any portion of the object could be during that period of time. The mistake, I think, is to assume that every portion of the object has a uniform probability of being in every portion of the volume. The volume itself has a center, at which some portion of the object is mostly likely to be even while the object is moving.
Well, I absolutely agree in that sense. Volume (Warmachine/Hordes) and Size (Starship Troopers) are effectively the same thing but require additional game-halting measurements. The goal is to simplify something to speed up gameplay whose net results over X amount of games would produce the same results (the TLOS-AnythingIsCover theory)
Manchu wrote:
judgedoug wrote:it makes no sense to play a game that at it's core is an abstraction and then to apply oddly specific rules (such as 25% = cover)
As I tried to explain earlier, 25% is not "oddly specific" in the slightest and only gives that impression when rendered numerically (and therefore evoking in some minds the 1% difference issue) as opposed to saying "about a quarter," which is clearly what is meant given the example of "one leg."
Six of one, half dozen of the other. 25% and "about a quarter" are - while slightly different - both being oddly specific in the sense of a rules abstraction. It is akin to playing a generic miniatures game such as 40k and then adding in a rule that there's a Tripping Chance for models that move a certain speed then they have to make additional rolls to see if they fall prone. Why? It's unnecessary at this level of scale and abstraction.
Manchu wrote: judgedoug wrote:Assumption : units/soldiers are at least vaguely trained in the tactical use of cover
One could argue that assumption is subsumed into the bonus cover gives rather than how easy it is to obtain the bonus. Either way, it only comes up when you have units in the game that explicitly aren't trained in the tactical use of cover, thereby defeating the assumption anyway.
Absolutely, but we're still vaguely talking about sci fi tactical skirmish miniatures wargaming and we're not designing the Universal Miniatures Wargaming System (though both Starship Troopers and my homebrew ruleset take this into consideration without any modifiers)
And yes, giving a cover bonus is the same as having cover assumed as part of the game system (and adding a bonus for no cover); but when something is happening a majority of the time it should be part of the rules and not an exception. For example; if D&D all of a sudden decided to have a +2 modifier for fighting not underwater (and have no modifer for fighting underwater) - since it's not the norm, it makes more sense for the "not fighting underwater" to be part of the normal dice roll and having a separate penalty for fighting underwater.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). If the line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the mecha has LOS to the target. If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, the acting player rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.
That way the defender must call it and make the attacker roll. So if this is good, we can go back to Cover and I can catch up on what I missed from the last bunch of posts.
1
16387
Post by: Manchu
judgedoug wrote:The goal is to simplify something to speed up gameplay whose net results over X amount of games would produce the same results (the TLOS-AnythingIsCover theory)
I don't think speeding up gameplay is by itself necessarily a good thing. And I don't really get this notion about results averaging out over hundreds or thousands of games. That makes sense to me in terms of something like modified dice rolls but not in terms of whether models have cover. judgedoug wrote:25% and "about a quarter" are - while slightly different - both being oddly specific in the sense of a rules abstraction.
Still no. "One quarter" is one of the most common abstractions in our culture, from time to money and everything in between. judgedoug wrote:when something is happening a majority of the time it should be part of the rules and not an exception
Totally agreed. The hypothetical argument is that the assumed military training is accounted for by the bonus mechanic rather than the mechanic that determines whether the model qualifies for the bonus. The corresponding "exception" rule would be something like "Minmei does not receive a cover bonus even if she is obscured from the attacker's FOV by one quarter or more."
86322
Post by: Dark Severance
judgedoug wrote:That Infinity example is the exact problem I have with any "portion of a model" - whether it's "about a quarter" or "25%" or whatever - and immediately makes me never want to play Infinity, considering how dynamic their models are. It's the laziest of game design.
The dynamic of the model doesn't matter since Infinity uses a template model (cylinder, which was already discussed and determined won't be happening) to dispute anything with a dynamic model. The model itself for disputes doesn't matter at all.
"In game terms, all combatants occupy an unvarying volume on the table. This volume is cylinder-shaped, with its width determined by the base size and its height by the type of the trooper. Silhouette Templates are a game aid designed to help players determine the in-game volume and height of a trooper. If doubts about the volume of a trooper arise during a game, use the Silhouette Template to decide exactly what cylinder-shaped space it takes up on the game table."
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Problem with the squadron idea is that in Tactics squadrons are not required to stay together. So you can split squadrons into single units or small squads. The advantage is flanking and getting to attack from multiple places during one's activation.
Dang quotes
16387
Post by: Manchu
Mike1975 wrote:That way the defender must call it and make the attacker roll.
I don't think that is what the rule you wrote accomplishes. Let's take a look: Mike1975 wrote:If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, the acting player rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.
Just on its face, this rule allows the "acting player" (is this an established term?) to take a roll to get LOS when he otherwise might not have it. As I posted previously: Manchu wrote:This is less of a dispute resolution mechanic and more of a "tough shot" mechanic incentivizing the attacker to always take the roll. In other words, this transforms disputes about LOS into tough shots.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Dark Severance wrote: judgedoug wrote:That Infinity example is the exact problem I have with any "portion of a model" - whether it's "about a quarter" or "25%" or whatever - and immediately makes me never want to play Infinity, considering how dynamic their models are. It's the laziest of game design.
The dynamic of the model doesn't matter since Infinity uses a template model (cylinder, which was already discussed and determined won't be happening) to dispute anything with a dynamic model. The model itself for disputes doesn't matter at all.
"In game terms, all combatants occupy an unvarying volume on the table. This volume is cylinder-shaped, with its width determined by the base size and its height by the type of the trooper. Silhouette Templates are a game aid designed to help players determine the in-game volume and height of a trooper. If doubts about the volume of a trooper arise during a game, use the Silhouette Template to decide exactly what cylinder-shaped space it takes up on the game table."
Problem is silhouette templates take time to take the mini away and check the height etc. In Robotech you have a lot of variation in unit heights and I doubt that big of a change will ever happen. Wording changes/clarifications are out best bet, rules changes are not.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Dark Severance wrote:The dynamic of the model doesn't matter since Infinity uses a template model (cylinder, which was already discussed and determined won't be happening) to dispute anything with a dynamic model. The model itself for disputes doesn't matter at all.
My question stands: how does Infinity suggest players resolve disputes over which cover diagram applies to a given situation in a game?
78043
Post by: Mike1975
When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). If the line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the mecha has LOS to the target. If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, the player activating the squadron rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
like this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
owner of the squadron? Trying to figure out best wording on that....
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Mike1975: Upon reflection, I agree with Rigeld2 that there should be no mention of a dispute resolution mechanic at all, at least not right next to the LOS rule. BUT since that is what we already have, I would argue the best mechanic/wording is: If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).
The rest of the LOS rule language we worked out earlier is: When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from any part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to any part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). The acting mecha has LOS to its target if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.
Although, after all this theoretical discussion about volumes, I am more convinced than ever that the published rule ("center of torso") is fine the way it is.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Manchu wrote:BUT since that is what we already have, I would argue the best mechanic/wording is: If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).
If we're changing the wording anyway, why not just remove it entirely?
78043
Post by: Mike1975
When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). The acting mecha has LOS to its target if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@rigeld2:
Given it is a FAQ, won't readers assume text not changed remains the same? So you would have to proactively write: disregard the part about disputes over LOS. Which would be dumb because it's already been explicitly pointed out in the published rulebook that this is an area where disputes could arise.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Ok, so we'll just take it out. That way people don't think they can say "no it isn't" at a tournament and have a 50/50 chance to taking advantage of the situation.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
The official rules read like this
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Option A
When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). The acting mecha has LOS to its target if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.
Option B
When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). The acting mecha has LOS to its target if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha. If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, the player activating the squadron rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.
1
16387
Post by: Manchu
Mike1975 wrote:If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, the acting player rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.
Mike1975 wrote:If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, the player activating the squadron rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.
Who rolls the die is not really that important compared to who gets to determine if the die is rolled. But what you get at that point is LOS as permitted by the defender, which is no better (and arguably much worse). Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh okay -- definitely do not include the dispute resolution thing IN ANY FORMAT. I thought it was already in there.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
Yeah, just to clarify, it was something we added along the way
16387
Post by: Manchu
So this is the published LOS rule split into its two sentences: When you wish to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the center of the acting mecha's torso (or hull for non-humanoid game pieces) to the center of the target mecha's torso (or hull).
If the line isn't completely blocked by another mecha, terrain, or anything else, then the acting mecha has LOS to the target.
I really do not have any issues with the first sentence. The second sentence definitely needs FAQ as it is incorrect according to other rules. It should be: The acting mecha has LOS to its target if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.
86322
Post by: Dark Severance
Mike1975 wrote:Problem is silhouette templates take time to take the mini away and check the height etc. In Robotech you have a lot of variation in unit heights and I doubt that big of a change will ever happen. Wording changes/clarifications are out best bet, rules changes are not.
It doesn't take any time at all. The template is a flat template, you don't actually physically remove your figure to put a template and replace it. You simply place the template behind the character to determine LoS, cover is determined differently. In the case of Robotech and units, just make it double sided to match each unit type.
Manchu wrote:My question stands: how does Infinity suggest players resolve disputes over which cover diagram applies to a given situation in a game?
They don't use the cover diagram, that is only used for examples to explain the differences. I haven't been to a tournament outside of the store, but honestly there has never been a dispute over cover. In cases where it was questions, you use the template to determine if LoS is valid. Then we determine if there is cover. If LoS is valid, cover is determined by if the base of the model is in contact with the scenery. It is easier to show than explain, in case the video doesn't start in the right place (8m 23s) is where it should start.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
I dislike the center to center because of the picture I posted earlier. But meh. I'm done trying to fix their gak rule system more than likely.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
I'm on your side, I don't like the straight center to center but the body to body seems too much. Center from attacker to any part of the defender or vice versa?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
"center" is just bad. It's too up for argument, unless they publish default poses and centers.
6846
Post by: solkan
Manchu wrote: Dark Severance wrote:The dynamic of the model doesn't matter since Infinity uses a template model (cylinder, which was already discussed and determined won't be happening) to dispute anything with a dynamic model. The model itself for disputes doesn't matter at all.
My question stands: how does Infinity suggest players resolve disputes over which cover diagram applies to a given situation in a game?
To be blunt, Infinity tends to be a matter of "When you're in the desert, all water is precious" as far as cover is concerned, but dispute resolution is the responsibility of the people involved.
Infinity really has two criteria for cover (unless you can't see the target at all):
1. The target has to be in base contact with it.
2. The cover has to non-trivial. (So a 1mm tall rock isn't going to give cover to a 28mm tall figure...) The arbitrary threshhold for 2nd edition is "at least a third of the targeted model".
plus a few specific exceptions where cover's just flat out granted (like prone models on rooftops...)
That first qualification tends to be strict enough to cause people to treat cover as a precious commodity, and bias terrain creation away from the ambiguous cases (none of the official partners are going to make a 1/3" tall barricade...). Or, at least gets people asking "Is that stair railing solid enough to grant cover to regular models?"
16387
Post by: Manchu
The trouble is "torso" is not that much better than "center of torso" or, put it another way, "center of torso" is not that much worse. I think this torso business, especially when you consider the term "hull" for nonhumanoid models, is trying to get at "center-of-volume." Did anyone here really have the impression PB was ever committed to publishing rules geared to tournament play? That is not meant to be a rhetorical question. solkan wrote:The arbitrary threshhold for 2nd edition is "at least a third of the targeted model".
So it is basically the same situation as RoboTech. (Minus base contact, of course, which I dunno how I feel about for mecha.) solkan wrote:dispute resolution is the responsibility of the people involved
Again, same situation as RoboTech. Are there a lot of complaints about Infinity being too loose for tournament play?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Manchu wrote:Did anyone here really have the impression PB was ever committed to publishing rules geared to tournament play?
I was under the impression they wanted it to succeed. And that they said:
"Tournament play support is planned. Ninja Division will help Palladium to develop and launch the program."
http://www.palladiumbooks.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=651:prepare-for-invasion
16387
Post by: Manchu
Well, it does not seem too far off from Infinity given the above, at least in terms of cover. The again, as JudgeDoug mentioned: judgedoug wrote:That Infinity example is the exact problem I have with any "portion of a model" - whether it's "about a quarter" or "25%" or whatever - and immediately makes me never want to play Infinity, considering how dynamic their models are. It's the laziest of game design.
78043
Post by: Mike1975
They have plans for tournament play, just not finalized rules for them yet. Having a solid FAQ on what is wrong is a first step in that process. Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote:"center" is just bad. It's too up for argument, unless they publish default poses and centers.
I did suggest that. Automatically Appended Next Post: So.....center of attacker to any part of target? Gives you a cone and eliminates many of the flower or lamppost problems...
16387
Post by: Manchu
Mike1975 wrote:They have plans for tournament play, just not finalized rules for them yet. Having a solid FAQ on what is wrong is a first step in that process.
Well, so far we have at least one thing that is wrong and actually NEEDS an FAQ, the part about friendly models in the same squad not blocking LOS. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mike1975 wrote:So.....center of attacker to any part of target? Gives you a cone and eliminates many of the flower or lamppost problems...
Yeah good point, "center to any" does make sense from a purely FAQ perspective.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Manchu wrote: judgedoug wrote:The goal is to simplify something to speed up gameplay whose net results over X amount of games would produce the same results (the TLOS-AnythingIsCover theory)
I don't think speeding up gameplay is by itself necessarily a good thing. And I don't really get this notion about results averaging out over hundreds or thousands of games. That makes sense to me in terms of something like modified dice rolls but not in terms of whether models have cover.
We're way off the specific Robotech topic (other than my desire to just replace the LOS/cover system completely), but the main thrust of my argument is that if you are presented with multiple ways to design rules and, among the available options that all lead to the same end results (in this case, a LOS and cover system), to use the simplest, quickest, most argument-free system no matter how abstract it is (being we are playing an abstract game) so that you have a simpler, quicker, and argument-free game.
Manchu wrote: judgedoug wrote:25% and "about a quarter" are - while slightly different - both being oddly specific in the sense of a rules abstraction.
Still no. "One quarter" is one of the most common abstractions in our culture, from time to money and everything in between.
Yet you will have complaints over what construes "one quarter" when presented with situations such as tree branches, angled poles, mesh or grid work, etc. If we had an app on our phones that you could take a pic of the model from the direction of LOS and the program recognizes the silhouette of the model and calculates the percentage that is visible... but that is slow and cumbersome, so we must use our eyes and judgment... but how does one apply "one quarter" when the target is covered by some diagonal poles (like a // ) or industrial construction gridwork (like a # )? A battloid standing behind a door in a Zentraedi ship that has some bullet holes riddled in it and a vision slit at the top? Even in casual games when it comes down to killing a model on an objective or a game winning shot, it can be pretty annoying. Think about a Cyclops flying along - and it's long leg vane things are covered, is that about a quarter? Certainly more than a quarter of the rectangle outlining it's silhouette but certainly not more than a quarter of the area of only the silhouette, etc.
Manchu wrote: judgedoug wrote:when something is happening a majority of the time it should be part of the rules and not an exception
Totally agreed. The hypothetical argument is that the assumed military training is accounted for by the bonus mechanic rather than the mechanic that determines whether the model qualifies for the bonus. The corresponding "exception" rule would be something like "Minmei does not receive a cover bonus even if she is obscured from the attacker's FOV by one quarter or more."
The idea here being is that the system should be written in such a way that it is incorporated into the rules (in this instance, cover is always assumed) and a bonus to-hit given for not having the cover, as opposed to assuming no cover and a bonus to-not-be-hit added in. Short version: If a bonus is going to occur >50% of the time, it should be standard and not an exception.
But we're pretty much way off Robotech and I'd like to discuss this more outside of the thread as a lot of the concepts were used in SST and adapted for my ruleset.
|
|
