Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Forar wrote:
If there's a point limit agreed upon, the other suggestions are superfluous; one simply cannot take 4 support cards of anything (far as I know) with only 50 points, so it doesn't need saying.

That I would also disagree with. Palladium had a split mechanic for army building that was (apparently accidentally) made for two broad game types (skimish and full wargame). In the full wargame, you agree on the pts total and take core plus support cards. In skirmish, you agree on the pts total and take support cards. I'm obviously basing this on the May previews and it may have changed. Not saying what cards should or shouldn't be taken brings us back to the same problem you brought up with Mike's explanation. Have you seen each and every support card? How do you know that one isn't so broken as to be both spammable, cheap, and overly effective? Ideally, something like that would be caught before publishing but a cursory view of any gaming thread would show that units that are markedly better than others for the same points. A general catch all rule about the cards mitigates that with one sentance. The key then would be to make sure that the support cards adequetly cover the minis. Excluding VF-1J from skirmish games (the most likely type of games a core box owner would play) is bad as it's only one of 3 variants allowed with that set.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:
But a guideline is probably a good idea to keep new players on the same page, if nothing else.

A guideline on that is fine for me as well. I just wanted to make sure to communicate to Mike that a firm discrete pts value to be agreed upon by the players prior to the game is the rule we were advocating adding.

Skirmish was never a primary concern with this game. A skirmish game is a 10 minute game. I think Skirmish was added to fill in a gap that players asked to be filled. Most games will start at around 100 - 150 points. Knowing that skirmish was not a primary concern the VF-1J conundrum does not surprise me at all. I've played a few smaller games and quite frankly it never came to my mind either. I doubt playtesters were out there focused on skirmish sized games except for the preset ones for Demos at cons where a player would sit and the person running the demo would ask what side the other player would like to try out.

Keep in mind how few people have even wanted to look at the rules that I made because they are waiting on the official rules. Not many have delved into the rules for themselves or even glanced at the pre-released rules that were shared during the KS.

I think that in some ways it's out own fault because of the Robotech Orgy we have not allowed our curiosity to work as much as it might otherwise. If this was not Robotech, something like AVP then the rules would have been reviewed a lot more than they have by the fans. I'm just glad you guys are willing to raise these questions so we can see if they are already fixed or to have them fixed before the game is ready to ship.


You mentioned LOS concerns. What are those again. I know we've talked about it before.

I was specifically referring to the "1 support, 1 special, 1 of each, 2 supports" list that Mike gave us that in part started this all.

As far as I know the core game doesn't have any upper limit on cards taken, just a lower limit/minimum (1 per 150 points).

If there is a unit that is 'spammable' and overpowered for its points cost at low levels, that's probably only going to be exacerbated at higher levels, so I was ignoring it. If that's a major issue and the skirmish game is broken by it, we have bigger problems on hand than simply determining how many cards people can field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike1975 wrote:
Skirmish was never a primary concern with this game. A skirmish game is a 10 minute game. I think Skirmish was added to fill in a gap that players asked to be filled. Most games will start at around 100 - 150 points. Knowing that skirmish was not a primary concern the VF-1J conundrum does not surprise me at all. I've played a few smaller games and quite frankly it never came to my mind either. I doubt playtesters were out there focused on skirmish sized games except for the preset ones for Demos at cons where a player would sit and the person running the demo would ask what side the other player would like to try out.

However, having tight skirmish rules is incredibly important. If demos (and presumably many demos will be skirmishes) are the first contact many players have with the game in person, that's the biggest first impression they can make. Things like tight force balancing become huge if you want to convince people to throw down hundreds and thousands of dollars on models.

It may not be the primary way the game is played, but as the ambassador of the product line and rules set, it needs to be as well written and clear as can be.

Keep in mind how few people have even wanted to look at the rules that I made because they are waiting on the official rules. Not many have delved into the rules for themselves or even glanced at the pre-released rules that were shared during the KS.

I don't think it's surprising that few people have read your rules. Good as they may be, a labor of love as they might have been for you, people want to see what the professional game designers that they paid 1.4m'ish have come up with in the last year and a half. I disagree that few looked at the rules snapshot we got during the campaign, however. That was a hot topic on every forum I perused about the game, and requests for new rules in the KS comments often reference it directly.

I think that in some ways it's out own fault because of the Robotech Orgy we have not allowed our curiosity to work as much as it might otherwise. If this was not Robotech, something like AVP then the rules would have been reviewed a lot more than they have by the fans. I'm just glad you guys are willing to raise these questions so we can see if they are already fixed or to have them fixed before the game is ready to ship.

You mentioned LOS concerns. What are those again. I know we've talked about it before.

Honestly, I think a big part of it is the utter contempt their major product line has for the concept of balance. Rifts is flat out designed so you can have a badass in a 20 foot tall giant robot, a hatchling dragon, someone who can rend the very fabric of space and time, and Jimmy, a guy with a 9mm pistol and a gut full of Irish Rose in a party, and that's just how it is. It is expected that the GM and other players will agree to whatever stipulations are present for the game to play smoothly, that the GM will make calls on what is or isn't permitted, on what gear, classes, OCCs, RCCs, PCCs, magic spells, super powers, and whatnot the players can select.

And that's fine for a table top RPG.

But for a miniatures game, an emphasis on balance is critical. Doubly so if they want to have a tournament scene, which they've claimed that they do.

So when there's even a hint of handwaving and "don't worry, the players will figure it out', it's not surprising that some people who are familiar with their other lines and have heard similar expressions begin looking at each other in a somewhat concerned fashion.

 Forar wrote:
I was specifically referring to the "1 support, 1 special, 1 of each, 2 supports" list that Mike gave us that in part started this all.

As far as I know the core game doesn't have any upper limit on cards taken, just a lower limit/minimum (1 per 150 points).

If there is a unit that is 'spammable' and overpowered for its points cost at low levels, that's probably only going to be exacerbated at higher levels, so I was ignoring it. If that's a major issue and the skirmish game is broken by it, we have bigger problems on hand than simply determining how many cards people can field.

And that is where things took off. The rules say use one or two support cards or use a special instead of a support card and so I said basically that means you have 3 options and things took off from there and the misunderstanding grew at that point. No big deal. We are past that.

Now as far as point costs on any individual unit, I spent a few hours a day and got some grief from the wife but I made a spreadsheet that calculated out the cost of ANY unit you could imagine. This was based off of the costs that were shown from the force orgs charts. There were only 3 things that showed some discrepancy. All 3 of those I have emailed and spoke to PB via Skype and and they have my spreadsheet and are looking it over. All the other units are pretty much spot on. I did make a blank one that you can fill out yourself.

I have the feeling that it's like a game of Battletech or 40K where you have a unit that just gets damned lucky ALL the time. So you value this unit way above it's point cost. Does that means it's worth more points. Normally, no, you just know how to use that figure really well.

Mike1975 wrote:
Skirmish was never a primary concern with this game. A skirmish game is a 10 minute game. I think Skirmish was added to fill in a gap that players asked to be filled. Most games will start at around 100 - 150 points. Knowing that skirmish was not a primary concern the VF-1J conundrum does not surprise me at all. I've played a few smaller games and quite frankly it never came to my mind either. I doubt playtesters were out there focused on skirmish sized games except for the preset ones for Demos at cons where a player would sit and the person running the demo would ask what side the other player would like to try out.

Keep in mind how few people have even wanted to look at the rules that I made because they are waiting on the official rules. Not many have delved into the rules for themselves or even glanced at the pre-released rules that were shared during the KS.

I think that in some ways it's out own fault because of the Robotech Orgy we have not allowed our curiosity to work as much as it might otherwise. If this was not Robotech, something like AVP then the rules would have been reviewed a lot more than they have by the fans. I'm just glad you guys are willing to raise these questions so we can see if they are already fixed or to have them fixed before the game is ready to ship.

I suspect it'll be a concern for the thousands of people at battlecry and those who at retail start Robotech with the starter (pun intended). For instance, most of the freebies at battle cry are NOT independent units and the more specialized figs MUST be added to core squadrons as a big frankenstein mess of a squad. My FPAs and MPAs and Gnerls need to be added to something else (IIRC a battlepod squad) to make a legal squad as I only have a "support card" worth of them with the most common pledge. My ghosts, lancers, and other UEDF upgrades need to be added to a valk squadron as well. If the skirmish game is properly done, I can field them as an individual unit (support card) instead giving me a taste of the larger game with my collection. It impressed me that they did this during the kickstarter (minus the glaring ommision of ever using a VF-1J as no support card exists) as an elegant solution both to the rules mechanics as well as matching the show itself by allowing you to make Vermillion squadron possibly (2x VF-1A support card, 1x VF-1J support card if it were added). Or late show Max and Miriya as a squad (2x VF-1J cards, one red and one blue). This style also simplifies things for the occasional RPG player/GM trying to play out their combat since those tend to use smaller amounts of enemies and smaller "player" units of even just 1 model. Skirmish is also the most likely and varied type for a person who buys the starter to use once it hits retail until they expand their collection as well as the tailor made for demos. The existence of a fully formed skirmish mode that they hinted on during the KS has alot of practical applications.

Mike1975 wrote:

You mentioned LOS concerns. What are those again. I know we've talked about it before.

The preview rules videos had a nebulously defined "center" of the model that was used exclusively to determine LOS. If, in their example, the "eye" of a battlepod was covered then it was out of LOS despite fully a 1/3 of the model being visible above the eye. This "center" was also not properly defined as the "eye" is insufficient and they'd have to specify the "center" of each and every model on both sagittal and coronal planes. That is unnecessarily complex and loose at the same time if left as is (where is the "eye" of a battlepod from the side? do you go by the eye jutting out on the front of the model or extend it backwards horizontally? where is the eye on the back?). TLOS is the only relatively simple option left... if you don't see a model, you don't see the model. A third option is to use an abstracted LOS system but in my experience that works better for "board game" style games like deadzone rather than full minis measure in inches games. Heavy Gear has used something like that for the past decade and it's been one of the most common complaints (and is being abandoned).

Which is great. Attending to things that are problematic or lead to a "NPE" (Negative Play Experience) is good.

Unfortunately there are a bunch of things that aren't obvious on paper, that need to be played out repeatedly to identify. Plenty of games have 'gone live' only to have things found months or years later to be completely overpowered, or unbalanced, even if 'by the numbers' it's all supposed to be good.

Sometimes it's under certain conditions. Sometimes it's in conjunction with another recent release. Sometimes it just takes players manipulating the rules a little in a way that doesn't break them, but bends them just enough to see some cracking points.

And these things will be found. Nothing is perfect, everything has to eventually be kicked out the door to sink or swim on its own.

But when a handful of us can identify potential show stoppers at a glance, it worries me a little as to what else might be lurking in there. As with horror movies, leaving things to the imagination is often more terrifying than simply showing, and even with recognition that it's probably not as bad as our greatest fears made manifest, that still leaves a huge range of 'pretty fraking bad' to cover.

It's good things are potentially being caught. It's less encouraging that some of these things should've been noticed by one of those hundreds of playtesters. Or worse, they were caught but either weren't fixed or weren't deemed to be worth glancing at until you brought it up again.

How many other things have slipped through the cracks like that thus far?

You having outdated info is a double edged sword. Sure, it means that even things we find issue with could be fixed in a more recent revision. But if they're not...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And while it wouldn't surprise me to have errata and a FAQ very early on, supposedly they're going to start shipping sometime in the next 2.5 to 4.5 months (early May to late June).

If there are things that need fixing, they are rapidly running out of time to fix them in a measured, even fashion.

In Malifaux there were units that were changed at the last minute before the books went to print.

Surprising nobody (in hindsight), some players eventually found ways to break the game with them, necessitating card revisions and errata.

Mike1975 wrote:
I spent a few hours a day and got some grief from the wife but I made a spreadsheet that calculated out the cost of ANY unit you could imagine.

Just tell her the ol' Fokker line about robotech getting into your blood and charm her into making you some pineapple salad. You are in Texas though so be careful you don't end up on the floor with a gunshot wound in your back like Roy so ask nicely!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:


It's good things are potentially being caught. It's less encouraging that some of these things should've been noticed by one of those hundreds of playtesters. Or worse, they were caught but either weren't fixed or weren't deemed to be worth glancing at until you brought it up again.

This assumes that Mike's bringing it up as a potential issue is the magic panacea that actually gets it changed. As I mentioned to Mike, I brought up my issues through the appropriate public and private official channels multiple times with no response despite trying at the time to be constructive towards the project.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:

In Malifaux there were units that were changed at the last minute before the books went to print.

Did they publish the rules to be reviewed by the public in a beta?

That was referencing the first release, which I got into years after it was completed (they were up to 2 expansion books and version 1.5 already).

For their recent change to version 2.0, they had closed betas to sort the broad/general stuff out, and then indeed released the entire rules set along with character cards in an open beta, along with roughly weekly updated versions to reflect changes that had been made through internal playtesting and player reports.

They also (at least throughout 1.5's era) have had the base game rules (minus the diagrams and fluff) available for free to download as long as I've played (2 years).

Obviously not every company does this, but unless they're still undergoing major revisions, a condensed summary to start bringing the playerbase up to speed would probably be a good idea. The sooner people can begin familiarizing themselves with the rules, and feel comfortable with the mechanics of play, the more likely it'll be that we'll see more games cropping up early into the delivery schedule, which becomes free advertising (both in terms of games seen in stores, shared between friends or reported about online) for when they start selling at Gencon and retail.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I ran into a guy from Ninja Division over the Templecon Weekend. I gave him some flak for the Robotech thing (basically I jokingly said, "Hey, when am I getting my Robotech stuff?" and he got upset).

This. This right here. This sums up exactly the problem with both of these companies. Handy with platitudes when explaining away their problems in a faceless email. But someone approaches you in a public forum, where you are representing the company who is totally and completely responsible for the game not being on time, and you get upset? Put your game face on, spout some platitudes, or how about you manage to be contrite and show some integrity by letting the truth dribble out of your piehole?

It seems completely self-entitled for either of these companies to not understand why all those people that gave them money would want to know what the hold up is, when it's going to arrive. But to get angry about it? Wow, totally classless. That just moved Soda Pop down another rung...

To be fair, I'd want to see a video of the incident, or at least a far more detailed reporting of what happened before I condemned them about it. Define "got upset". Sad that they didn't have answers? Angry that they were being challenged about it? Was it the boss who should have had the boilerplate response memorized, or the newest, lowest guy on the rungs of the ladder who is tired of being ambushed about stuff that began a year before he even joined? Etc, etc, etc.

Not to call out Chaos here, I'm sure they're a fine chap, but there just isn't enough to go on to really make a call, let alone take it as evidence that ND should be lower in my esteem (not that they're highly placed to begin with, but that's in part due to being caught in the blast radius of my ire at PB and HG at the moment.

Just playing Devil's advocate here. It's mini-tales like these that get blown out of proportion and become 'things' that need addressing seemingly forever.

Agreed. I don't doubt the story we were told but the story is only a few words long and easily read in completely different ways. Even if ND is completely responsible for the delays, it is still easily probable that they are frustrated by their own delays. Plenty of tardy people get miffed at the results of their tardiness.

Deleted, 2x Post

 Forar wrote:
To be fair, I'd want to see a video of the incident, or at least a far more detailed reporting of what happened before I condemned them about it. Define "got upset". Sad that they didn't have answers? Angry that they were being challenged about it? Was it the boss who should have had the boilerplate response memorized, or the newest, lowest guy on the rungs of the ladder who is tired of being ambushed about stuff that began a year before he even joined? Etc, etc, etc.

Not to call out Chaos here, I'm sure they're a fine chap, but there just isn't enough to go on to really make a call, let alone take it as evidence that ND should be lower in my esteem (not that they're highly placed to begin with, but that's in part due to being caught in the blast radius of my ire at PB and HG at the moment.

Just playing Devil's advocate here. It's mini-tales like these that get blown out of proportion and become 'things' that need addressing seemingly forever.

Forar, you and Warboss could be right. It was a very short, off the cuff remark. However, it played out in my mind that Chaos bumped into this guy on the floor, said "When's my stuff showing up bro?", and the ND guy rolling his eyes and walking off.

Instead of being upbeat, smiling, saying "Yeah, we were totally surprised at how hard digitally sculpting all the mecha were in CAD. Getting all the little details looking really sharp set us pretty far back, but we're really happy with the sculpts, and can't wait to get them in your hands. They should start cutting the first mold 2 March, and the process will be rolling after that! I hope you''ll tell us how much you love the game once you get it in your hands!"

So, any engagement that carries any negativity just moves them further down in my estimation. And I am not trying to influence anyone elses feelings for ND with this, just sad that they're not putting on a good attitude, since they're the ones (PB and ND both) that are responsible for where this KS is.

The preview rules videos had a nebulously defined "center" of the model that was used exclusively to determine LOS. If, in their example, the "eye" of a battlepod was covered then it was out of LOS despite fully a 1/3 of the model being visible above the eye. This "center" was also not properly defined as the "eye" is insufficient and they'd have to specify the "center" of each and every model on both sagittal and coronal planes. That is unnecessarily complex and loose at the same time if left as is (where is the "eye" of a battlepod from the side? do you go by the eye jutting out on the front of the model or extend it backwards horizontally? where is the eye on the back?). TLOS is the only relatively simple option left... if you don't see a model, you don't see the model. A third option is to use an abstracted LOS system but in my experience that works better for "board game" style games like deadzone rather than full minis measure in inches games. Heavy Gear has used something like that for the past decade and it's been one of the most common complaints (and is being abandoned).

1. Measuring Distance, is centerline from base edge to base edge.

2. LOS is still Center of Torso to Center of Torso. Not to center of sensor eye which is just stupid. If this line from center to center is not completely blocked you have LOS. This was one of the first things I mentioned to Kevin. If I can see a unit I should get a chance to shoot it even if I can only hit an arm. BUT since all damage for a mecha is based off of Main Body damage it makes sense to assume that you might still shoot, you might even still hit, but unless you can hit the torso the damage is not significant. I did mention that they would need something showing the centerpoints on each unit in order to avoid rules lawyering.

This is something I am raising some discussion on with PB guys who helped write and test the rules.

Mike1975 wrote:

1. Measuring Distance, is centerline from base edge to base edge.

2. LOS is still Center of Torso to Center of Torso. Not to center of sensor eye which is just stupid. If this line from center to center is not completely blocked you have LOS. This was one of the first things I mentioned to Kevin. If I can see a unit I should get a chance to shoot it even if I can only hit an arm. BUT since all damage for a mecha is based off of Main Body damage it makes sense to assume that you might still shoot, you might even still hit, but unless you can hit the torso the damage is not significant. I did mention that they would need something showing the centerpoints on each unit in order to avoid rules lawyering.

This is something I am raising some discussion on with PB guys who helped write and test the rules.

I'd highly suggest if they're going with "torso" based LOS that they drop the "center" idea completely and just base LOS off of the torso. The center is still as nebulous as the "battle pod eye" and would need to be defined for every model as players determine the center differently (where is the center of an FPA? Do you count the engines as the torso or are they separate?). To properly enact a "center" based LOS they'd still need to show each model in two planes instead of just leaving it up to players to argue about. In the end, the "center" of a battlepod's torso being obstructed but still having almost half the torso sticking out over the cover but invisible is a bad idea IMO. YMMV but a true LOS system works a heck of alot better in preventing arguments as long as you define the torso for both humanoid and nonhumanoid models (wings, tails, limbs, weapons, antenna, and heads not included for instance).

While true line of sight would come from the sensors there is a point to having it based on the body position. The human mechs generally aren't shooting from eye level, they are often using weapons that are torso mounted or at elbow height. In the show veritechs are sometimes shooting from the hip or the shoulder (sometimes crouching) Zentraedi are firing lasers that are above head height so unless you want to work up separate line of sight and firing rules for every mech it's going to require a simplified rules set.

Personally I prefer rules that support streamlined play, true LOS rules are always a pain as you end up having a fraction of a weapon, antennae, or banner poking out of full cover and some anal type always wants to claim it's a valid target. People always tend to gloss over the idea that tabletop gaming not matter what system is still just a rough approximation to represent action and movement, nothing you can do is truly going to be exact. Much less in a game of mechs as if you want to be "realistic" mechs will never exist to begin with.

It is a slippery slope unless a hard rule is made.

Sure you could see the target with your "sensor" but is your weapon as well in a position to fire? (Paulson already beat me to this line of thinking).

A gun held middle to body or a "roof rack" missile launcher could have all kinds of arguments. I do not even want to get into "Apache Longbow D" peek and shoot type methods.

Center body mass (center of widest part of upper body) is a little better defined but it would be irritating to have a picture of each model with a "line of sight from here" specified.

Anyone who feels that an antenna is a valid target can then discuss the inherent difference in center body mass vs a flimsy 1/100th the width antenna and the inconvenience caused getting that sheared off... I really hate those moments.

I am used to 40k, from the eye(s)/sensor seems good enough to me, at least you do not have to argue over vague wording and I am sure with all the gymnastics we saw in the shows they would be able to get the appropriate guns to bear.

I only wish this would be the worst part of the rules...

I prefer Center of Body to Center of Body from some others. I've see LOS rules where if you can see 3/4 or 1/2 the mini then you can fire but you have negative to-hit modifiers if you do so. Since we are targeting the center of a unit and using the main body's MDC then these rules are fine. Otherwise you have people wanting to make rules for snap firing from cover and a bunch of other things. This is the KISS method for LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think on the next AAR I will put emphasis on the terrain rules and share a bit of them with you all. Maybe even some of the weather conditions and other stuff rules.

The quickest and simplest route seems to be "can the two mechs see each other (by drawing a line from base to base)? If so, they can shoot at each other. The one 'in cover' gains a bonus to its defense (or the shooter takes a penalty to attack, but it's probably easiest if we stick to escalating bonuses unless it proves unwieldy or hard to account for all the different possibilities present).

There'll always be 'fractions of a millimeter' arguments (especially if prizes are on the line), but making LOS too complicated stands in direct opposition of making this game fast. Being too focused on the exact positioning of each mech in relation to each other mech in terms of gaining the most advantages/avoiding the most disadvantages when trying to move dozens of battlepods would add up swiftly.

That isn't to say that it's impossible to find an elegant solution that better encapsulates the goals of being fun, fast to play and sensible to most players, I just hope they managed to find that balance a bit better than the rules glance we got during the campaign, in which I'm with Warboss; arguing the 1/3 line or the 'center of target to center of target' risks running amiss of people who Model For Advantage (with the common response being "well don't play against those guys/gals", to which the counter point is "potential for competitive play; choosing not to play against them may not be an option).

Yes, even a simple "base to base" LOS system can have snags (intervening obstacles, etc), but what we got a glimpse of didn't exactly inspire confidence. Those too can be solved, which can heighten the complexity/potential for confusion, but there has to be a figurative (and/or literal) line drawn somewhere.

 paulson games wrote:
While true line of sight would come from the sensors there is a point to having it based on the body position. The human mechs generally aren't shooting from eye level, they are often using weapons that are torso mounted or at elbow height. In the show veritechs are sometimes shooting from the hip or the shoulder (sometimes crouching) Zentraedi are firing lasers that are above head height so unless you want to work up separate line of sight and firing rules for every mech it's going to require a simplified rules set.

Personally I prefer rules that support streamlined play, true LOS rules are always a pain as you end up having a fraction of a weapon, antennae, or banner poking out of full cover and some anal type always wants to claim it's a valid target. People always tend to gloss over the idea that tabletop gaming not matter what system is still just a rough approximation to represent action and movement, nothing you can do is truly going to be exact. Much less in a game of mechs as if you want to be "realistic" mechs will never exist to begin with.

So you'd prefer to have shots like this completely disallowed rather than have a rule dealing with a GU-11 gunpod sticking out around a corner? I'd much rather have a TLOS "torso" rule with exclusions personally instead of seeing so much of a model but not having a shot. (see pic below where "centers" are obstructed meaning no shot allowed)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike1975 wrote:
I orefer Center of Body to Center of Body from some others. I've see LOS rules where if you can see 3/4 or 1/2 the mini then you can fire but you have negative to-hit modifiers if you do so. Since we are targeting the center of a unit and using the main body's MDC then these rules are fine. Otherwise you have people wanting to make rules for snap firing from cover and a bunch of other things. This is the KISS method for LOS.

I don't know how KiSS it is if they don't define the center for each and every model but instead leave it up to interpreation. For me at least, that's making more trouble than just using TLOS with exceptions (weapons, antenna, etc).

well you could also argue that the sensors on the VF are in the head so that you could peak over an obstruction with the head and whip the rifle around the corner of a building and still fire leaving just the head and GU-11 arm exposed. No, I think the KISS approach works better.

My own write up had partial cover if over 25% of the unit was hidden and heavy cover if 50-75% was hidden and cannot be shot at if over 75% was hidden. Then you get people bitching about what is 25% or 75% and so forth.

Mike1975 wrote:
well you could also argue that the sensors on the VF are in the head so that you could peak over an obstruction with the head and whip the rifle around the corner of a building and still fire leaving just the head and GU-11 arm exposed. No, I think the KISS approach works better.

I agree with the last part but the issue is that we don't agree on what is actually simpler. For me, simple is looking from TLOS and seeing if the "torso" is at all exposed per a two line definition... not trying to calculate a % exposed or finding a nebulous center that palladium likely won't properly define for most models to see if a shot is allowed at all.

Then in reality it comes down to letting people decide what is center, drawing them pictures as to what is the center, or whatever two line definition you come up with. See if you can define or write up that 2 line definition.

"The torso or main body (for non-humanoid models) does not include any limbs, appendages, weapons, antenna/sensors, wings, tails, or heads."

Compare that with 2 views of the veritech in EACH mode, 2 views of the battlepod (and we'll assume all regult variants are under 1 pic), 2 views of the glaug, 2 views of the FPA and MPA each, two views of the lancer, ghost, and gnerl each, two views of EACH destroid...etc to find out what the "center" model is without leaving it up in the air. One takes a few words to define whereas the other will take pages to properly define (but will likely only be given 2-3 small pictures in one view instead given the source). The worst case would be letting people decide what is the center for each and every model as that is highly subjective and abuable.

I mentioned to them that next to each unit's descriptions that they should place a small front and side view picture in silhouette that showed a point that was to be considered the center.

Forget 'centers'. That's unplayable nonsense.

Just use cylinder of base board presence.

also, '25 percent coverage' sort of cover/los systems are horrible and became outdated the instant the clocks rolled over to the 2000s. That's too finicky to determine with any accuracy.

real game does not use the 25% stuff, that was some early quick and dirty stuff that I wrote in my rules.

Now I honestly have no idea what this cylinder idea of yours is. Center of base of the mini or what?

 Killionaire wrote:
Forget 'centers'. That's unplayable nonsense.

Agreed. The idea that the two units below both peeking out over opposite ends of the same building wouldn't be able to get a shot of is both silly and needlessly complex just because one point on their torso is covered. I can't show opposed views correctly in one LOS picture but the "centers" of both models are covered and they're both over 50% in cover; if those are the restrictions and that is the "models' view" then this shot isn't allowed and both models are invisible to the other.

Mike, do the cover rules specify a minimum amount of cover necessary like 50% or is it ONLY the center that needs to be covered to be out of LOS? This is quite important to the discussion as well.

Something intuitive and straightforward is very important with such things.

I've learned a lot things over the years, and among them are that "on average, people are very bad at math" and "on average, people are very bad judges of, well, everything".

Yes, obviously we can't hand hold everyone through everything from how to put their pants on in the morning (if applicable), but the robustness and in-setting 'realism' of a system can't outweigh the needs to be applicable to a fairly diverse playerbase, many of whom will have very different ideas of what constitutes, for example, "above/below 50%".

I say 49, you say 51, but on a game table it's not like most players have either the time or equipment to accurately determine the exact number, and even if they can, it'd likely take far too long to justify including in "a fast paced system". That kind of simulationism just bogs things down.

Here's a work in progress of Max. Hence why it looks cartoonish. Yes I know what I just said.

http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/a457/cypherxv/c0c1576550607f0a307fa3dbea1427ad_zps5c06f8b9.jpg