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.
2014/04/16 00:41:30
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Let's look at "Mikes Kind of RRT Rules .27" while he works on .31 (apparently 28, 29, 30 and 31 include transcription right from the rules packet).
- A personal preference; the use of "mecha" in the singular kind of drives me batty. But that's my own thing, and I'm seeking professional help to deal with it. "Those mecha" versus "that mech". "That mecha" just doesn't seem right to me. The line to mock me for this level of pedantry starts to the left.
- Similar semantics: "Mega Damage Capacity" is, in Palladium Speak, a defensive quality. It's how much punishment something can take. Inflicting damage is simply "Mega Damage", which a glance at their cards indicate that it seems to be used in this fashion as well.
- Page 6; your rounding math is still off. " Sometime you will be required to roll a D3. In that case roll a single D6 and then divide the result by 2 and round down." This means a 3 is now a 1. That's not accurately reflecting a d3. Like Palladium, this error has persisted across several editions. ;-)
- "Rounding
Whenever a player needs to round off a number, the result should be rounded up to the nearest whole number unless specified otherwise. Rolling with impact damage is rounded down." Well, we agree here. You still need to fix your description of a d3. Also, when the hell does the game us a d3?
- "Sometimes this may be obvious that a unit has LOD to another unit, while other times you may need to get in close and try to get the “unit’s eye view” so that the player can determine if there is anything in the way."
"Units eye view."
*sigh*
"Often a piece of string, a laser pointer, or even a digital camera can be useful in determining true LOS."
Yeah, man, when I think "fast paced", I think about pulling out my iphone and trying to get an accurate picture of where my figure is standing.
"Note that friendly units do not block LOS."
Whelp, that's going to make life difficult, because pulling figures out of place just to get my phone in there and 'see what the guy in front of him can see' is neither quick nor intuitive gameplay.
- Facing, Page 7: " Marking the unit’s base will help indicate the unit’s front and rear arcs. If there is no marking than drawing a lateral line of the unit’s shoulders, or a similar dividing line if the unit has no shoulders."
Buh? RRT will be using bases with the facing marked. Even hinting that it's totally cool to just 'make it up' with 'go by the shoulders' is asking for trouble.
Even better; figures like the Battlepod, which don't actually have shoulders.
Also, using the base means not having to worry about perfectly positioning the figure when building it, as the base itself has the important information. What you're doing here is allowing what is called "Modeling for Advantage". Note: this will also come up with "true line of sight". "Why yes, all of my Battloids are curled up in tight shoulder rolls and kneeling to take aim, why do you ask?"
Page 10: Stealing activations. I called this a terrible idea in .26, and .27 hasn't sweetened it.
Page 11: Movement. Doubling or tripling a units movement when many figures can already cross the board in 2 turns or less seems... unnecessary. Also, immersion breaking, when someones Destroid sprints across the board at the same rate as a VT because a good pilot got a lucky roll.
There's nearly an entire page dedicated to this sprinting thing. It seems like it basically comes down to "feel like crossing the board? Spend a few command points and go for it!"
Page 13: water returns! No, I thought you said this crap was gone? Also, the definition of woods based on the separation of trees in inches remains. This is a needlessly fiddly way of doing things, and not something most people's tables will reflect. I'm not even veteran miniatures gamer and I know that many people use cloud-shaped pieces of felt for trees. It's a lot more straightforward to simply note the density (light, medium, heavy, dense, whatever) and an effect, than needing to measure out how many inches apart the trees are.
The movement chart is still here. I recall you saying it wouldn't be. It really needs to go. Really. This is not part of a 'fast paced game'. It's movement based bookkeeping.
Page 18: Suppressing fire seems like a mechanic that gives a sizable edge to the Zentraedi, particularly in swarms. Having a flat out +1 to strike rolls almost always (due to the innately higher unit count) seems awfully powerful.
Page 19: Cover. 50-75%. Oh god. This is going to be a mess in competitive play, and will probably end a few friendships as well.
Page 21: Combat: so first I roll to strike, and if that hits, the opponent can choose to try to dodge, and if that fails, they can try to roll with the impact. This seems like an awful lot of ifs to include in a Past Faced game.
Page 24: Special Scenario Rules: Hidden Units: how gaming groups stopped playing together, because _____ is a jerk. Also known as: "ranges and math, the scenario".
Page 26: Hand to hand attacks don't compare against Defense?? Target is a modified 5+ on a d6+piloting? O.o
Oh, then the defender rolls to parry. And then rolls with impact if they want to. So instead of a simple target number it's an opposed roll, for a less powerful attack.
Page 29: Firing into melee is a bad idea. Agreed! The outcome of doing so involves a chart! NOOOOOOOOO!
Aside: no more trawling deviant art for pinups for you, sir.
Page 41: Building a force, missing section on skirmishes. ;-)
Okay, made it all the way through. Honestly? I don't think I'd want to play this game. Combined with the expected for sizes, 300 points in an hour would be a pipe dream. Tables with any real density of terrain would be a nightmare. There seem to be some mechanics that just flat out reward one faction over the other (as it stands), and there are some design principles I'd probably adopt from Malifaux and X-Wing (not mechanics, just principles) among other systems to shore up some of those distinctions.
It's a noble effort, it's clearly a work of passion, but it's coming across as needlessly finicky rather than providing depth.
2014/04/16 07:51:48
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Forar wrote: Also, using the base means not having to worry about perfectly positioning the figure when building it, as the base itself has the important information. What you're doing here is allowing what is called "Modeling for Advantage". Note: this will also come up with "true line of sight". "Why yes, all of my Battloids are curled up in tight shoulder rolls and kneeling to take aim, why do you ask?"
Come on Forar. With everyone bitching that the models are over-complex, monopose lumps of plastic, how many people do YOU know that will spend the incredible amounts of time required to do this? From the comments on the models here and on the KS comments, anyone who spends the time to do that sort of major conversion to all the models in their possession, deserves the advantage in my opinion. (OK, just hacksawing them up and putting them on the bases does not count, they would have to be done decently.) Being realistic, I have not seen that many 'players' who have converted their 40K armies from basic standard poses - admittedly, SM come in a less monopose layout to begin with, but there are far and away more people who don't model everything kneeling than there are those that can be bothered to do that, and I expect there to be even fewer RTT players that will be bothered. It's not like "modelling for advantage" is only possible in RRT, it's been around for , well, as long as tabletop wargames have been around, I guess.
Leave that sort of work to the few modellers who got in on this KS, the sort of people who have no intention of playing a game, and are therefore being forced to wait for the sun to go nova, or as you would recognise the term, "Wave 2"
"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes…then all of this…all of this…was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars." Commander sinclair, Babylon 5.
Bobtheinquisitor wrote:what is going on with APAC shipping? If Macross Island were real, they'd be the last place to get any Robotechnology.
2014/04/16 11:41:14
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Oh, I'm sure it'd be a crazy amount of work, but I feel the point is valid; using the model in this way introduces a lot of issues, and doesn't solve any in particularly elegant ways.
The modelling for advantage may be much more difficult in this game (mouth watering 98% final as it is), but it puts too much emphasis on the literal model, rather than where the model is represented to be (the base).
The "you can shoot through allies" rule allows for this variability, and yet shooting enemies takes their exact as-seen position as an absolute? It's inconsistent at the very least, and needlessly complicated for large scale play unless ones table barely has any potential cover on it.
Can you imagine playing our 300 points on a drop zone commander board? Fiddly mech locations everywhere!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another fun thought; if we're doing "true line of sight" from the mech's perspective and cover is based off percentages... what happens if a unit tries to fire a weapon through cover. Like, a Tomahawk is positioned with its missile cluster behind the edge of a building while it peaks out to shoot at a pod, can it use that weapon? If so, isn't that ignoring the whole 'the exact positioning of the model is important' aspect? That seems to be inconsistently applied.
Hell, range is noted to be determined from the closest edge of the two figure's bases, shouldn't it be from the location of the weapon to the actual figure?
Treating the bases as pertinent info for one part of the rules and completely irrelevant for other sections is a significant inconsistency, and seems like it'd do more to slow things down and cause rules discussions (don't even need to be arguments, it's still wasted time).
Further thought; should that Tomahawk peaking around a building even get to do full damage? Since the left and right arms aren't noted as different weapons (far as I recall), presumably they're both needed to achieve that level of Mega Damage, so shouldn't firing with only one cause a penalty?
This simulationism/realism rabbit hole goes down pretty far, and whatever they might have said about their models, they have been very clear that this is intended to be a fast paced game. Fast paced games where you can play out 100'ish models on the table in 60 minutes can't have those kinds of snags be nearly as prevalent as they appear to be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/16 16:02:42
2014/04/16 16:06:07
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Forar wrote: Also, using the base means not having to worry about perfectly positioning the figure when building it, as the base itself has the important information. What you're doing here is allowing what is called "Modeling for Advantage". Note: this will also come up with "true line of sight". "Why yes, all of my Battloids are curled up in tight shoulder rolls and kneeling to take aim, why do you ask?"
Spoiler:
Come on Forar. With everyone bitching that the models are over-complex, monopose lumps of plastic, how many people do YOU know that will spend the incredible amounts of time required to do this? From the comments on the models here and on the KS comments, anyone who spends the time to do that sort of major conversion to all the models in their possession, deserves the advantage in my opinion. (OK, just hacksawing them up and putting them on the bases does not count, they would have to be done decently.) Being realistic, I have not seen that many 'players' who have converted their 40K armies from basic standard poses - admittedly, SM come in a less monopose layout to begin with, but there are far and away more people who don't model everything kneeling than there are those that can be bothered to do that, and I expect there to be even fewer RTT players that will be bothered.
It's not like "modelling for advantage" is only possible in RRT, it's been around for , well, as long as tabletop wargames have been around, I guess.
Leave that sort of work to the few modellers who got in on this KS, the sort of people who have no intention of playing a game, and are therefore being forced to wait for the sun to go nova, or as you would recognise the term, "Wave 2"
I can only comment that if you have truly played "competitive play" all is fair in turning the rules to advantage.
I have seen armies done specifically for advantage and it would be much better rules-wise to have the shape of the model mean as little as possible, so you can go more by how cool it looks rather than conforming to a rule-set.
Also, anyone doing a TON of work on something like rules should be open to well thought-out criticism and even better, examples of how to improve because it IS all about the love of getting it right. Heck, it is gratifying enough to have evidence someone carefully read your work.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2014/04/16 17:45:41
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
As it is, I think it looks dumb. But was probably going to put it on a few Destroids anyway.
If that adds to the mech's profile/silhouette, then I guess it's getting put on as low as possible, or even pointing down.
I shouldn't have to even think about that aspect when building these 'models' for gameplay. 100% agreed with the concept of using the bases as the noteworthy characteristic (if need be, give them a 'height value', aka the "Cylinder" approach others have mentioned in the past, similar to how Wyrd does things) and reduce the need for fiddly line of sight both ways all but entirely.
What's more worthwhile to the community; needlessly "get your camera in front of the mech to see what it sees" gameplay, or someone feeling free to model and base their figures however they wish to express creativity?
Even making it a consideration is something to consider, because it will have an impact at some point.
If my base is peaking around a corner so I can shoot while in cover, great. I'd prefer not to have to worry about whether putting my Battloids amidst city ruins base stuff puts it that centimeter too high to lose advantage from what cover we typically use.
Yes, it might not come up a lot, but when writing rules this far in advance, why not take the time to try to solve as many disputes and edge cases in advance as possible?
"Wow! Having all your Battloids on flight stands diving/jumping into position looks really cool. Too bad it means they don't get any cover at all on this table. Ever.": Not enhancing anyone's gameplay.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/16 17:46:55
2014/04/16 17:49:59
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Let's look at "Mikes Kind of RRT Rules .27" while he works on .31 (apparently 28, 29, 30 and 31 include transcription right from the rules packet).
- A personal preference; the use of "mecha" in the singular kind of drives me batty. But that's my own thing, and I'm seeking professional help to deal with it. "Those mecha" versus "that mech". "That mecha" just doesn't seem right to me. The line to mock me for this level of pedantry starts to the left.
--->I HATE THIS TOO AND HAVE CHANGED NEARLY EVERY REFERENCE TO MECHA TO UNITS IN THE RE-WRITE
- Similar semantics: "Mega Damage Capacity" is, in Palladium Speak, a defensive quality. It's how much punishment something can take. Inflicting damage is simply "Mega Damage", which a glance at their cards indicate that it seems to be used in this fashion as well.
- Page 6; your rounding math is still off. " Sometime you will be required to roll a D3. In that case roll a single D6 and then divide the result by 2 and round down." This means a 3 is now a 1. That's not accurately reflecting a d3. Like Palladium, this error has persisted across several editions. ;-)
--->FIXED
- "Rounding
Whenever a player needs to round off a number, the result should be rounded up to the nearest whole number unless specified otherwise. Rolling with impact damage is rounded down." Well, we agree here. You still need to fix your description of a d3. Also, when the hell does the game us a d3?
--->FIXED
- "Sometimes this may be obvious that a unit has LOD to another unit, while other times you may need to get in close and try to get the “unit’s eye view” so that the player can determine if there is anything in the way."
--->FIXED
"Units eye view."
*sigh*
"Often a piece of string, a laser pointer, or even a digital camera can be useful in determining true LOS."
Yeah, man, when I think "fast paced", I think about pulling out my iphone and trying to get an accurate picture of where my figure is standing.
"Note that friendly units do not block LOS."
Whelp, that's going to make life difficult, because pulling figures out of place just to get my phone in there and 'see what the guy in front of him can see' is neither quick nor intuitive gameplay.
---> I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED
- Facing, Page 7: " Marking the unit’s base will help indicate the unit’s front and rear arcs. If there is no marking than drawing a lateral line of the unit’s shoulders, or a similar dividing line if the unit has no shoulders."
Buh? RRT will be using bases with the facing marked. Even hinting that it's totally cool to just 'make it up' with 'go by the shoulders' is asking for trouble.
Even better; figures like the Battlepod, which don't actually have shoulders.
Also, using the base means not having to worry about perfectly positioning the figure when building it, as the base itself has the important information. What you're doing here is allowing what is called "Modeling for Advantage". Note: this will also come up with "true line of sight". "Why yes, all of my Battloids are curled up in tight shoulder rolls and kneeling to take aim, why do you ask?"
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Page 10: Stealing activations. I called this a terrible idea in .26, and .27 hasn't sweetened it.
---> AT FIRST I AGREED WITH YOU, RULES SPECIFIES THAT YOU CAN ONLY SPEND A SINGLE COMMAND POINT TO ATTEMPT THIS AND NEED A 6 ONT A D6 SO ITS NOT AS BAD AS I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT
Page 11: Movement. Doubling or tripling a units movement when many figures can already cross the board in 2 turns or less seems... unnecessary. Also, immersion breaking, when someones Destroid sprints across the board at the same rate as a VT because a good pilot got a lucky roll.
---> I HAVE SIMILAR RESERVATIONS BUT THE FACT THAT THE COST TO DO SO IS HEAVY IN COMMAND POINTS AND YOU NEED TO GET A 6 ON A D6TO DO THIS LIMITS THIS GREATLY. ALSO A FEW UNTS DOING THIS AND CHARGING UP UNSUPPOTED ARE BASICALLY JUST TARGETS FOR YOUR ENEMY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS NOW. YOU'LL HAVE TO TRY THIS IN GAME YOURSELF AND SEE WHAT YOU THING THEN. REMEMBER COMMAND POINTS = LIFE
There's nearly an entire page dedicated to this sprinting thing. It seems like it basically comes down to "feel like crossing the board? Spend a few command points and go for it!"
---> THAT WAS SOMETHING I ADDED IN PLAYING WITH RULES POSSIBILITIES --->SPRINTING IS GONE
Page 13: water returns! No, I thought you said this crap was gone? Also, the definition of woods based on the separation of trees in inches remains. This is a needlessly fiddly way of doing things, and not something most people's tables will reflect. I'm not even veteran miniatures gamer and I know that many people use cloud-shaped pieces of felt for trees. It's a lot more straightforward to simply note the density (light, medium, heavy, dense, whatever) and an effect, than needing to measure out how many inches apart the trees are.
---> TERRAIN IS MUCH SIMPLER, 3 TYPES : OPEN, ROUGH (RUBBLE, WATER, WOODS, ETC., DEADLY. APART FROM THAT YOU HAVE BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES
The movement chart is still here. I recall you saying it wouldn't be. It really needs to go. Really. This is not part of a 'fast paced game'. It's movement based bookkeeping.
---> GONE, AS ABOVE, ONLY 3 TERRAIN TYPES, WOODS AND WATER AND ALL ARE COMBINED AS ROUGH TERRAIN
Page 18: Suppressing fire seems like a mechanic that gives a sizable edge to the Zentraedi, particularly in swarms. Having a flat out +1 to strike rolls almost always (due to the innately higher unit count) seems awfully powerful.
---> THIS HAS BEEN CHANGED TO CLOSE FORMATION. PODS HAVE A GUNNERY OF ONLY 1, SO THIS HELPS, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD THINK AND THE MECHANIC IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. I'LL GIVE MORE DETAILS LATER
Page 19: Cover. 25-75%. Oh god. This is going to be a mess in competitive play, and will probably end a few friendships as well.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Page 21: Combat: so first I roll to strike, and if that hits, the opponent can choose to try to dodge, and if that fails, they can try to roll with the impact. This seems like an awful lot of ifs to include in a Past Faced game.
---> THERE IS ONLY THE DODGE ROLL, ROLL WITH IMPACT IS FREE/AUTOMATIC IF YOU PAY COMMAND POINT SO ROLLING DOES NOT ADD A LOT OF DICE ROLLING TO GAMEPLAY
Page 24: Snow and low light conditions: screw you, Zentraedi infantry!
---> AGAIN, TERRAIN IS SIMPLIFIED, RESTRICTION IS GONE, PERSONALLY I PREFER MORE COMPLEX TERRAIN OPTIONS, BUT AGAIN, I PLAYED BATTLETECH AND BASED THESE RULES OFF OF THAT WHEN I WROTE THEM.
Page 24: Special Scenario Rules: Hidden Units: how gaming groups stopped playing together, because _____ is a jerk. Also known as: "ranges and math, the scenario".
---> GONE, MAYBE IN ADVANCED RULES
Page 26: Hand to hand attacks don't compare against Defense?? Target is a modified 5+ on a d6+piloting? O.o
Oh, then the defender rolls to parry. And then rolls with impact if they want to. So instead of a simple target number it's an opposed roll, for a less powerful attack.
---> HAND TO HAND RULES ARE OPPOSED ROLLS FOR STRIKE AND PARRY, AGAIN ROLL WITH IMPACT DOES NOT REQUIRE A ROLL. I ASSUMED IT DID SINCE THAT IS THE WAY THE RPG RULES WORK.
Page 29: Firing into melee is a bad idea. Agreed! The outcome of doing so involves a chart! NOOOOOOOOO!
---> NOBODY CAN EVER FIRE INTO MELEE UNLESS THE FRIENDLIES ARE PODS OR INFANTRY WITH LIFE IS CHEAP, IN THAT CASE DAMAGE IS SHARED EQUALLY, NO CHART
Aside: no more trawling deviant art for pinups for you, sir.
Page 41: Building a force, missing section on skirmishes.
--> THIS SECTION IS TINY, LIKE I SAID, I'VE PROPOSED ADVANCED RULES THAT WILL INCLUDE A MORE DETAILED SKIRMISH SET, IF THIS HAPPENS I WILL SOLICIT SOME HELP
Okay, made it all the way through. Honestly? I don't think I'd want to play this game. Combined with the expected for sizes, 300 points in an hour would be a pipe dream. Tables with any real density of terrain would be a nightmare. There seem to be some mechanics that just flat out reward one faction over the other (as it stands), and there are some design principles I'd probably adopt from Malifaux and X-Wing (not mechanics, just principles) among other systems to shore up some of those distinctions.
It's a noble effort, it's clearly a work of passion, but it's coming across as needlessly finicky rather than providing depth.
SORRY ABOUT UPPERCASE, I FELT THIS WAY COMMENTS WOULD STICK OUT BETTER.
I did send an email about sharing the rules, keep your fingers crossed.
No worries, the upper case and smilies, they made it clear where your comments were, and adding quote tags around every statement would've been an obnoxious waste of time.
Now, I'll trim out yours and respond in kind:
--->I HATE THIS TOO AND HAVE CHANGED NEARLY EVERY REFERENCE TO MECHA TO UNITS IN THE RE-WRITE
You and I, we are more alike than originally anticipated.
---> Re: Line of Sight: I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED.
:-(
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Yeah... this is going to be a problem. I think the conversation above sums up why pretty well. I get that you're just the messenger, but that doesn't change it being a crappy mechanic.
---> AT FIRST I AGREED WITH YOU, RULES SPECIFIES THAT YOU CAN ONLY SPEND A SINGLE COMMAND POINT TO ATTEMPT THIS AND NEED A 6 ONT A D6 SO ITS NOT AS BAD AS I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT
That doesn't necessarily make it much better. As you say, command points are life, so gambling one on a 16% chance of success stings. At least it doesn't appear to be "1 command point per squad" anymore. That was highly obnoxious for such a low chance of success. Still can't see trying to use this very often.
---> I HAVE SIMILAR RESERVATIONS BUT THE FACT THAT THE COST TO DO SO IS HEAVY IN COMMAND POINTS AND YOU NEED TO GET A 6 ON A D6TO DO THIS LIMITS THIS GREATLY. ALSO A FEW UNTS DOING THIS AND CHARGING UP UNSUPPOTED ARE BASICALLY JUST TARGETS FOR YOUR ENEMY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS NOW. YOU'LL HAVE TO TRY THIS IN GAME YOURSELF AND SEE WHAT YOU THING THEN. REMEMBER COMMAND POINTS = LIFE
But it doesn't need a 6, as I recall. It was d6+Pil to meet or exceed a 6, and units with speed below 6 could do it even more easily. With a good pilot and a slower unit, a few command points and a lucky roll could see a MAC II sprinting across a table in a truly unbelievable way. If any form of this remained or returned, I'd recommend a hard limit where a player can't spend more than 1 CP per figure on this. A shot at doubling a figure's speed (while also possibly spreading their squad across half the table if some units don't make it) is spicy as it is.
---> THAT WAS SOMETHING I ADDED IN PLAYING WITH RULES POSSIBILITIES --->SPRINTING IS GONE
Are these two separate mechanics I'm conflating into 1? I thought sprinting was the "move multiple times in a turn" thing above?
---> TERRAIN IS MUCH SIMPLER, 3 TYPES : OPEN, ROUGH (RUBBLE, WATER, WOODS, ETC., DEADLY. APART FROM THAT YOU HAVE BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES
---> GONE, AS ABOVE, ONLY 3 TERRAIN TYPES, WOODS AND WATER AND ALL ARE COMBINED AS ROUGH TERRAIN
Much better. The structure stuff is a bit fiddly as well, but the terrain was cluttered.
---> THIS HAS BEEN CHANGED TO CLOSE FORMATION. PODS HAVE A GUNNERY OF ONLY 1, SO THIS HELPS, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD THINK AND THE MECHANIC IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. I'LL GIVE MORE DETAILS LATER
Fair enough, but it's worth noting that any mechanic that provides an advantage to the side with superior numbers is something to watch very closely in a game where 1 faction will almost always have superior numbers.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Eh? So instead of going with clear/sensible rules, they've just moved to "if you disagree roll a D6"? So... the GW approach to rules dispute resolution? Frowning so hard here. SO HARD.
---> THERE IS ONLY THE DODGE ROLL, ROLL WITH IMPACT IS FREE/AUTOMATIC IF YOU PAY COMMAND POINT SO ROLLING DOES NOT ADD A LOT OF DICE ROLLING TO GAMEPLAY
So to roll with impact and cut damage in half, you just spend the CP? No roll necessary? That I actually like. Iffy on the mechanic in general (also, rolling with the impact of an energy weapon? O.o ), but better.
---> AGAIN, TERRAIN IS SIMPLIFIED, RESTRICTION IS GONE, PERSONALLY I PREFER MORE COMPLEX TERRAIN OPTIONS, BUT AGAIN, I PLAYED BATTLETECH AND BASED THESE RULES OFF OF THAT WHEN I WROTE THEM.
I've noticed. :-P
Battletech and RRT are very different animals, and what we're seeing is how the mechanics for one don't necessarily line up with the other.
Page 24: Special Scenario Rules: Hidden Units: how gaming groups stopped playing together, because _____ is a jerk. Also known as: "ranges and math, the scenario".
---> GONE, MAYBE IN ADVANCED RULES
Good. Would have been a nightmare.
Page 26: Hand to hand attacks don't compare against Defense?? Target is a modified 5+ on a d6+piloting? O.o
Oh, then the defender rolls to parry. And then rolls with impact if they want to. So instead of a simple target number it's an opposed roll, for a less powerful attack.
---> HAND TO HAND RULES ARE OPPOSED ROLLS FOR STRIKE AND PARRY, AGAIN ROLL WITH IMPACT DOES NOT REQUIRE A ROLL. I ASSUMED IT DID SINCE THAT IS THE WAY THE RPG RULES WORK.
Page 29: Firing into melee is a bad idea. Agreed! The outcome of doing so involves a chart! NOOOOOOOOO!
---> NOBODY CAN EVER FIRE INTO MELEE UNLESS THE FRIENDLIES ARE PODS OR INFANTRY WITH LIFE IS CHEAP, IN THAT CASE DAMAGE IS SHARED EQUALLY, NO CHART
Eh? The rules state you can as long as there are enough enemies in place. Something about as long as there are 3 or more enemies in base to base with the opponent, you can shoot 'em. Damage is shared equally? Err, so if there's 1 Tomahawk and 3 Battlepods kicking the crap out of it (literally), and I fire a GU-11 into the melee for 6 damage, that gets spread out among all 4?
--> THIS SECTION IS TINY, LIKE I SAID, I'VE PROPOSED ADVANCED RULES THAT WILL INCLUDE A MORE DETAILED SKIRMISH SET, IF THIS HAPPENS I WILL SOLICIT SOME HELP
I'd be happy to help. I think a few of us here worked up very sensible Skirmish guidelines that'd take up a few paragraphs at most.
... except the rules are already done, aren't they? We're 4 months (*winky*) from delivery, surely they aren't going to start shuffling the book around just to fit in anything but the most minor of adjustments at this point?
2014/04/16 18:29:22
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Talizvar wrote: Now if only this could be done with feedback on the models!
(Just no pleasing us I know!)
Cool to see the updates though!
Not sure if those "fixes" are errors in the official rules and fixes by PB, or errors in Mikes rules and fixes by him for his next iteration. There's two trains running parallel here, and it can be confusing at times to separate the one from the other.
The thing I'd be most concerned about is how much input the ND staff still have, how much the rules have diverged since, and how much experience PB have in the wargaming field. Without seeing the full rules, it's hard to make an assessment, but the things Mike mentions PB sticking to (LOS) seem.... archaic. And the "dice off if argument over 25/75 cover" comes across as turdworthy.
2014/04/16 18:46:41
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Talizvar wrote: Now if only this could be done with feedback on the models!
(Just no pleasing us I know!)
Cool to see the updates though!
Not sure if those "fixes" are errors in the official rules and fixes by PB, or errors in Mikes rules and fixes by him for his next iteration. There's two trains running parallel here, and it can be confusing at times to separate the one from the other.
Well, not sure who he is getting permission from then on what he can or cannot change... his wife?
The thing I'd be most concerned about is how much input the ND staff still have, how much the rules have diverged since, and how much experience PB have in the wargaming field. Without seeing the full rules, it's hard to make an assessment, but the things Mike mentions PB sticking to (LOS) seem.... archaic. And the "dice off if argument over 25/75 cover" comes across as turdworthy.
Hard to argue with GW the "world leader" of tabletop war gaming and their success!
Just stay really far away from IP infringement, Kevin would have a heart attack taking on those guys.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2014/04/16 18:48:30
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Forar wrote: ---> Re: Line of Sight: I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED.
:-(
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Yeah... this is going to be a problem. I think the conversation above sums up why pretty well. I get that you're just the messenger, but that doesn't change it being a crappy mechanic.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Eh? So instead of going with clear/sensible rules, they've just moved to "if you disagree roll a D6"? So... the GW approach to rules dispute resolution? Frowning so hard here. SO HARD.
That's a great idea - take two of the most hated rules (the other being IGOUGO) from GW and keep them! That's the perfect way to make a successful rule set!
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
2014/04/16 19:06:07
Subject: Re:Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
What you have now is Boosting your speed, you pay 1 Command Point PER TRY PER UNIT, so if you have a VF Squadron and want them to boost on you need to spend command points on each unit and then you need to get a 6 with each one. You also have to say beforehand how much you want to spend. So if you spend 2 Command Points for each VF for a total of 8, and then only 3 of them get at least one six on both dice, one of them is going to get left behind, so while the idea worried me, the real thing in practice will not be used often as leaving your buddies behind is typically a death sentence. Forget sprinting.
Rules for Buildings are really simple, for me a bit too much so. Maybe something to mess with with some advanced rules.
Close Formation, everyone will try to be in close formation unless you have Heavy Arty Pods or Phalanx's with Blast making everyone spread out.
All qualifying units in close formation enjoy a +1 bonus to Strike in ranged combat. Each unit with a Gunnery Attribute that is less than the total number of units in the close formation (not the squadron as a whole) qualifies for the bonus to Strike. However, units in formation that have a higher GN do not qualify for the bonus.
Terrain -- I like to have a least Heavy and Light woods and a few others, these are all wrapped up into heavy and open, this might have to change when cyclones come into play though.
Hand to Hand rules did not allow firing into the group, what was in 0.27 was my first thoughts into how to change this. Now you can only fire if friendly units have Life is Cheap and then things are spread around evenly among all the units in hand to hand. I've tried to add firing Torso or head weapons in hand to hand at the cost of a command point, that way a Tomahawk could fire the chest guns or a veritech the head lasers but I think this will wait for advanced rules.
Honestly at this point I'm not sure how much time we have left and they might not tell me if they knew.
So I plan on pushing advanced rules with some Skirmish stuff with more detail in it that can be used for smaller games OR for 3rd gen when cyclones and invid are about.
Forar wrote: ---> Re: Line of Sight: I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED.
:-(
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Yeah... this is going to be a problem. I think the conversation above sums up why pretty well. I get that you're just the messenger, but that doesn't change it being a crappy mechanic.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Eh? So instead of going with clear/sensible rules, they've just moved to "if you disagree roll a D6"? So... the GW approach to rules dispute resolution? Frowning so hard here. SO HARD.
That's a great idea - take two of the most hated rules (the other being IGOUGO) from GW and keep them! That's the perfect way to make a successful rule set!
I did pose various alternatives, remember not everyone thinks this is a bad idea though. Some prefer it this way. Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hope this helps some, feel free to throw out some more.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/16 19:12:14
- A personal preference; the use of "mecha" in the singular kind of drives me batty. But that's my own thing, and I'm seeking professional help to deal with it. "Those mecha" versus "that mech". "That mecha" just doesn't seem right to me. The line to mock me for this level of pedantry starts to the left.
'Mech' used to be a protected FASA term. Not sure if this is still current or has lapsed, btu FASA learned from the Battledroids 'issue' and protected Mech heavily. My favorite was a late 80s/early 90s adventure for the ParanoiaRPG titled 'Mad Mechs' that used the term solely as an abbreviation for 'mechanics' (as in the job) and has a small sticker in the cover stating that they were aware of FASA's rights and making no attempt at ownership.
I would agree that using the term Mega Damage Capacity (or MDC) is ridiculous, especially if the game doesn't handle SDC. Considering that in Palaldium 1 MDC generally reduces a humanoid without MDC armor to a fine red mist, I'm guessing we won't have unarmored humans in the game.
(A lost opportunity, as 'Capture the Minmei' would be a fun scenario, and totally true to the canon.)
Working on someting you'll either love or hate. Hopefully to be revealed by November.
Play the games that make you happy.
2014/04/16 19:37:49
Subject: Re:Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Mike1975 wrote: What you have now is Boosting your speed, you pay 1 Command Point PER TRY PER UNIT, so if you have a VF Squadron and want them to boost on you need to spend command points on each unit and then you need to get a 6 with each one. You also have to say beforehand how much you want to spend. So if you spend 2 Command Points for each VF for a total of 8, and then only 3 of them get at least one six on both dice, one of them is going to get left behind, so while the idea worried me, the real thing in practice will not be used often as leaving your buddies behind is typically a death sentence. Forget sprinting.
Just two bits. I don't like the change to "unit". While I guess it's technically acceptable, I personally conflate "unit" with "formation". So it made the "1CP per try per unit" bit confusing. Using "model" or "figure" would be less confusing, at least to me.
Second bit, I'm really not enthused by the whole "17% Success Command Point" rule. You've said "Command Points = Life.". Making success so restrictive looks to make for some truly swinging games. In your above example, you say you roll 8 dice for the unit. That means for the expenditure of eight CP, there's a ~23% chance that you get NOTHING. Your chance of getting the listed 3 successes is less than ~13.5% (that number accounts for 3 successes on 8 dice, but doesn't account for the real if marginal chance two of those dice apply to a single model). The chance of expending 8CP to get all four moving is less than ~3%. To get a better than 50-50 chance of the formation doing it, you need to expend 22CP, and that number goes up, if you have to assign each to single models. My math may be off, but to get a 50% chance of the formation moving, requires 10CP PER MODEL. Seems completely worthless, given the apparent importance of CP.
2014/04/16 19:50:38
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Just to clarify that last bit, and for people to check my math.
To get a 50% full success rate across four models, requires each model to have an individual 85% success rate, cause one failure means failure as a whole (that might not apply tactically, you might only need 3 to succeed, but that still leaves one Veri with it's thumb up it's proverbial, and that's a potential 25% drop in the formation's effectiveness)
0.85(success chance)^4(required successes)=~0.5 or 50%.
To get an 85% chance on getting a 6, is NOT 6 dice. The chance of rolling a 6 on a d6 IS 1/6 (or 16.66%). But you can't just add the success chances together. You need to multiply out the failures.
The chance of failing to get a 6 on 6 dice is (5/6)^6. Or 33%. Which means the chance of succeeding on at least one six is 66%. That's good enough for one model, but to get the 50% we were talking about, insufficient for four. Extrapolating out the numbers, we need (5/6)^10 to get the ~85% chance of getting a single 6. Actually, 11 is better (10 is 83.85%, 11 is 86.54%). But it's close enough for government work.
EDIT: Mike, My point is, having something in there that appears to be this cornercase, yet uses an apparently important and restricted resource, just seems like so much wasted paper. That it has to get done on a figure by figure basis, just makes it worse. And will slow the game down. If I rolled 8 dice, and picked out the sixes, that takes X time. Rolling 4 pairs of dice, and figuring it out case by case, doesn't lend itself to "fast paced". Note, I don't have a problem with involved detailed mechanics (BT was my first wargame). But that's not what RTT is being promoted as. Time consuming detail in 4v4 is fine. In 40v40, not so much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/16 20:03:46
2014/04/16 20:01:36
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Keep in mind that sharing damage keep you alive but also getting back strikes and crossfire. There may be times you want to boost 2 of the 4 VFs in a squadron to surround some pods and nail them from both sides. That way you would only need to boost 2 VFs. Situations vary. Again the high CP cost and risk reduces the worry about abuse.
Mike1975 wrote: Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
Except in appealing to as big a crowd as it can to be successful, it will stumble across "win at all costs" type players, and hyper competitive tournament players alike. They can be a good cash cow section of the gaming populace, so while I respect that *your* rules might not reflect catering to those players, the *official* rules absolutely have to.
As has been noted in the past, this isn't an RPG, there isn't a GM sitting at the table arbitrarily telling them whether what they want to do works or not, the rule system has to be solid (but flexible), intuitive and yet reflect edge cases with the minimum amount of fuss.
@Morgan's Math: I haven't run the numbers to the same degree, but he has a very good point. Keep in mind that outside of Leadership abilities, each Mech generates 1 CP per turn (aside from "Life is Cheap" figures, but Officer's Pods seem to bump that average up at least a bit, closer to 1/2 CP per figure in the squad depending on what is taken... unless it's a swarm of 21 pods, that is).
Taking the example we're working with, that 8 CP to try to get VT's moving at speed requires *two full squads worth of CP* (before Leadership, but even with it, that's sizable). Even with Leadership 4 on a 1J (Right? And is Leadership in addition to the CP generated by the VT itself, or total?) that's only 7 or 8 CP. Doubling up still falls short on the likelihood of working.
And as I see your reply in my 'thread window', keep in mind that "it doesn't have a very high chance of working" is *not* necessarily something in its favor. It makes things very swingy, either the ability works and it's super powerful, or it flops and people are frustrated for feeling they wasted what you have repeatedly noted is a valuable resource. I'm no stranger to "high risk, high reward" gameplay, but CP have effects that just happen, or ones that have (from what we've seen) terrible chances of happening. The latter make a mess of balance; if they happen, that's huge, if they don't, that player just pissed away "a ton of life", for as we know, "CP ARE LIFE!".
Unless you roll 5 or less, in which case feth you!
2014/04/16 20:11:12
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Mike1975 wrote: Keep in mind that sharing damage keep you alive but also getting back strikes and crossfire. There may be times you want to boost 2 of the 4 VFs in a squadron to surround some pods and nail them from both sides. That way you would only need to boost 2 VFs. Situations vary. Again the high CP cost and risk reduces the worry about abuse.
It's not that it's abusable. It's that the way it's written, it's like a lottery. Or as it's often derogatorily called, a "stupid tax". As it stands, it's only going to be used in three situations. The truly desperate situation (for who it mostly won't work), the people who don't understand the math (for who it mostly won't work), and for cheaters with weighted dice. I'd much rather the cost of the extra movement be factored into the cost of the ability, and have it act more reliably. Making the use of the rule "tactical", rather than "lottery".
2014/04/16 20:15:25
Subject: Re:Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Forar wrote: ---> Re: Line of Sight: I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED.
:-(
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Yeah... this is going to be a problem. I think the conversation above sums up why pretty well. I get that you're just the messenger, but that doesn't change it being a crappy mechanic.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Eh? So instead of going with clear/sensible rules, they've just moved to "if you disagree roll a D6"? So... the GW approach to rules dispute resolution? Frowning so hard here. SO HARD.
That's a great idea - take two of the most hated rules (the other being IGOUGO) from GW and keep them! That's the perfect way to make a successful rule set!
I did pose various alternatives, remember not everyone thinks this is a bad idea though. Some prefer it this way. Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
Yes, it has to cater to a large crowd.
Having something in the rules like "LOLDICEOFF" isn't catering to a large crowd, it's bs lazy rules writing.
I don't personally have a problem with TLOS, but I understand why people gripe about it.
And if the system wants to do well, it needs - not should have, but needs - a rule set that will survive tournament "abuse".
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
2014/04/16 20:35:55
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Balance wrote: 'Mech' used to be a protected FASA term. Not sure if this is still current or has lapsed, btu FASA learned from the Battledroids 'issue' and protected Mech heavily.
The end result of that for me personally was that "mech" would be used to refer to the bi-pedal machines in settings that only had plodding walkers, while "mecha" should be used to refer to them in settings that had at least some agile types (i.e. a MAC II might be a slow plodding thing, but the fact that VFs weren't meant that all of the walkers in the setting were "mecha").
It also ended up being more or less "US stuff is mechs and Japanese stuff is mecha".
2014/04/16 21:01:03
Subject: Re:Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Mike1975 wrote: Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
Except in appealing to as big a crowd as it can to be successful, it will stumble across "win at all costs" type players, and hyper competitive tournament players alike. They can be a good cash cow section of the gaming populace, so while I respect that *your* rules might not reflect catering to those players, the *official* rules absolutely have to.
As has been noted in the past, this isn't an RPG, there isn't a GM sitting at the table arbitrarily telling them whether what they want to do works or not, the rule system has to be solid (but flexible), intuitive and yet reflect edge cases with the minimum amount of fuss.
@Morgan's Math: I haven't run the numbers to the same degree, but he has a very good point. Keep in mind that outside of Leadership abilities, each Mech generates 1 CP per turn (aside from "Life is Cheap" figures, but Officer's Pods seem to bump that average up at least a bit, closer to 1/2 CP per figure in the squad depending on what is taken... unless it's a swarm of 21 pods, that is).
Taking the example we're working with, that 8 CP to try to get VT's moving at speed requires *two full squads worth of CP* (before Leadership, but even with it, that's sizable). Even with Leadership 4 on a 1J (Right? And is Leadership in addition to the CP generated by the VT itself, or total?) that's only 7 or 8 CP. Doubling up still falls short on the likelihood of working.
And as I see your reply in my 'thread window', keep in mind that "it doesn't have a very high chance of working" is *not* necessarily something in its favor. It makes things very swingy, either the ability works and it's super powerful, or it flops and people are frustrated for feeling they wasted what you have repeatedly noted is a valuable resource. I'm no stranger to "high risk, high reward" gameplay, but CP have effects that just happen, or ones that have (from what we've seen) terrible chances of happening. The latter make a mess of balance; if they happen, that's huge, if they don't, that player just pissed away "a ton of life", for as we know, "CP ARE LIFE!".
Unless you roll 5 or less, in which case feth you!
There are a few assumptions that you are making in all this that you do need to consider.
1. Official Rues is not equal to Tournament Rules, and there had been talk of writing a seperate set of tournament rules. So collecting all the ideas for alternatince instead of just "That won't work" would be much more useful. I have no plans on helping with those, I know I would not have the experience, last tourney I played was over 20 years ago.
2. The only way to remove variability to change the die type ot the number of dice. Increasing the number of dice such as using 2D6 can reduce variance but also slow down what is designed to be a fast playing system.
3. If you eliminate or reduce that variance you also eliminate or reduce the chances of trying oddball things and having good luck with them. This happens in battle. Risk and rewards. If someone wants to risk 10+ Command Points, it's likely going to hurt him elseware since a single VF squadron of 4 Fighters generates 6 command points total, the VF-1J had 2 leadership. The VF-1S was dropped to 3 leadership. Again, if a player knows the risk he is taking and he loses the gamble, why would that put him off a game? he knows enough of the rules at that point understand the risk he was taking. I don't agree with this argument. I've had plenty of mechs get their heads shot off from a roll of a natural 12. I even won a battle with the first shot of the game due to a lucky hit. Removing some variability and flexibility can have quite the opposite effect and bore players just a fast.
Mike1975 wrote: Keep in mind that sharing damage keep you alive but also getting back strikes and crossfire. There may be times you want to boost 2 of the 4 VFs in a squadron to surround some pods and nail them from both sides. That way you would only need to boost 2 VFs. Situations vary. Again the high CP cost and risk reduces the worry about abuse.
It's not that it's abusable. It's that the way it's written, it's like a lottery. Or as it's often derogatorily called, a "stupid tax". As it stands, it's only going to be used in three situations. The truly desperate situation (for who it mostly won't work), the people who don't understand the math (for who it mostly won't work), and for cheaters with weighted dice. I'd much rather the cost of the extra movement be factored into the cost of the ability, and have it act more reliably. Making the use of the rule "tactical", rather than "lottery".
I don't see if as a Lottery, 1 in 6 is not that bad. It's a risk and it has a reward, I personally would rarely use it unless the conditions were just right. A first this worried me just like it does you but then I realized how much the risk involved was and realized that I had no problem with someone paying 3 or 4 command points in hoping to get some advantage. I will crucify him for it somewhere else on the table. 3-4 Command Points alone is 3-4 less chances of trying to Dodge or Rolling with Impact and halving damage when some other unit gets hit. Also, if you boost in a fighter, you must use the FULL boosted movement with afterburner on your second move. Hadn't thought of this but then it can be really useful for Airstrikes if your rolls are good.
Forar wrote: ---> Re: Line of Sight: I ASKED AND WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE, I TRIED.
:-(
---> THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, BUT IF YOU TWEAK A MINI SO THAT HE'S ON THE GROUND, HIS LINE OF SIGHT IS ALSO LIMITED. I KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SORRY, THIS IS NOT CHANGING
Yeah... this is going to be a problem. I think the conversation above sums up why pretty well. I get that you're just the messenger, but that doesn't change it being a crappy mechanic.
--> UNCHANGED, EXCEPT NOW RESOLVE DIFFERENCES WITH A ROLL OF D6.
Eh? So instead of going with clear/sensible rules, they've just moved to "if you disagree roll a D6"? So... the GW approach to rules dispute resolution? Frowning so hard here. SO HARD.
That's a great idea - take two of the most hated rules (the other being IGOUGO) from GW and keep them! That's the perfect way to make a successful rule set!
I did pose various alternatives, remember not everyone thinks this is a bad idea though. Some prefer it this way. Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
Yes, it has to cater to a large crowd.
Having something in the rules like "LOLDICEOFF" isn't catering to a large crowd, it's bs lazy rules writing.
I don't personally have a problem with TLOS, but I understand why people gripe about it.
And if the system wants to do well, it needs - not should have, but needs - a rule set that will survive tournament "abuse".
Again, you might not know this but you guys deserve to, there has been talk of doing a seperate set of :Tournament Rules" Make a list of what you'd do different at a tournament and I'll share what I can when that ball gets rolling, shoot, its likely already in the works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hope that covers it all for now
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/16 21:10:43
Mike1975 wrote: I don't see if as a Lottery, 1 in 6 is not that bad. It's a risk and it has a reward, I personally would rarely use it unless the conditions were just right. A first this worried me just like it does you but then I realized how much the risk involved was and realized that I had no problem with someone paying 3 or 4 command points in hoping to get some advantage. I will crucify him for it somewhere else on the table. 3-4 Command Points alone is 3-4 less chances of trying to Dodge or Rolling with Impact and halving damage when some other unit gets hit. Also, if you boost in a fighter, you must use the FULL boosted movement with afterburner on your second move. Hadn't thought of this but then it can be really useful for Airstrikes if your rolls are good.
Right. It's not that it's too strong - it's that the reward isn't worth the risk. It's absolutely a stupid tax - 3-4 Command Points to maybe (maybe... the times my opponent's Tesla Destructors have failed to roll a single 6 - and that's twin linked - is pretty high) roll a 6 and do something useful probably isn't worth doing 90% of the time. So all it does is serve as a "Are you a good player?" test.
Again, you might not know this but you guys deserve to, there has been talk of doing a seperate set of :Tournament Rules" Make a list of what you'd do different at a tournament and I'll share what I can when that ball gets rolling, shoot, its likely already in the works.
Why have a separate set of rules? That's a waste of time. Literally, it makes me never want to play the game. I'm dead serious.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
2014/04/16 21:34:01
Subject: Re:Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Mike1975 wrote: Keep in mind that sharing damage keep you alive but also getting back strikes and crossfire. There may be times you want to boost 2 of the 4 VFs in a squadron to surround some pods and nail them from both sides. That way you would only need to boost 2 VFs. Situations vary. Again the high CP cost and risk reduces the worry about abuse.
It's not that it's abusable. It's that the way it's written, it's like a lottery. Or as it's often derogatorily called, a "stupid tax". As it stands, it's only going to be used in three situations. The truly desperate situation (for who it mostly won't work), the people who don't understand the math (for who it mostly won't work), and for cheaters with weighted dice. I'd much rather the cost of the extra movement be factored into the cost of the ability, and have it act more reliably. Making the use of the rule "tactical", rather than "lottery".
I don't see if as a Lottery, 1 in 6 is not that bad. It's a risk and it has a reward, I personally would rarely use it unless the conditions were just right. A first this worried me just like it does you but then I realized how much the risk involved was and realized that I had no problem with someone paying 3 or 4 command points in hoping to get some advantage. I will crucify him for it somewhere else on the table. 3-4 Command Points alone is 3-4 less chances of trying to Dodge or Rolling with Impact and halving damage when some other unit gets hit. Also, if you boost in a fighter, you must use the FULL boosted movement with afterburner on your second move. Hadn't thought of this but then it can be really useful for Airstrikes if your rolls are good.
Which is my point. The apparent only purpose of the rule is for people without an understanding of the math pissing away CP when it could be used for something actual useful. If it's that rare to get use of, it's just a handicap. It'd be like adding in an optional unit, that costs 75pts in a standard 300pt game. "SDF-1 Bombardmant- Roll 2d6 before deployment. If you roll double 6, you win the game.". And it's not like these abilities mentioned even seem like they're worth all that much. Increase the cost, remove the huge swings. 2CP to double move automatically too cheap? Make it 3. But when you're looking at spending 4CP to get a 50% chance? Meh. Turf it.
Yes, it has to cater to a large crowd.
Having something in the rules like "LOLDICEOFF" isn't catering to a large crowd, it's bs lazy rules writing.
I don't personally have a problem with TLOS, but I understand why people gripe about it.
And if the system wants to do well, it needs - not should have, but needs - a rule set that will survive tournament "abuse".
Again, you might not know this but you guys deserve to, there has been talk of doing a seperate set of :Tournament Rules" Make a list of what you'd do different at a tournament and I'll share what I can when that ball gets rolling, shoot, its likely already in the works.
Umm.... Tournament Rules that govern more than just the way tournaments operate? As in, an entirely new set of changes to the actual game rules (not just scenario/victory conditions)? I can't begin to say how wrong I think that'd be. The official gameplay rules should be the SAME rules used at tournaments. I seriously can't wrap my head around them not being the same. "Oh, the dodging of four missiles rule? Yeah, that's in the Official Rules. But we're playing Tournament Rules!". "Oh, you'ld have LOS if we were playing in a tournament, but because we're playing the Official Rules, we dice off.".
I know you're trying to help, Mike. But gahhh! That sounds bloody horrible. Has ANY game had a different actual rules set (specifically not forcelist changes, scenario specifics, or optional rules, but actual changes to the core system) between Tournament and Official rules?
2014/04/16 21:40:21
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
Interesting idea of paying 2 CP's. I will share that on.
Tournament Rules might just narrow the focus on some of the problems you are worried about and take them out of frame. There are many games that have additional limitations or specifications specifically for tournaments. Battletech would specify what point system or tonnage would be legal. 40K tournaments also had limitations at times. That does not mean they are a completely new set of rules. I do know the idea of tournament rules has been mentioned before.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/16 21:41:14
Mike1975 wrote: Interesting idea of paying 2 CP's. I will share that on.
The problem is, given their time constraints, there's no time to properly test it. At this point, anything beyond typos and rewording to make sure intent matches the written word, should be completely out of the question.
Mike1975 wrote: Tournament Rules might just narrow the focus on some of the problems you are worried about and take them out of frame. There are many games that have additional limitations or specifications specifically for tournaments. Battletech would specify what point system or tonnage would be legal. 40K tournaments also had limitations at times. That does not mean they are a completely new set of rules. I do know the idea of tournament rules has been mentioned before.
BT- Forcelist change. 40K- Usually Scenario change. What you're talking about though, at least as I interpret it, are actual changes to the mechanics. That LOS is determined or decided differently from "Official" to "Tournament". And that is just so bad, on so many levels. Changes that are made before (Forcelists) or after (Scenarios) the game are one thing. But changes to how the actual game gets played based on Tournament/non-Tournament? Worst. Concept. Ever.
2014/04/16 21:59:26
Subject: Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!
I'm with you on one thing. Use only one LOS system. I think that even with the drawbacks with your fanatic players TLOS is the easiest to play and teach. Besides, that is one thing that is not changing. Only option is an optional system in an advanced rules book.
Mike1975 wrote: 1. Official Rues is not equal to Tournament Rules, and there had been talk of writing a seperate set of tournament rules. So collecting all the ideas for alternatince instead of just "That won't work" would be much more useful. I have no plans on helping with those, I know I would not have the experience, last tourney I played was over 20 years ago.
This is an absolutely terrible idea. Unfathomably bad. World of Warcraft has some of the brightest minds in the games industry working on it, and they have gone on, at length, to strive to keep "Player Versus Environment" and "Player Versus Player" rules as close to identical as possible, because having different rules for your 'normal' play and your 'competitive' play is generally terrible. Malifaux has tournament rules, but off hand, other than some minor adjustments, a game plays out as normal. X-Wing has tournament rules, but those are mostly focused on how one determines the winner across 4/16/64/whatever players using a scoring system. Having "tournament rules" that differ from the "normal rules" is an utterly terrible idea. The game should stand on its own two feet as it is. It shouldn't require a significant overhaul to play quickly and smoothly in a competitive setting.
*Palladium* themselves have suggested that there'd be a competitive scene supported (by ND and/or themselves) since the beginning. Presumably because they knew that competitive play appeals to a significant fraction of the gaming market, and those players are also often a sizable source of cash. It's too late for them to say "oh, man, tight competitive play is hard to balance, that'll need to be in an expanded/advanced rules set". Their rules should be that good to begin with, and they've had over a year and a half to get there.
Edit: hell, I can't even think of a game I've heard of that has significant (core mechanics) changes between 'standard' and 'competitive' play. Magic has various rules sets based on care restrictions, but actual game mechanics are very, very anal retentively written out for all players in any game.
2. The only way to remove variability to change the die type ot the number of dice. Increasing the number of dice such as using 2D6 can reduce variance but also slow down what is designed to be a fast playing system.
Or you reduce the need to roll randomly by increasing the cost, as Morgan points out. That's not exactly 'outside the box' thinking here. Having abilities that simply cost 1CP, and other abilities that cost 1CP and do nothing ~84% of the time is not going to balance out well. There is already a ton of variability in outcomes (attacks, dodge rolls) and places to use CP. Any action that requires a giant pile of them to happen is going to be a lot more frustrating to use than one that simply costs extra to achieve. Similarly to how I thought the idea of the Zentraedi (with their numerical advantages) almost always having suppressive fire bonuses was a bad idea, what you're describing would make the aforementioned "dash" or whatever it's called an almost exclusively RDF action. Well, unless the Zentraedi just wanted to spend their entire pool to throw a wave of pods into melee with the destroids. >.>
3. If you eliminate or reduce that variance you also eliminate or reduce the chances of trying oddball things and having good luck with them. This happens in battle. Risk and rewards. If someone wants to risk 10+ Command Points, it's likely going to hurt him elseware since a single VF squadron of 4 Fighters generates 6 command points total, the VF-1J had 2 leadership. The VF-1S was dropped to 3 leadership. Again, if a player knows the risk he is taking and he loses the gamble, why would that put him off a game? he knows enough of the rules at that point understand the risk he was taking. I don't agree with this argument. I've had plenty of mechs get their heads shot off from a roll of a natural 12. I even won a battle with the first shot of the game due to a lucky hit. Removing some variability and flexibility can have quite the opposite effect and bore players just a fast.
It's a risk/reward balance, and the rules as you've most recently shared them has vast risks compared to the rewards. Blowing 8 CP to maybe have half a squad double move makes planning difficult, because unless that's the intended goal, it's more likely to mess people's plans up than reward them.
I don't see if as a Lottery, 1 in 6 is not that bad.
Compared to "no roll necessary, always happens", it's pretty bad. As you keep saying, CP ARE LIFE, why would I waste a handful of them on a "maybe" when I can at least put them to use in a fashion that utilizes the stats of my figures (dodges, extra attacks) or guaranteed damage reduction/sharing?
I did pose various alternatives, remember not everyone thinks this is a bad idea though. Some prefer it this way. Tactics has to try to cater to as big a crowd as it can in order ot be successful. I've played 40k enough that TLOS does not bother me, but then I don't play with megalomaniactic number crunchers looking for ways to take advantage in every way they can of the system. I avoid tourneys.
FFS, someone doesn't have to be a "megalomaniac number cruncher" to take issue with this.
Again, you might not know this but you guys deserve to, there has been talk of doing a seperate set of :Tournament Rules" Make a list of what you'd do different at a tournament and I'll share what I can when that ball gets rolling, shoot, its likely already in the works.
No, we don't know this, because they don't tell us anything.
And the fact that Palladium is considering it is killing what little faith and interest I had left in the game.
Guys, I'm not advocating a completely unique gameplay for tourneys. But you have to decide how big the battles need to be, how many if any characters will or will not be allowed, what number of points each player should use.
Boosting, first it was a bad idea because things could get out of hand when you thought it could effect an entire squadron and now it's not enough or too variable? Again, games need some variability and risk. I don't think the risk is worth the Command Points normally but there will be times when it is and if its a simple pay 2 Command Points, that makes it so that there is no risk at all, only a cost, I can see your point, I just don't agree with it. There will be times where you can use this and tactically place units to do some damage. I think this requires some risk. As someone pointed out, at this point, there might not be a chance to change it either way.
Forar, I do remember us talking about your LOS options, I did share, directly with KS on the phone if you remember and mentioned the things we and others had talked about and was told it would stay as it. I asked for you guys, I don't have a problem using TLOS, but I do see your points. I did as much as I could. I'm not even fully aware of how many and what suggestions I have made that have been fully adopted at this point.
You guys are upset that they do not have all the tourney regulations (I'm avoiding rules to avoid any more confusion) such as table sizes and points and limitations? Remember how close we are to actually having minis. I don't think this should have been something foremost on their minds, they have had a lot of other stuff to still get out the door.
When they spoke of tourney rules I don't think they were thinking of changing the rules, more of explaining and describing how to set them up, table sizes, terrain, points. These can vary as you can have Large size tourney with 450+ points, mid-sized at 200-300 and then smaller or skirmish. All of that needs to be written up and specified.
Now, that being said, I DO THINK that an advanced rules set that includes more detailed rules for Hand to Hand, Characters, maybe some additional weapons rules or options and maybe an optional LOS system needs to be created in order to please people at all levels and fulfill the game for all requirement. You do not TLOS, others do, you like faster and simpler games, others do not, you are thinking of smaller skirmish games, others are not. There is now way to please everyone unless you can have options to fulfill the needs of each type of player.
Even though I think it is cheap, there are players that greatly enjoy twisting and messing with minis to new positions to take advantage to TLOS.
Point is, there will NEVER be a way to keep everyone happy, the best option is to have a variety of optional rules that players can opt to use with there friends. Tournaments on the other hand may say yes or no to many of these rules as they evolve over time at numerous events.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/17 00:59:23
