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.

Point of order; we do have suggested table sizes. 4 x 4, 4 x 6 for larger games.

Nobody that I've seen here is arguing that they should accommodate *everybody*, merely that they need a rules set that will stand up to the greatest amount of punishment possible. They lauded the use of a former Games Workshop employee regarding the rules. They had ND and 80-100+ beta testers, along with themselves giving rules suggestions.

There are a ton of particulars that the info packet you contain lacks, and the more it's discussed, the more it stands out. The more I look at what is written, even in the official releases, the less some of it makes sense.

Example: the "you must take 2 core squad cards in a 300 point game" rule is unnecessary. It's superfluous information. "You must take 1 core squad card per 150 points in the non-skirmish game being played", BAM, simple. 150 point game? 1 card. 200 point game? 1 card. 300 point game? 2 cards. 449 point game? 2 cards.

Character limits? This is the first I've seen it even mentioned. If it exists, it should probably get noted.

According to ND, a 300 point game takes about an hour to complete between two players who know what they're doing. I cannot fathom a 450+ point tournament by those standards unless it's a weekend long affair. Ideally they should be cutting to the top 8 within X hours, and the length of the game will dramatically impact that. Simply put, most people don't have the endurance to play 12 hours of games just to figure out who the final 4 are. These might not be considerations for someone who has zero interest in tournaments, but it's the kind of reality that they need to consider.

As for variables, there are already tons of them in the game. For such a "CP ARE LIFE" level of importance, it is entirely relevant how they are to be spent. In Malifaux, their limited resource (soul stones) was almost always at least potentially useful. Sure, there were cases where you'd spend one of the up to 8 (for an entire game) you had, but they were generally a spicy affair, at least in 1.5. Spending one to minimal or no effect *sucked*, it was a massive waste. As a resource that replenishes per turn, there is a bit more leeway, but if the choice is "roll dice and maybe some of this squad get to move faster" or "guaranteed, you get to half incoming damage, or spread it around, or attack with another weapon", the guaranteed effect is going to be chosen the majority of the time. Choosing '16% chance' options makes them more than just edge cases, as Morgan pointed out, they make them either acts of desperation or titanic wastes of resources. I've played games with "mastery tests" in them, notably Magic and D&D 3.0. It has to be done elegantly. I don't feel this is being done elegantly.

Anyway, I'm not expecting KS or PB or anyone to bow to my every whim, but if .27 is reflective of at least the gist of RRT (and you've spoken at length about how close they are at this point... except for all the places where they aren't), and PB is no closer to releasing us their official info (unless we're astoundingly lucky and they let you fire off the half a year or more out of date rules to the general public), yeah, this is becoming cause for concern.

Mike1975 wrote:
Guys, I'm not advocating a completely unique gameplay for tourneys. But you have to decide how big the battles need to be, how many if any characters will or will not be allowed, what number of points each player should use.

Which is not what you inferred. Hence the reaction by several people. Obviously Tournaments will have specific restrictions on forcelists (even if it just sets the number) and how scenarios are determined. And if that's what they are, there is no problem. What you inferred, was that the Tournament Rules would/could/should be different at the core mechanical level. And that's a significant issue. Not what I play, or where I play, but HOW I play.

Mike1975 wrote:
Boosting, first it was a bad idea because things could get out of hand when you thought it could effect an entire squadron and now it's not enough or too variable? Again, games need some variability and risk. I don't think the risk is worth the Command Points normally but there will be times when it is and if its a simple pay 2 Command Points, that makes it so that there is no risk at all, only a cost, I can see your point, I just don't agree with it. There will be times where you can use this and tactically place units to do some damage. I think this requires some risk. As someone pointed out, at this point, there might not be a chance to change it either way.

That was me. And if they did change it, I'd be concerned about potential balance issues, but balance issues are apparently PB's bread and butter.

And while I'd prefer certainty, to which you disagree, I'd also be OK with having there be risk. But the risk should balance the reward. You want to make it 4+, and you roll a pool for the entire formation? No real problem with that. You'ld need 7CP for a 50% chance for the formation to move. Expensive, sure. 40CP under the current system ridiculous? Not so much. As you yourself stated, you'ld not use it, and cheer if your opponents used them thusly. Indicating it's a straight up mistake, 90% of the time. That they could be used on things that have a significantly greater risk vs reward. Just like you don't want the reward to be gamechanging, you don't want the risk to be hugely disproportional.

Mike1975 wrote:
Forar, I do remember us talking about your LOS options, I did share, directly with KS on the phone if you remember and mentioned the things we and others had talked about and was told it would stay as it. I asked for you guys, I don't have a problem using TLOS, but I do see your points. I did as much as I could. I'm not even fully aware of how many and what suggestions I have made that have been fully adopted at this point.

Hopefully, centre point LOS finally got it's skull caved in. I hate TLOS, but the whole concept of "if you can't see the eye, you can't see the figure, look! The regult's behind a lamp post, dang!" was ugghhhh.

Mike1975 wrote:
You guys are upset that they do not have all the tourney regulations (I'm avoiding rules to avoid any more confusion) such as table sizes and points and limitations? Remember how close we are to actually having minis. I don't think this should have been something foremost on their minds, they have had a lot of other stuff to still get out the door.

Only speaking for myself, I'm not upset they do not have tourney regulations. You're the one who conflated those with rules (specifically LOS), and that's what caused several of us to jump up. If the tourney regulations are just that, that's one thing.

As for how close we are to minis, that waits to be seen. Sorry, from start of production, assuming no further hiccups, it's 84-96 days from start of production to final postage from PBHQ. Then anywhere up to a couple of weeks for delivery, depending on location, and nothing going wrong there, either. GenCon is 117 days away. And as of the last update, they still hadn't seen the Veritech PPP's. Even if they're seen, and approved this week, they still need to be milled, the test run done, and final approval. I'd put the chance we'll see anything in the next 6 months as negligible, unless PB exceed all expectations. And they've barely met any since the KS concluded. Hell, the only thing I give them kudos for, is the resolution of the VEF/1D issue, and that was a fault completely of their own making (promising something they weren't licensed to do).

Mike1975 wrote:
When they spoke of tourney rules I don't think they were thinking of changing the rules, more of explaining and describing how to set them up, table sizes, terrain, points. These can vary as you can have Large size tourney with 450+ points, mid-sized at 200-300 and then smaller or skirmish. All of that needs to be written up and specified.

Again, that's not what you inferred. Apparently a misinterpretation, but one caused by you seeming to want to deflect criticism of the LOS rules. Just saying.

Mike1975 wrote:
Now, that being said, I DO THINK that an advanced rules set that includes more detailed rules for Hand to Hand, Characters, maybe some additional weapons rules or options and maybe an optional LOS system needs to be created in order to please people at all levels and fulfill the game for all requirement. You do not TLOS, others do, you like faster and simpler games, others do not, you are thinking of smaller skirmish games, others are not. There is now way to please everyone unless you can have options to fulfill the needs of each type of player.

Given what we've seen of the HtH rules, I'm not sure they need to be more detailed. How many options does a Veri have in close combat? The YF-4 has at least six (can't tell because the back card is covered). And I'm not averse to having complex rules systems. Hell, I'd hoped the PB rules WERE complex. But that doesn't jive with the "fast play, 40v40, done in an hour" gameplay being put forward. That's the reason I was hoping skirmish rules would have added that, and not been a paragraph on force selection like they apparently are.

No, you can't please everyone. But contradictory philosophies make for bad gameplay. Fast, large scale gameplay, and finicky cornercase rules don't go together. I like Battletech, 25+ years on. But I wouldn't want to play BT 40v40, and want to finish in an hour. Similarly, when I play Epic 40K (the 6mm version, the last GW wargame I will play), I don't want to be determining if one of my Land Raider's being hit destroys a track, a sponson, or the pintle mount. I just want to take the miniature off and continue the battle.

Mike1975 wrote:
Even though I think it is cheap, there are players that greatly enjoy twisting and messing with minis to new positions to take advantage to TLOS.

And those people shouldn't gain benefit or penalty (sticking models on flight stands looks to be a bad idea) as a result. That's why several people have preferred base/column LOS.

Mike1975 wrote:
Point is, there will NEVER be a way to keep everyone happy, the best option is to have a variety of optional rules that players can opt to use with there friends. Tournaments on the other hand may say yes or no to many of these rules as they evolve over time at numerous events.

And again, there's a difference between optional rules, and a dual rules set between "tournament" and "official" gameplay. And bringing up evolution of tourney rules has the potential to be even worse, if not handled at a definitive source. Don't have much confidance there, as apparently PB are shockingly bad at maintaining a central source for rules and organised play. Ninja Division were supposed to be handling it, but it looks they want to fulfill their contractual obligations as quickly as possible, and GTFO. It's a bad sign for organised play.

Mike1975 wrote:
Again, you might not know this but you guys deserve to, there has been talk of doing a seperate set of :Tournament Rules" Make a list of what you'd do different at a tournament and I'll share what I can when that ball gets rolling, shoot, its likely already in the works.

Yeah, I wonder how we got the idea that it was significantly more than just scenarios and point levels.

More detailed rules for HtH? Just play the RPG.
It's not about "liking" TLOS or not. It's about the fact that it will create arguments. Are you trying to tell me you've never - ever - played a game of 40k (or any other TLOS game) where you and your opponent disagreed on how much of a model can be seen? When there's (potentially) real money on the line, those arguments are going to be more heated.

You brought up the "tournament rules" in response to me complaining about TLOS and the dice off to resolve things (the latter being literally the worst game designer crime ever perpetrated. I'm not exaggerating.) please do us the respect of understanding that context matters.

rigeld2 wrote:
You brought up the "tournament rules" in response to me complaining about TLOS and the dice off to resolve things (the latter being literally the worst game designer crime ever perpetrated. I'm not exaggerating.) please do us the respect of understanding that context matters.

While I agree diceoff is a significant crime, I think others approach, if not exceed it.

Excessive charting, especially on a mass-scale/minimal-element game, can be burdensome. Battletech can be problematic, especially when it comes to missiles/LBX. "Hit roll">"Number of Hits">"Hit Location" per number>"Number of Crits", "Crit Effect" rolls. But that's OK, because it's scaled to small operations. I've seen some games that use this style, and then recommend large scale forces. Bad bad bad.

Excessive keywords, this is one I am hoping RTT avoids, but I'm not so sure. Looking at the shown cards, there seem to be a large amount. Maybe it becomes easy to tell the difference between Overwhelming and Inescapable, or maybe it's going to be an often "Which was which again?". Some will obviously be intuitive (Flyover and Blast look likely to be easy to remember), but the more keywords you add, without explanation, the more difficult it is to play without frequent checks of the rules. It's my one big gripe with Deadzone. Excessive use of Keywords when a slightly more lengthy descriptor or alternate terminology avoids trying to remember the difference between Deliberate and Single Shot, or Firestorm and Rapid Fire.

TLOS is also one, but that's been argued to death. What other crimes against wargamanity are out there?

Let's see, I'd go with the overuse of d6's in wargaming. I much prefer games that use d10's or d20's because you can actually get some variation in equipment capabilities. Another common one is unrealistic ranges (your rifle only has an effective range of 100 meters, really, good thing my giant laser cannon has an effective range of twice that).

OK, if I got the ball rolling on the complete change of rules for tourney, I apologize.

Hand to Hand WILL eventually have to be more complex, what I mean by that is that you can't have a punch for a cyclone do the same as a punch from a VF. There will have to be damage levels based on unit size or something. So yeah, it will need to change eventually. That being said, I too had major concerns for the way it is written. I think it does way too much damage. Remember though, power kicks and punches and even stomp require command points so while they will happen, most of the time a unit will be simply punching or kicking for 1-2 points of damage.

Morgan, the excessive abilities, well, most are self explanatory but I still get Overwhelming and Inescapable mixed up at times. I've played enought that an ability gets linked in my mind to a unit. I know the Tomahawk's guns cannot be rolled against if they hit so that helps remind me that Overwhelming cannot be Rolled against.

While I agree that D6 has it's limits, unfortunately it is by far the most common die. I wish D8 or D10 had been used personally. You could also have a bit more variation in unit abilities with a larger die size. D20 is just way too much. Ideally rolling 2 dice would reduce the chance of variation like 2D6 and give more of a bell curve but it also makes the game take longer because you have to roll paired dice. I think 2D6 would have made the game better personally.

Rigeld, the last tourney I played was when 40k 2nd Ed was out. And I've never played for $. I've played a lot with friends, my brother and his kids still play and each kid has his own army. Honestly, we've never had a serious argument about cover, but again, we played for fun, not for tournaments and usually it was every man for himself each person get 200 points and a corner of the ping pong table, disputes could be solved by having another player take a quick look. So, no, I've never had people argue vehemently on LOS. I had a good group of friends playing.

No in D and D we had one guy that was an idiot and he would cast Disintegrate spells over bad guys and if a fellow hero was too close, oh well. My Dwarf had to go and chop that Wizards head off. He was an idiot.

Oh and realistic ranges and mini games, regardless of scale, do not typically work out well. All your weapons would honestly be able to fire across the table. Even Mini-Missiles on the cyclones have a range of a mile or more. The only way to make that work is to have range bands. Thos can also slow things down until you have every weapon memorized or nearly so. Just try playing battletech in the Solaris Arena where you have realistic ranges and like 8 range bands and you have to re-caclulate the to-hit roll for each weapon you fire every turn.

Mike1975 wrote:
Rigeld, the last tourney I played was when 40k 2nd Ed was out. And I've never played for $. I've played a lot with friends, my brother and his kids still play and each kid has his own army. Honestly, we've never had a serious argument about cover, but again, we played for fun, not for tournaments and usually it was every man for himself each person get 200 points and a corner of the ping pong table, disputes could be solved by having another player take a quick look. So, no, I've never had people argue vehemently on LOS. I had a good group of friends playing.

It's not just in tournaments. If you've ever said "I can see that guy." and your opponent disagrees, you've stopped play until that's resolved. That doesn't lend itself to a "fast paced" game.
Base+cylinder is just a much better method of resolving LoS. But, honestly, it's forgivable as long as there's "official" models. Tournament packets should include a line similar to "in LoS disputes, all models will be assumed to be built to look like the official models." This allows creative conversions with no advantage to LoS.

Oh and realistic ranges and mini games, regardless of scale, do not typically work out well. All your weapons would honestly be able to fire across the table. Even Mini-Missiles on the cyclones have a range of a mile or more. The only way to make that work is to have range bands. Thos can also slow things down until you have every weapon memorized or nearly so. Just try playing battletech in the Solaris Arena where you have realistic ranges and like 8 range bands and you have to re-caclulate the to-hit roll for each weapon you fire every turn.

I quite enjoyed Solaris :-) What made you bring up realistic ranges?

Crimes against wargamanity:
1. Dicing off to resolve disputes as an official rule.
2. Games designed to be fast paced that have more than a half page of summary/quick-reference charts.
3. Games that have craploads of fiddly bits that require some solid modeling skills to look average.
4. Games that have poorly written rules in general (40k is absolutely famous for this)

For all the gruff people give it, Battletech is actually a decent game. It's not fast paced - and doesn't pretend to be.

I don't see why hand to hand has to change based on Cyclones. There are only a few units of that size, so... don't let them do hand to hand attacks. But remember that you've been advocating (and I'm not opposed to) having a base represent multiple units. One Cyclone punching a Battlepod might not do much, but 4 of them might tear it up a bit in a desperation play. Not to mention the Saber variant (my favourite), which in a cluster is probably at least as dangerous as things well outside its weight class.

Other small things would presumably be stuff like the Invid and perhaps Inorganics, but these are the conceits of the setting; that a 1000 pound robot cat is somehow able to threaten a 20 ton 50 foot tall robot (well, in swarms at least). Just going to have to be something they deal with, and perhaps a reason not to skip SC (as some have advocated in the comments), as it'll just make the change in size all the more abrupt.

But seriously, hand to hand is already given more space and consideration than it deserves. Yes, this is a holdover from the RPG, no, Palladium won't change that, but it's still excessive. And I hate the melee system in general. Having options is one thing, having 8 options that don't do a whole hell of a lot is another. Though I suppose we should be thankful for Body Blocks; I see a lot of "GET AWAY FROM ME" shoves and then blowing that unit to scrap with their squadmates.

As a long time Magic player, I don't mind lots of keywords, but even Magic (which uses them at length) explains them on the cards. Now, between the art, damage tracks, missile tracks and upgrades there may just not be enough space to put them on the front, but what is on the backs of the cards? A quick glance glossary for the keywords found on that card would be an excellent idea.

As for dice, my group focusing on a lot of X-Wing lately has definitely enhanced my appreciation for the d8.

So, no, I've never had people argue vehemently on LOS. I had a good group of friends playing.

Which is good to hear for you. Not everyone has that luxury. Be it tournaments, or just two strangers playing at a convention or in a store, the rules have to be designed to handle two people with no history together and a vested interest in winning playing together. Designing games where everybody is a friend is easy. Designing games for strangers takes extra effort, and their rules set needs to be able to withstand that kind of strain.

A game that can't be played quickly or smoothly in those sorts of settings is just stacking the deck against itself. Just because *you* don't ever play against those sorts doesn't mean that nobody will, and as noted above, while that is totally a good reason to ignore such things in your personal rules (aside from the fact you have repeatedly noted that they are as good as Palladium's version or better, which means that scrutiny comes back into play), it is disheartening to hear that PB might be taking the same stance.

A game cannot be designed for public use in a manner that expects such familiarity, because for many instances, it won't exist.

I love Battletech, I just love Robotech even more. It's just takes so long to do a lance on lance battle. Alpha Strike does help some but I don't like the mechanic of shoot once and do X damage, especially when I'm aware of the actual stats and how in the game you can shoot with something like an Atlas and hit with everything except the AC-20. Alpha strike is an all-or-nothing that I don't like. I also don't like the way movement modifiers are, you get them regardless of if you have moved or not. In that sense, while poorly written, quickstrike was superior.

The below us exactly the type of thing that is useful to share and will help. This is what I was thinking of as far as Tournament rules not a complete LOS re-write or using a new system, but clarifications or specifications for a Tourney.

Tournament packets should include a line similar to "in LoS disputes, all models will be assumed to be built to look like the official models." This allows creative conversions with no advantage to LoS.

Mike1975 wrote:
Hand to Hand WILL eventually have to be more complex, what I mean by that is that you can't have a punch for a cyclone do the same as a punch from a VF. There will have to be damage levels based on unit size or something. So yeah, it will need to change eventually. That being said, I too had major concerns for the way it is written. I think it does way too much damage. Remember though, power kicks and punches and even stomp require command points so while they will happen, most of the time a unit will be simply punching or kicking for 1-2 points of damage.

Realistically, I would think you'd want to use the same mechanics, possibly with a twist to represent that 'hand to hand' from a VT is a punching/kicking from a big mecha versus a Cyclone, or squad of Cyclones, darting in, attacking with light arms/melee weapons/whatever, and dashing away. Or is the system still using the broken-up punch/kick attacks from the RPG that didn't really work great there?

Mike1975 wrote:
Guys, I'm not advocating a completely unique gameplay for tourneys. But you have to decide how big the battles need to be, how many if any characters will or will not be allowed, what number of points each player should use.

Reasonable and can be done officially or by tournament organizers.

Boosting, first it was a bad idea because things could get out of hand when you thought it could effect an entire squadron and now it's not enough or too variable? Again, games need some variability and risk. I don't think the risk is worth the Command Points normally but there will be times when it is and if its a simple pay 2 Command Points, that makes it so that there is no risk at all, only a cost, I can see your point, I just don't agree with it. There will be times where you can use this and tactically place units to do some damage. I think this requires some risk. As someone pointed out, at this point, there might not be a chance to change it either way.

Reminds me of the "magic phase" in WH or the number of attack/defending dice in Risk idea: take limited resources like command points and have them equal a die or +1 on the roll per or something to that effect.

Forar, I do remember us talking about your LOS options, I did share, directly with KS on the phone if you remember and mentioned the things we and others had talked about and was told it would stay as it. I asked for you guys, I don't have a problem using TLOS, but I do see your points. I did as much as I could. I'm not even fully aware of how many and what suggestions I have made that have been fully adopted at this point.

Things that require a bit of a judgment call can be twisted to advantage or a stalemate in competitive play which is a level of play I would like this system to have. We may want to look at this like: is it a true skirmish game where model exactly represents position and visibility or is it like Battletech where it is "representative" of the model being active in that area so the position of the base is more relevant.

You guys are upset that they do not have all the tourney regulations (I'm avoiding rules to avoid any more confusion) such as table sizes and points and limitations? Remember how close we are to actually having minis. I don't think this should have been something foremost on their minds, they have had a lot of other stuff to still get out the door.

Ouch, that is tough thing to force a gamer to choose: improvement of gaming rules or getting the "playing pieces" in our hands. Think of it like this: Robotech models have been out there for ages, if anyone wanted the discrete models they could have had them at any time, we are waiting on an actual "official" tabletop game with standardized models for that game: one is worthless without the other.

When they spoke of tourney rules I don't think they were thinking of changing the rules, more of explaining and describing how to set them up, table sizes, terrain, points. These can vary as you can have Large size tourney with 450+ points, mid-sized at 200-300 and then smaller or skirmish. All of that needs to be written up and specified.

This is like the GW trap: are we providing "ideas" of how we would like to play OR actual rules to specify how a competitive game is to be played. One is nice to have and the other will be reviewed with the intent of exploiting weakness in the language of the rule.

Now, that being said, I DO THINK that an advanced rules set that includes more detailed rules for Hand to Hand, Characters, maybe some additional weapons rules or options and maybe an optional LOS system needs to be created in order to please people at all levels and fulfill the game for all requirement. You do not TLOS, others do, you like faster and simpler games, others do not, you are thinking of smaller skirmish games, others are not. There is now way to please everyone unless you can have options to fulfill the needs of each type of player.

Battletech has just put out a system for less detailed gaming that worked very well (3 lances per side were not bad) but the normal game is good for a lance per side at the most. If I was a marketing evil guy I would flesh out a fully detailed rule set and then create a conversion system for streamlining for larger battles as a separate release later. You could take a page from "Federation Commander" where they had a card for each ship: one side was more detailed and the other less so.

Even though I think it is cheap, there are players that greatly enjoy twisting and messing with minis to new positions to take advantage to TLOS.

If the rules allow, the truly competitive will find a way. I admire the Japanese old way of looking at everything as potential "life or death" so to push yourself to the limit of the rules can be a habit. It is not unreasonable to require the rules to be reasonably clear so that this mindset can play the game and not make others grumpy.

Point is, there will NEVER be a way to keep everyone happy, the best option is to have a variety of optional rules that players can opt to use with there friends.

Just because something is not possible does not make it an unworthy goal to strive toward. Agreed that optional or alternative "rules" that may make the game more fun but less tight can be offered. Core rules still need to be as clear and non-optional as possible (no words like: you could, look, may, should, try...)

. Tournaments on the other hand may say yes or no to many of these rules as they evolve over time at numerous events.

Tournament FAQ's can be updated and can be a great item for discussion and possible customer/supplier feedback after the dust settles but getting something out of the gate to start that shows some playtesting and balancing is important. At least like X-wing there is only two factions to balance so there is a hope of keeping it reasonable.
Ton of writing and feedback here, good to see.

What I feel needs to be pointed out is that both in games design and in model design this project really does not have to draw ideas from a vacuum.
There are a ton of model kits out there with sprue layouts and parting line decisions all there to see, just buy some kits.
There are a ton of game systems with all kinds of complicated things represented (Battletech since 1984!) (Heavy Gear since 1994!) and varying ways to address the scale of the battles.
Innovation can stem also from taking an existing combination of rules applying them differently, I really like a computer game called "Path of Exile" that took bits and pieces of successful design considerations and made a game all their own, I see the same opportunity here.

The efforts are appreciated but Battle-Tech, Battle-Tech "AlphaStrike", Federation Commander, Warhammer 40k and X-wing are the games I will be comparing this against. I just hope anyone involved higher up is at least aware of these products.

Mike1975 wrote:
I love Battletech, I just love Robotech even more. It's just takes so long to do a lance on lance battle. Alpha Strike does help some but I don't like the mechanic of shoot once and do X damage, especially when I'm aware of the actual stats and how in the game you can shoot with something like an Atlas and hit with everything except the AC-20. Alpha strike is an all-or-nothing that I don't like. I also don't like the way movement modifiers are, you get them regardless of if you have moved or not. In that sense, while poorly written, quickstrike was superior.

Hah! I get a lance on lance done in an hour. Maybe 1.5 if we're drinking at the same time. When we get together as a large group we normally do 4-6 mechs per person and finish in time to do some board games as well.

The below us exactly the type of thing that is useful to share and will help. This is what I was thinking of as far as Tournament rules not a complete LOS re-write or using a new system, but clarifications or specifications for a Tourney.

It's stupid to make that distinction. There's literally nothing you could put in a tournament packet (as far as clarifying rules) that wouldn't benefit a casual gamer as well.

 Balance wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
Hand to Hand WILL eventually have to be more complex, what I mean by that is that you can't have a punch for a cyclone do the same as a punch from a VF. There will have to be damage levels based on unit size or something. So yeah, it will need to change eventually. That being said, I too had major concerns for the way it is written. I think it does way too much damage. Remember though, power kicks and punches and even stomp require command points so while they will happen, most of the time a unit will be simply punching or kicking for 1-2 points of damage.

Realistically, I would think you'd want to use the same mechanics, possibly with a twist to represent that 'hand to hand' from a VT is a punching/kicking from a big mecha versus a Cyclone, or squad of Cyclones, darting in, attacking with light arms/melee weapons/whatever, and dashing away. Or is the system still using the broken-up punch/kick attacks from the RPG that didn't really work great there?

Mechanics would be the same, problem is that you can't have a kick from a battlepod and a kick from a cyclone doing the same damage. There will have to be some sort of scaling there whether is a group of cyclone pucnhing = a VT punch or something else there will still need to be an ajustment to the rules as written.

Forar knows whats up. I have played against MY COUSIN and have had standoffs about TLOS. TLOS is basically asking two (or more) people to agree on something that amounts to a subjective interpretation. We can both be viewing the same thing and have 2 separate interpratations on the ruling (usually influenced in some way by our desired results). Anything used to remove the subjectivity will end up slowing down play. I have played with the Cylinder+Base LOS system. It is a much more objective (not fully though ) system. I have never seen an LOS argument in Warmachine, but I have seen plenty of game halts (and been in) over LOS in 40k (the same system being used in Robotech). This is disheartening from a tournament, competitive standpoint.

Oh, and I agree with the assertion of needing a "all models are assumed to be built like the official models" clause at the least. We don't want to dampen creativity since it looks like people will already be needing to do extensive modeling.

rigeld2 wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
I love Battletech, I just love Robotech even more. It's just takes so long to do a lance on lance battle. Alpha Strike does help some but I don't like the mechanic of shoot once and do X damage, especially when I'm aware of the actual stats and how in the game you can shoot with something like an Atlas and hit with everything except the AC-20. Alpha strike is an all-or-nothing that I don't like. I also don't like the way movement modifiers are, you get them regardless of if you have moved or not. In that sense, while poorly written, quickstrike was superior.

Hah! I get a lance on lance done in an hour. Maybe 1.5 if we're drinking at the same time. When we get together as a large group we normally do 4-6 mechs per person and finish in time to do some board games as well.

The below us exactly the type of thing that is useful to share and will help. This is what I was thinking of as far as Tournament rules not a complete LOS re-write or using a new system, but clarifications or specifications for a Tourney.

It's stupid to make that distinction. There's literally nothing you could put in a tournament packet (as far as clarifying rules) that wouldn't benefit a casual gamer as well.

I've never found anything in tournament rules useful in casual gaming either, I think they are purely designed to prevent gross abuses and set a baseline as to how the games will be set up (# points, table size). Most tourney rules are to set the stage so that people are all on the same page when they arrive to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ironwill13791 wrote:
Forar knows whats up. I have played against MY COUSIN and have had standoffs about TLOS. TLOS is basically asking two (or more) people to agree on something that amounts to a subjective interpretation. We can both be viewing the same thing and have 2 separate interpratations on the ruling (usually influenced in some way by our desired results). Anything used to remove the subjectivity will end up slowing down play. I have played with the Cylinder+Base LOS system. It is a much more objective (not fully though ) system. I have never seen an LOS argument in Warmachine, but I have seen plenty of game halts (and been in) over LOS in 40k (the same system being used in Robotech). This is disheartening from a tournament, competitive standpoint.

Oh, and I agree with the assertion of needing a "all models are assumed to be built like the official models" clause at the least. We don't want to dampen creativity since it looks like people will already be needing to do extensive modeling.

I think that assertion as a wonderful idea. People can make their minis however they want BUT in tournament play they will not be able to get any real advantage from it other than making cool looking minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rigeld,

Three of the best group play board games besides Axis and Allies are Cosmic Encounter, Talisman and Cutthroat Caverns

Mike1975 wrote:
I've never found anything in tournament rules useful in casual gaming either, I think they are purely designed to prevent gross abuses and set a baseline as to how the games will be set up (# points, table size). Most tourney rules are to set the stage so that people are all on the same page when they arrive to play.

Really? Do you guys just ignore FAQ/Errata? I'm seriously questioning your understanding of what I'm trying to get across to you.

Three of the best group play board games besides Axis and Allies are Cosmic Encounter, Talisman and Cutthroat Caverns

Our current favorites are Twilight Imperium and Shogun.

rigeld2 wrote:
But, honestly, it's forgivable as long as there's "official" models. Tournament packets should include a line similar to "in LoS disputes, all models will be assumed to be built to look like the official models." This allows creative conversions with no advantage to LoS.

Until a single creative conversion appears anywhere on a model box cover or anywhere in the rule book (perhaps in the EPIC painting section that Palladium was working on for 3 months!)...

As long as it's noted that it's a conversion and not an official pose, that's fine

 Ironwill13791 wrote:
Forar knows whats up. I have played against MY COUSIN and have had standoffs about TLOS. TLOS is basically asking two (or more) people to agree on something that amounts to a subjective interpretation. We can both be viewing the same thing and have 2 separate interpratations on the ruling (usually influenced in some way by our desired results).

The other thing is that two completely reasonable people can come to different conclusions and neither one has to be a TFG because of it. I've been in that situation and clear rules (that make sense) to refer back to is key in that situation. Now I brought up the edge case of two battlepods completely invisible behind a single light pole but there are much more reasonable versions of the same thing that WILL occur. If you're dealing with a stranger, you don't know what type of person you're dealing with (reasonable or TFG) and have rules that fix the majority of cases in a common sense or at least logical manner is key. I don't see that currently in the (outdated) LOS rules we've been presented and I've said so a half dozen times through various methods directly to Palladium (PM's on the forums, PM's on kickstarter, posts, threads, etc). If they screw that up, it's just par for the course for them unfortunately but at least this time they can't claim ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
As long as it's noted that it's a conversion and not an official pose, that's fine

If it's in the rulebook and doesn't involve major cutting AND sculpting, it is an official pose and simply one of many ways to assemble the model. That is frankly an entirely reasonable view to take.

rigeld2 wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
I've never found anything in tournament rules useful in casual gaming either, I think they are purely designed to prevent gross abuses and set a baseline as to how the games will be set up (# points, table size). Most tourney rules are to set the stage so that people are all on the same page when they arrive to play.

Really? Do you guys just ignore FAQ/Errata? I'm seriously questioning your understanding of what I'm trying to get across to you.

Three of the best group play board games besides Axis and Allies are Cosmic Encounter, Talisman and Cutthroat Caverns

Our current favorites are Twilight Imperium and Shogun.

Maybe we are off, FAQ and Errata is not what I would consider tournament rules only stuff.

I've always wanted to try Twilight Imperium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

 Ironwill13791 wrote:
Forar knows whats up. I have played against MY COUSIN and have had standoffs about TLOS. TLOS is basically asking two (or more) people to agree on something that amounts to a subjective interpretation. We can both be viewing the same thing and have 2 separate interpratations on the ruling (usually influenced in some way by our desired results).

The other thing is that two completely reasonable people can come to different conclusions and neither one has to be a TFG because of it. I've been in that situation and clear rules (that make sense) to refer back to is key in that situation. Now I brought up the edge case of two battlepods completely invisible behind a single light pole but there are much more reasonable versions of the same thing that WILL occur. If you're dealing with a stranger, you don't know what type of person you're dealing with (reasonable or TFG) and have rules that fix the majority of cases in a common sense or at least logical manner is key. I don't see that currently in the (outdated) LOS rules we've been presented and I've said so a half dozen times through various methods directly to Palladium (PM's on the forums, PM's on kickstarter, posts, threads, etc). If they screw that up, it's just par for the course for them unfortunately but at least this time they can't claim ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
As long as it's noted that it's a conversion and not an official pose, that's fine

If it's in the rulebook and doesn't involve major cutting AND sculpting, it is an official pose and simply one of many ways to assemble the model. That is frankly an entirely reasonable view to take.

While I remember that picture of the Pod quite clearly, that was when you use center of Base LOS and that has it's own drawbacks. I've not played the Warmachine version of LOS, so while it does sound like it is more argument proof, it seems to me that it will also take more time. At this point though, LOS is set, for good or bad. I already tried to change that. That was #1 on my list and the topic of my first call.

I understand but I was just commenting that issues will come up and it doesn't mean that it is an edge case or even that one person is being unreasonable. Que sera, sera to borrow from Dorris Day. If what we say/post/feel/don't buy had any effect on Palladium then the RPG wouldn't be were it is today and where their entry to minis is heading.

 warboss wrote:
I understand but I was just commenting that issues will come up and it doesn't mean that it is an edge case or even that one person is being unreasonable. Que sera, sera to borrow from Dorris Day. If what we say/post/feel/don't buy had any effect on Palladium then the RPG wouldn't be were it is today and where their entry to minis is heading.

I agree, but the only alternative that is faily foolproof is the warmachine one. At least the roll a die to resolve the issue helps reduce the time wasted on arguments. I know that some people will argue when they know the other person is right just to be a jerk though.

I haven't played Warmachine, but the 'volume of a cylinder' description sounds similar to how LoS is determined in Malifaux, and while there were still some situations that took a sec to sort out (or just ask an impartial third party for their opinion), they were pretty infrequent, and the system held up to a lot of scrutiny, at least across the hundreds of games across the years we played.

It's not perfect, but not having to worry about the models at all (the base and stats associated with the figure supersede the model) means you can base and pose them however you like.

Also, I disagree. The "roll a die" won't necessarily reduce the time wasted on arguments; people will still debate whether or not it's unclear enough to need to go to the die roll anyway, with at least one player having a vested interest in not having their opinion/judgement invalidated by random chance.

 Forar wrote:
I haven't played Warmachine, but the 'volume of a cylinder' description sounds similar to how LoS is determined in Malifaux, and while there were still some situations that took a sec to sort out (or just ask an impartial third party for their opinion), they were pretty infrequent, and the system held up to a lot of scrutiny, at least across the hundreds of games across the years we played.

It's not perfect, but not having to worry about the models at all (the base and stats associated with the figure supersede the model) means you can base and pose them however you like.

Also, I disagree. The "roll a die" won't necessarily reduce the time wasted on arguments; people will still debate whether or not it's unclear enough to need to go to the die roll anyway, with at least one player having a vested interest in not having their opinion/judgement invalidated by random chance.

True, there are always people that will never give up and fight to the end.

Mike1975 wrote:
True, there are always people that will never give up and fight to the end.

It's not just people that fight to the end. Unless it's all specified, you'll have people with differing opinions of where LOS originates from. The descriptor I saw earlier said you need LOS from the figure. What part of the figure? The head? Centre mass? Any part of the miniature? The sensor pod for the Destroid upgrade (like that silly "I have a hat!" Phalanx shown at GAMA)? The weapons themselves?

Especially given the Destroids and the Glaug have a fairly wide arm width. In a lot of cases, it won't matter. But in some non-negligible amount of cases, unless it's spelled out for the players, there's going to be interpretations. And as others have said, if the two players are new to each other, or there are tourney prizes on the line, or they're just plain competitive, it can add to the "I'm right! You're wrong!" sticking points.

Mike1975 wrote:
True, there are always people that will never give up and fight to the end.

Exactly, hence my emphasis on a rules system that is flexible and intuitive enough to minimize the potential for disputes.

Note, I'm specifically referring to disputes between reasonable people. Donkey-caves are always going to have gak'y arguments over stupid things, that cannot be avoided. But it's not unreasonable to try to keep vagueness to a minimum, and rules as encompassing as possible, so it's truly the fringe cases that give cause for pause.

Why is there even an opportunity for a cyclone to punch any large mech? Is there no size differentiation?

There is no differentiation for the size of a unit at present, hence a kick is a kick and does the same damage regardless of the size. Hence future rules will have to modify or change present ones in order to integrate stuff like cyclones and bioroids that are much smaller.

 stanman wrote:
From the current murmur:

http://www.palladium-megaverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=143028

Then we came back and did some more work for a couple of hours. Around 6:30 PM we closed for the day and everyone went to Kathy’s house to celebrate Julius’ and my birthdays (which were actually a week or so earlier). Before I left for the party (to which I was late), I had a nice visit with a couple of local, Michigan, fan-friends. We had a wonderful and stimulating conversation about Rifts® and Palladium Fantasy® and "the art" of role-playing. I really enjoy these two people, so it was a lot of fun for me. I even bounced some ideas on them concerning a couple of secret projects, which they loved. They also volunteered to help us ship out Wave One of Robotech® RPG Tactics™ later this Summer. Awesome. We are going to need a lot of volunteers for a couple of weeks to get everything shipped as quickly as possible to our 5,300+ Kickstarter people.

So they raised 1.4 million and still need the support of volunteers to get things shipped out?

Could always put in a call to Manpower or some other labor based temp services, but I don't think they work for hugs from Uncle Kev or the chance to bask in his radiant presence.


Also am I wrong or didn't their last update on Thursday say "spring" for the release date? What changed over the weekend?
http://www.palladium-megaverse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=717:palladium-booksr-weekly-update-april-10-2014&catid=52:weekly-updates&Itemid=183

Gosh, I'm not entirely sure that I trust "a lot of" "fan-friend-volunteers" to ship 5300 packages without massive amounts of feth-ups.

 Azazelx wrote:

Gosh, I'm not entirely sure that I trust "a lot of" "fan-friend-volunteers" to ship 5300 packages without massive amounts of feth-ups.

I trust them to do a decent job for a single weekend and then the "gift" of free labor expires and palladium is left with the one or two guys they're willing to devote to this plus one or two more from ND.