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.

Some just like to see the world burn....

So how will who gets their RTT minis first (backers who don't go to GENCon) be determined? North Americans first? North Americans only?
Is there a secret handshake?
Is there a lottery?
Is there any hope that this train wreck will ever end?

 warboss wrote:

Forar wrote:This one is going to go places.

Nah, the same predictable thing will happen as always. Kevin and friends will just label them as haters and/or non-customers and/or a vocal minority to marginalize the response regardless of how overwhelming it is.

I meant in terms of backer response. Like Spartangate before it, I imagine this will amount to potentially thousands of comments.

That old saying about no publicity being bad publicity? This is bad publicity.

Sure, this was predicted long ago...

... still feels pretty gakky to me.

And, of course, Kevin finds a way to express "we're working over 9000 hours a week! I have worn my hands off to the wrist writing and there's still no finished books, its the best thing ever! gush gush!"

Please, somebody video the booth at GenCon? I'll buy a camera if I have to! Gonna be the most electrifying booth at the Con, even if you only count how many angry backers have to be tazed!

Mike1975 wrote:
Every single card has a specific points level written on it. Every single card has the upgrades and point costs for the upgrades on them as well. You way off base if you think you just pick 2 random cards and then look at them to see how they compare pointwise. The entire reason I think your on another page here.

*facepalm*

Mike, how do the players know to pick similar points valued cards if they don't have a set points value to work from? Do they say "hey, let's use 2 each in the 35-40 range"? That's effectively a 80 point game.

I never said they'd be random, I said that the players need to have a baseline to work from.

And keep in mind, ideally they need to choose forces *without input from the other player*. Telling someone I'm taking a heavy Artillery Pod support card and a light Artillery Pod support card gives up a lot of information. So ideally, we need a way for players to build a small force, quickly, without the other player knowing what we're taking.

If only there were some balancing factor already present in the game. Something the players could use to arbitrarily denote how big or small the game was going to be. Something the players could use with upgrades and low power characters to offset differences in the values on their support cards.

Here's how I see it:

Player 1: "Hey, let's play a skirmish. I've gotta go in half an hour, but I'd like to try out some new ideas I've had."

Player 2: "Okay, how many points?"

Player 1: "How about 90?"

Player 2: "I'd like to try a few things too, mind if we play 100?"

Player 1: "Sure, sounds good."

Player 1 and 2 begin building their forces. P1 chooses a VT support (40 points) with an upgrade (say, 10 points), a MAC II (40 points) and has it piloted by a skilled handler (10 more points). Player 2 choose a Gnerl support card (35 points), a Glaug (20 points), a Battlepod card (35 points), and tosses a 10 point character into the Glaug to boost it up a bit.

*game begins*

Do you see? DO YOU SEE?!

Now, show me how you think a skirmish should be set up. Player 1 and 2 find themselves with another half hour to play, and.... go!

 Forar wrote:

 warboss wrote:

Forar wrote:This one is going to go places.

Nah, the same predictable thing will happen as always. Kevin and friends will just label them as haters and/or non-customers and/or a vocal minority to marginalize the response regardless of how overwhelming it is.

I meant in terms of backer response. Like Spartangate before it, I imagine this will amount to potentially thousands of comments.

That old saying about no publicity being bad publicity? This is bad publicity.

It doesn't matter. Despite the nerd rage, most of the angry folks will just jorel (no caps as it is a verb now) the next time around and still fork out money and turn the other cheek (whether facial or butt depends on your disposition towards this recent move). My not buying anything beyond a zent infantry pack was pretty much set with the max/miriya debacle. Macross for me is by far my favorite of the three series and I'll have enough (mediocre) minis to last me for a lifetime especially given the (lack of) interest locally in the game despite my stumping for it during the KS. If another KS for Robotech comes up, I'll pledge $1 just so I can warn off others potentially with tales about this one. I also won't be starting/maintaining a thread about it, stumping for it locally, and creating a youtube video or dakka ranking track for it like I did the last time around.

Forar, I think this could be a case of you ask in the west, he answers in the east.

Just walk away?

@Kendachi: No no no, wait... this could be enlightening!

@Warboss: Will people still spend money? Sure. But look at the RTA campaign. This debacle has already done them some damage. Will it prevent them from hitting their funding goal? I dunno, but it wouldn't surprise me if the bad blood simmering here will end up putting a tangible (5 or 6 figure) dent in what they could have pulled in.

Imagine in 2 years when the last RRT figures are getting ready to go. Palladium chooses to be dumb enough to try another campaign. Do you really think it'll hit 1.4m? Even if they combined series 2 and 3 (since the obvious answer is "SC is the bastard of the bunch"), imagine the nightmare their comment section will be. And not just because some spankers haven't let go; you can point out factually how badly this has gone.

They took a literal million dollar idea, and have tangibly dirtied it with their ineptitude.

You yourself point out that you'd just put in a buck to make sure people knew, wouldn't help drive the community, would warn off friends, etc, etc. Now multiply that by ten. A hundred. A thousand.

Do you really think that there won't be *any* impact from all this?

Yes, this Gencon fiasco was expected, does not mean it is acceptable, it just means we are vindicated in "taking the gloves off."

Future order of operations:

1) At some point this year we should see our main "wave 1" items which will slow down in direct proportion to volume of direct sales. They already have our money so we are back burner material, the real push is getting packages shrink wrapped for sale. Us receiving anything will be done grudgingly, think of us like those who purchased Palladium "pre-order" items on their catalogue waiting years at a time with no guarantee the product they "bought" will ever get made. Trying to drive home the point that when they have your money they pretty much figure it is theirs, product exchanged or not.

2) Never seeing "Wave 2" unless another Gencon rolls around is a distinct possibility. Figure we will be in this EXACT same position Gencon next year. So if any of us purchased anything from the possible "Wave 3" retail launch, any guesses of when you will get them?? (hint: 2016+)

3) I am waiting to see how they plan on getting money out of us for shipping that second wave, you know they do not want to pay it. This would be the point I will complain to kickstarter and anyone who would listen. I would like to go back and check all that was promised prior to the kickstarter being funded and what actually was fulfilled.

4) Lessons learned: wait for commercial retail items from here-on. White knights will cry "But other RT may not get made! We have to back them!". This is the only viable IP they have that is raking in money and getting buzz, count on their greed: backed or not, they will have to make new product or have to settle on their prior pitiful income. They admit they need to mess with the backers to keep the commercial buzz going. I just want a good long accurate record of just how fethed this project has been to serve as a warning.

So we now know, no matter what companies are involved, Palladium will behave as it always does, so there is no excuse if you back another project of theirs, right?

 Forar wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
Every single card has a specific points level written on it. Every single card has the upgrades and point costs for the upgrades on them as well. You way off base if you think you just pick 2 random cards and then look at them to see how they compare pointwise. The entire reason I think your on another page here.

*facepalm*

Mike, how do the players know to pick similar points valued cards if they don't have a set points value to work from? Do they say "hey, let's use 2 each in the 35-40 range"? That's effectively a 80 point game.

I never said they'd be random, I said that the players need to have a baseline to work from.

And keep in mind, ideally they need to choose forces *without input from the other player*. Telling someone I'm taking a heavy Artillery Pod support card and a light Artillery Pod support card gives up a lot of information. So ideally, we need a way for players to build a small force, quickly, without the other player knowing what we're taking.

If only there were some balancing factor already present in the game. Something the players could use to arbitrarily denote how big or small the game was going to be. Something the players could use with upgrades and low power characters to offset differences in the values on their support cards.

Here's how I see it:

Player 1: "Hey, let's play a skirmish. I've gotta go in half an hour, but I'd like to try out some new ideas I've had."

Player 2: "Okay, how many points?"

Player 1: "How about 90?"

Player 2: "I'd like to try a few things too, mind if we play 100?"

Player 1: "Sure, sounds good."

Player 1 and 2 begin building their forces. P1 chooses a VT support (40 points) with an upgrade (say, 10 points), a MAC II (40 points) and has it piloted by a skilled handler (10 more points). Player 2 choose a Gnerl support card (35 points), a Glaug (20 points), a Battlepod card (35 points), and tosses a 10 point character into the Glaug to boost it up a bit.

*game begins*

Do you see? DO YOU SEE?!

Now, show me how you think a skirmish should be set up. Player 1 and 2 find themselves with another half hour to play, and.... go!

Um, not sure where you are going with this Forar, but that is exactly how I see them planning it out AND how I've seen it from day 1. Let's use ~X points and then off to choosing cards. My only argument is that there is no reason to say choose 50 or 55 and make a SET SPECIFIC amount in the rules because some people are too stupid to say, "hey, how about 110 points this time around?" Not sure where you mixed yourself up on this. The rules recommend a points cost balance between players. BUT if you have a new player you might want to say go ahead and choose 80 points and I'll take 60 because I know the rules and have played several times before, that's up to the players.

 Forar wrote:


You yourself point out that you'd just put in a buck to make sure people knew, wouldn't help drive the community, would warn off friends, etc, etc. Now multiply that by ten. A hundred. A thousand.

Do you really think that there won't be *any* impact from all this?

Any impact? Sure, maybe 10-25% lower than what it would have reached otherwise which would be a much lower number regardless than this current KS because the next two series are much less popular. Unfortunately, most folks do not follow through on their nerdrages and instead keep jorelling along in the hopes that something will change. As for the Robotech Acadmemy kickstarter, my personal belief is that the fan hate towards Harmony Gold and their strangling of the license for the past 20 years is the reason that campaign will ultimately get "cancelled" to avoid public failure to fund. Robotech tactics public missteps will just be a drop in the bucket effect IMO. As always, YMMV.

Mike1975 wrote:

I think everyone but PB saw the iceburg, just like the Titanic the captain was asleep in his cabin. The crew just hoped the ship would turn fast enough to miss but the ship was going to fast and they hit due to the ships own inertia.

Not sure if you can say this ship was heading anywhere "too fast".

 Azazelx wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:

I think everyone but PB saw the iceburg, just like the Titanic the captain was asleep in his cabin. The crew just hoped the ship would turn fast enough to miss but the ship was going to fast and they hit due to the ships own inertia.

Not sure if you can say this ship was heading anywhere "too fast".

LOL, touche

Mike1975 wrote:
Um, not sure where you are going with this Forar, but that is exactly how I see them planning it out AND how I've seen it from day 1. Let's use ~X points and then off to choosing cards. My only argument is that there is no reason to say choose 50 or 55 and make a SET SPECIFIC amount in the rules because some people are too stupid to say, "hey, how about 110 points this time around?" Not sure where you mixed yourself up on this. The rules recommend a points cost balance between players. BUT if you have a new player you might want to say go ahead and choose 80 points and I'll take 60 because I know the rules and have played several times before, that's up to the players.

...

He's screwing with me, right, guys?

The rules you quoted specifically say to ignore points values. Just pick a couple of cards! You've said this repeatedly. Now suddenly "oh yeah, no, totally use the points".

The set up for a skirmish game is performed in the normal way outlined earlier in these rules, except for the forces used. Instead of Faction Cards, Core Force Cards or points, each player simply chooses a single Support Card or Special Card and uses those mecha. Normally it will best of the two cards chosen cost close to the same amount of points.

"Instead of Faction Cards, Core Force Cards or points"

" it will best of the two cards chosen cost close to the same amount of points"

So don't use the points!

But use the points.

Holy gaksnacks.

As I said in the comments section on their dumb@$$ post, they have lost not only a customer in me, but someone willing to demo the game. I have five LGSs in an easy drive's distance from me, and now when I go to those stores not only will I not demo the game, I'll warn people away from it.

Nerdrage? Maybe, but it's warranted here. Another broken promise in a long... Well not string- more like tangled rope, of broken promises.

Let's see how long it takes for Wave 2 to finally come out. Let's see who they sell that to before delivering to us.

Good job, PB. You have well and truly crapped the bed on this one.

 Cypher-xv wrote:
Thank you.

It took a while but some of the apologist are doing what they can for damage control.lol

http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=144016

Funny how as soon as they show up NMI locks the thread.

Yeah, and I wanted to correct the guy that said "I thought they did offer the opportunity to get a refund over a year ago."

First, I don't recall that happening, and second, even if it did, it was before any of the problems had come to light.

Unless he's being facetious and equating "refund" with "not backing".

But instead, because the thread is locked, his statement stands unchallenged.

 Forar wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
Um, not sure where you are going with this Forar, but that is exactly how I see them planning it out AND how I've seen it from day 1. Let's use ~X points and then off to choosing cards. My only argument is that there is no reason to say choose 50 or 55 and make a SET SPECIFIC amount in the rules because some people are too stupid to say, "hey, how about 110 points this time around?" Not sure where you mixed yourself up on this. The rules recommend a points cost balance between players. BUT if you have a new player you might want to say go ahead and choose 80 points and I'll take 60 because I know the rules and have played several times before, that's up to the players.

...

He's screwing with me, right, guys?

The rules you quoted specifically say to ignore points values. Just pick a couple of cards! You've said this repeatedly. Now suddenly "oh yeah, no, totally use the points".

The set up for a skirmish game is performed in the normal way outlined earlier in these rules, except for the forces used. Instead of Faction Cards, Core Force Cards or points, each player simply chooses a single Support Card or Special Card and uses those mecha. Normally it will best of the two cards chosen cost close to the same amount of points.

"Instead of Faction Cards, Core Force Cards or points"

" it will best of the two cards chosen cost close to the same amount of points"

So don't use the points!

But use the points.

Holy gaksnacks.

The rules speak for themselves, I told you what they said, they "recommend" using point values but as you said they do not "require" it. I think they are badly written. I think the entire skirmish rules are badly done but we do have them. I plan on making my own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Morgan Vening wrote:

 Cypher-xv wrote:
Thank you.

It took a while but some of the apologist are doing what they can for damage control.lol

http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=144016

Funny how as soon as they show up NMI locks the thread.

Yeah, and I wanted to correct the guy that said "I thought they did offer the opportunity to get a refund over a year ago."

First, I don't recall that happening, and second, even if it did, it was before any of the problems had come to light.

Unless he's being facetious and equating "refund" with "not backing".

But instead, because the thread is locked, his statement stands unchallenged.

They have never ever offered a refund.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe it's because I forget the sometimes gamers are incapable of using common sense and need every detail spelled out for them because if not some idiot will come by and try to abuse the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the skirmish rules are badly written, but they DO NOT say ignore points.

"Normally it will best of the two cards chosen cost close to the same amount of points."

Mike1975 wrote:
Maybe it's because I forget the sometimes gamers are incapable of using common sense and need every detail spelled out for them because if not some idiot will come by and try to abuse the system.

You are getting warm Mike!
It is not typically "some idiot" it is the fine supply of people who love to read rules in about 20 different ways and live in the gray zone.
Clear rules that are reasonably tight helps mitigate those pick-up games where you find out too late your opponent can interpret "darkness" from the word "light".

I see good reason for Forar picking on this particular element:
These skirmish games are ideal for game introduction (indoctrination?) and pick-up games so need to be pretty bulletproof.
You will be playing with a possible stranger not your usual friends so negotiation should be used sparingly.
A good niche for the game is to have a robust pick-up / competitive format since it is lacking in something like 40k so could be well received by that market.

I suppose it is a little late now for any proposed changes (game manual printed yet?)
I guess we just want to brace for the inevitable house rules.

Why do I feel like the next "Hot Lead" event (Local anything goes tabletop war gaming) I will be introducing the models with rules and scenario completely custom made... really hope it does not come to that.

talivizar, problem is the skirmish rules will not do what you hope, they were poorly designed and written. PB's mindset was never that they were a need and a good tool to bring in players which is strange considering the fact you have scenarios to learn the game that are set up with Skirmish level forces. The assumption that ND and PB had made, and this is my 2 cents, is that the rules are simple enough that they are not important. I never said they were right in what they did, but very shortsighted. They would not have even made an index for the rules if we had not pointed out the need for one. For a publisher, I have been far from impressed. I'm to the point where I'm torm with working to get my "Optional and Advanced Rules" pushed for a future Tactics book with them and helping them do the 2nd and 3rd gen stuff "right" or just saying screw them and doing them myself unofficially since the influence I've had was far from waht I'd hoped.

Skirmish rules, that was my first complaint to PB, I even wrote up a "proper" set, as with many suggestions it was not taken into account.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Funny thing is that I do agree with you, I think some rules need to be very specific. Thankfully most are but there are still some that never got the clarifications I asked for.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a reason I've started talking about a few advanced and house rules on the FB page.

I would think instead of blaming gamers, you should blame the people who wrote such shoddy rules. There's a huge difference between 'dammit, this true LOS means I can/not see this or that' and 'hey dudes, maybe you dont even need to have points to pick your army'

No, that is a gamers problem when you play with overzealous people who take it far from being a game. There are a number of different LOS systems, NONE are perfect but each has it's good and bad. I did suggest some additions to the present system. We even spoke of them in the comments here on this site. Agreed on them, and I sent them on and the reasoning with pics and all.

At a certain point it's a gamers issue but when the basics aren't addressed properly, then I'd just say the rules were badly written

LOS, has ALWAYS been an issue, choosing one version or another will not eliminate it's own innate problems. Some are better than others though. Like I said, we came up with a fix and I did make the suggestion.

Mike1975 wrote:
I think the entire skirmish rules are badly done but we do have them. I plan on making my own.

Then please explain why, in gods name, are you defending them so brutally?

The game was NEVER planned to have a skirmish mode. It was added to include a small group of Backers that wanted a skirmish game so PB promised added rules for one.

Proven a false statement.

edit: removed more Skirmish stupidity discussion

But we've gone over this before and you're willfully ignoring it so I'm not going to bother explaining more.

rigeld2 wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
I think the entire skirmish rules are badly done but we do have them. I plan on making my own.

Then please explain why, in gods name, are you defending them so brutally?

The game was NEVER planned to have a skirmish mode. It was added to include a small group of Backers that wanted a skirmish game so PB promised added rules for one.

Proven a false statement.

edit: removed more Skirmish stupidity discussion

But we've gone over this before and you're willfully ignoring it so I'm not going to bother explaining more.

Because Rigeld, the skirmish rules are but a small part, and to me an unimportant part, since if they are used AT ALL it will be in a small game or two to teach people how to play.

Gameplay is too fast and deadly to play skirmish UNLESS you add more complexity and variety. That was never promised. The core game is well done and written.

I think that the idea that skirmish rules were a part of this from the start is more backers reading what they want into what PB has told them. I've told you guys from the start that the skirmish rules are there but only a paragraph or two. People here chose to read into that what they wanted.

I think that it was pointed out that the Skirmish rules are not balanced out properly. As was pointed out above, you could have one player with 12 Battlepods and 12 Command Points and the other with 4 veritech or destroids and only 4 Command Points. I even suggested adding a rule that for battlepods in Skirmish the Zen player only gets 1 Command Point for every 2 pods. That was basically ignored even when I backed it up with reasoning. Now from what I understand ND had the rules and revisions in hand and what I gave to PB was handed to them to change all the way up until the final laying out of the book and pics began and it was all handed back to PB. That may or may not have been the truth though.

Mike1975 wrote:
I'm to the point where I'm torm with working to get my "Optional and Advanced Rules" pushed for a future Tactics book with them and helping them do the 2nd and 3rd gen stuff "right" or just saying screw them and doing them myself unofficially since the influence I've had was far from waht I'd hoped.

Despite the frustration some elements you have submitted were used so think how it would have been without your assistance.
What I like to say: "You can be part of the process or have it inflicted on you." so even being a voice in the wilderness at least can give some measure of moral high-ground.

You are the more accessible of people "in the know" so it is easy to feel a target (and legitimately be one).
In the end, there better be a credit in the rule book with your name in it, I would suggest if they overlook that courtesy, you could with clear conscience say "feth you!".
You might want to inquire before it goes out for printing, I hate to say I would laugh VERY hard if the lion share of credit is stamped with "Kevin".... that would be SUCH a lie.

I would not be involved (or at least soooooo later on) in the other generation stuff so your withdrawing assistance would not hurt me or many others.

It is obvious you love what you are doing (just the gaming pieces and table back that up, never mind all the other supporting material) so you would have been very upset if you did not give this an honest go.

So buck-up! Enjoy what you can! Get back into the fight or sound a proper withdrawal soldier!!!!!!

LOL, the copy I got did not have my name in it. I jokingly pointed that out and was told I'd be added.

I swear, I think I've done more playtesting than they have. I'm seething right now.

Can you stop people from posting on news on facebook after the fact? It looks like the last comment was over an hour ago and the second palladium forum thread was locked as well. They may be on information lockdown and not facing their victims... I mean... communicating with backers.

I can only control my own FB site. I can only imagine what NMI is doing on FOTM and how the PB facebook page is. Which reminds me, I wonder how the ND FB page is doing...

Mike1975 wrote:
Because Rigeld, the skirmish rules are but a small part, and to me an unimportant part, since if they are used AT ALL it will be in a small game or two to teach people how to play.

That seems to be part of the problem. That because they're not important to you, they're not important. I was really looking forward to the skirmish game, over the mass battle game. Why? Because I like the characterization and gameplay of a skirmish game, over the "Bang bang, take off eight models" concept. I find mass battle games to generally be bland, unless you shrink the scale further into command and control options, which the beta rules seem to nod towards, but definitely don't embrace (models are TOO rules detailed at that point).

Mike1975 wrote:
Gameplay is too fast and deadly to play skirmish UNLESS you add more complexity and variety. That was never promised. The core game is well done and written.

As others pointed out, that "never promised", that's patently false. Skirmish rules to the layman MEAN more complexity and variety. Scalable does NOT mean "use whatever points". It means the game WORKS at a variety of scale. WHFB is NOT a skirmish game, just because you're each using one formation. It's just another in a long string of broken promises, and I can't see how you're defending it.

Mike1975 wrote:
I think that the idea that skirmish rules were a part of this from the start is more backers reading what they want into what PB has told them. I've told you guys from the start that the skirmish rules are there but only a paragraph or two. People here chose to read into that what they wanted.

So, people believed what they were told by the creators. Took what they said at face value. And now, it's their fault for being upset that PB completely renegged. How is that line of thought defensible?

Mike1975 wrote:
I think that it was pointed out that the Skirmish rules are not balanced out properly. As was pointed out above, you could have one player with 12 Battlepods and 12 Command Points and the other with 4 veritech or destroids and only 4 Command Points. I even suggested adding a rule that for battlepods in Skirmish the Zen player only gets 1 Command Point for every 2 pods. That was basically ignored even when I backed it up with reasoning. Now from what I understand ND had the rules and revisions in hand and what I gave to PB was handed to them to change all the way up until the final laying out of the book and pics began and it was all handed back to PB. That may or may not have been the truth though.

So, the rules are essentially non-existent, not balanced properly, they disregarded your attempt to put some level of rationality to it, and you're still simultaneously claiming both that it wasn't promised/doesn't exist, AND that it does exist, we just don't like it. Again, how are you defending this, and not just going "PB lied, you're not getting skirmish rules."?