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.

You're far too focused on the fringe case. The 25% thing is going to have issues. Say you intentionally hug the corner of a building. One person thinks it's 20%, the other thinks it's 30%. Even with miniature wargamers, people are terrible at estimating measurements, especially estimating such small numbers. We're talking about a different of 4 millimeters here on most bases, or less than half a centimeter, or less than a quarter of an inch. It's actually around 1/6th. That is not a large margin for error.

It's missing the forest for the trees to take the hyperbolic examples used for humour value and assert 'those don't happen, this isn't an issue', when the reality is that reasonable people in the course of moving up to a hundred miniatures around a board for an hour or two will likely have some sort of questionable situation come up, especially if anyone bothers to, y'know, actually use the terrain.

Plus, when I scanned the rules, they seem to still be using the "draw imaginary lines through the models shoulders/center" bit, which is more estimating shenanigans, and becomes another matter entirely when people start modeling their figures in non-standard poses. Is the model literally and entirely "WYSIWYG?" If so, are my crouching Battloids that I thought were just a cool pose now hindered/benefited by low cover?

Another thing that people suck at? Estimating volumes/surface area. 25% of a humanoid figure like a VT is one thing. 25% of an oddly shaped figure like a Battlepod? Another.

Ugh. If my buddy leaves early enough tonight maybe I will settle in to subject myself to the full rules. I'll probably have had enough drinks to keep the suffering to a minimum, but Alph, please don't be too harsh on me. I'll try to avoid bypassing the profanity filter too much. >.>

Mike1975 wrote:
Which is why you can measure ANYTHING AT ANY TIME, so that if you have some lovely flowers blocking the way like in that picture and LOS is questionable you can move your mini over a bit or even ask the other player BEFORE you complete your move and start attacking. This is not like chess where if you take you hand off the mini you are done. Like I said, I understand and have had these same arguments in my own games. I think your making mountains out of molehills. Regardless, I did ask and this is something that was not going to change. Now if a few tourney happen to have this issue and it comes up and is called attention to it might just get PB to add an FAQ on it or rules alteration.

We're playing a game. I move my dude men, intending to have LoS to your dude men. I begin to shoot and you say "You can't see my dude men!" I look and, lo and behold, I can't see them based on the picture above.

Solutions are:
a) I suck it up and go "oops!" (the right thing to do)
b) I ask to move my dude men a little - potentially farther than they could possibly move - to get LoS. (what most people would do "Well, *OF COURSE* I wouldn't have moved there without the chance to shoot... DUH)
c) say "Of course I can see him, the center is above the building!" (Also a common occurrence when the center is not defined at all)

None of those are welcome outcomes. It's not a mountain out of a molehill - if they want tournament support (and they should) it's something that will have to be dealt with.
You can handwave it away all you want Mike, but you're incredibly naive if you actually think that.

And to reiterate

Which is why you can measure ANYTHING AT ANY TIME, so that if you have some lovely flowers blocking the way like in that picture and LOS is questionable you can move your mini over a bit or even ask the other player BEFORE you complete your move and start attacking. This is not like chess where if you take you hand off the mini you are done.

If you move and don't check or measure or ask the other player before you decide to shoot and he say no joy you can't really blame him.

Dude, this is supposed to be a fast paced game. If I have 48 battlepods on the table with good debris cover, it is going to take like 10 minutes just to get them all in place while ensuring that my opponent and I both agree that none are inopportunely 3mm too far in a given direction.

Also do the rules state that you can stop movement to ask about line of sight? Do they state anything about stopping movement?

Believe or not that is also important.

 Forar wrote:
Dude, this is supposed to be a fast paced game. If I have 48 battlepods on the table with good debris cover, it is going to take like 10 minutes just to get them all in place while ensuring that my opponent and I both agree that none are inopportunely 3mm too far in a given direction.

Duh.. the solution is to measure twice, ask your opponent about LOS thrice, and move each of your models once! That is what makes a palladium rpg tactical game fast paced. When put that way, doesn't it seem much more fun than a rule that is clear and makes some sense in the first place?

Mike1975 wrote:

If you move and don't check or measure or ask the other player before you decide to shoot and he say no joy you can't really blame him.

What?

player 1 - "Im moving this model so i can shoot at your model, an you confirm that is a legal attack please"
player 2 - "confirmed"
player 1 - "im now moving this model so................"

You REALLY think thats how a game should be played?

REALLY?

*insert dumbfounded emoticon here*

Mike1975 wrote:
If you want, in your games use the Warmachine version of LOS. If you play in a tourney you will have to play according to the rules and FAQ that they have at that time. If you don't play in tourneys this should not be much of an issue.

Or, you know, they could just make rules that are easy to follow and make sense.

This is a really, really basic rules issue that's been solved and identified in modern game design for the last 10 years or so: Do NOT use arbitrary 'see 2/3rds of a model' sort of stuff for determining LOS. Use a cylinder, which is unambiguous, doesn't penalize (or reward) people who do creative model posing or sculpting, and eliminates uncertainty.

You know, sort of like how measurements should be standardized (ie, define base to base measurements instead of arbitrary center to center), and define where LOS comes from (Do I 'see' out of my model's eyeballs? What if my model's head is turned to the side? Or much more playably, from any spot in the cylindrical area of the base?)

That diagram earlier of the 'untargettable' VF is pretty bad.

Mike1975 wrote:


Which is why you can measure ANYTHING AT ANY TIME, so that if you have some lovely flowers blocking the way like in that picture and LOS is questionable you can move your mini over a bit or even ask the other player BEFORE you complete your move and start attacking. This is not like chess where if you take you hand off the mini you are done. Like I said, I understand and have had these same arguments in my own games. I think your making mountains out of molehills. Regardless, I did ask and this is something that was not going to change. Now if a few tourney happen to have this issue and it comes up and is called attention to it might just get PB to add an FAQ on it or rules alteration.

Thats the thing people always think it will not be a issue in many TT games. But, in every TT game with this vaugeness it is to one level or another. LOS should be as clear and non-opinion based as possible.

Mike1975 wrote:
And to reiterate

Which is why you can measure ANYTHING AT ANY TIME, so that if you have some lovely flowers blocking the way like in that picture and LOS is questionable you can move your mini over a bit or even ask the other player BEFORE you complete your move and start attacking. This is not like chess where if you take you hand off the mini you are done.

If you move and don't check or measure or ask the other player before you decide to shoot and he say no joy you can't really blame him.

I think it's a clear shot - I can see the center of my target. In addition, I've moved my maximum and literally can't "move my mini over a bit" to get a more clear LoS.

It comes to shooting. I attempt to fire, because remember - I checked LoS. You and I disagree as to what the center of the mini is. To you, it's blocked. To me, I have a shot.

This situation is going to happen - guaranteed. And the fact that you have to dice it off is horribly stupid and simply bad game design. The fact that you don't see that doesn't speak much for your "house" rules, Mike.

Oh wow, I just thought...

Playing RaW - Won't those Battloids be at a cover disadvantage by being up on a flying stand? Less able to take cover?

ugh!

 Kendachi wrote:
Oh wow, I just thought...

Playing RaW - Won't those Battloids be at a cover disadvantage by being up on a flying stand? Less able to take cover?

ugh!

That's why you model everything crouching...and preferably with their arms pulled in tight so you can take advantage of as small cover as possible!

Merijeek wrote:

 Kendachi wrote:
Oh wow, I just thought...

Playing RaW - Won't those Battloids be at a cover disadvantage by being up on a flying stand? Less able to take cover?

ugh!

That's why you model everything crouching...and preferably with their arms pulled in tight so you can take advantage of as small cover as possible!

Indeed! In fact, you're just being faithful to the anime that the game is based on. The correct way to completely legal model your battlepods is as such:





Totally legit! In fact, you could even legally model your battlepods in a special "Attack on Macross Island" theme and have them half submerged in the water on their bases with only the center "eye" just barely above the waterline.

The above is a exaggeration made in good humor to illustrate a point. Certain posters should not feel the need to refute it.

FacelessMage wrote:Sining that was you that made those?

I then transfer my compliment to you good sir.

Those Look Awesome!

Nope, not mine.

Also, considering a lot of times I play true LOS with friends, we always have a slight squabble about what can truly see each other and that's just true LOS-can see any part of the mini = clear not this 25% cover bs, this should make for lots of fun times at the game shop.

There will be problems. I do not see that this will cause some kind of game breaking slowness or soul destroying imbalance. So make this house rule. If both parties cannot agree it counts as visible. Boom its solved.

griffen127 wrote:
There will be problems. I do not see that this will cause some kind of game breaking slowness or soul destroying imbalance. So make this house rule. If both parties cannot agree it counts as visible. Boom its solved.

Or, you know, your rule just completely removed cover from the table.

So play on an open green mat/starfield mat?

Whelp, that's one way to speed up setup time....

"So make this house rule"

The only official FAQ to palladium rule problems.

Do you gents know if/how one can order a RoboTech battlefoam case at this late stage?

 Manchu wrote:
Do you gents know if/how one can order a RoboTech battlefoam case at this late stage?

eBay in a few months when they finally ship out to backers.

I saw them at GenCon but did not like to tote one home.

 Manchu wrote:
I saw them at GenCon but did not like to tote one home.

They were on the gencon order sheet but it said the numbers were extremely limited (<50). I'd call palladium direct and ask on the phone.

Not a bad idea!

 Killionaire wrote:
This is a really, really basic rules issue that's been solved and identified in modern game design for the last 10 years or so: Do NOT use arbitrary 'see 2/3rds of a model' sort of stuff for determining LOS. Use a cylinder, which is unambiguous, doesn't penalize (or reward) people who do creative model posing or sculpting, and eliminates uncertainty.

Yet, if you look at games that made that "mistake" in their early editions and are in the process of changing it, you'll still see hatred and fear concerning the vile cylinder.

For example, see Corvus Belli's Infinity. Or go digging through the Games Workshop edition change archives.

There's a much greater element of fashion to various game mechanics than one might expect.

And yet the one thing the fashionable cylinder gives us is a game with 98%(tm)(r) less los arguments.

Ties are useless silk cloth garrotes that people willingly put on themselves. Yet they're fashionable. High heel shoes. Any number of other elements of clothing design, especially in video games...

I wasn't defending anything by calling it fashionable. Just explaining why the choice continues to be made.

I was defending it though, with a heavy dose of sarcasm.

 solkan wrote:

 Killionaire wrote:
This is a really, really basic rules issue that's been solved and identified in modern game design for the last 10 years or so: Do NOT use arbitrary 'see 2/3rds of a model' sort of stuff for determining LOS. Use a cylinder, which is unambiguous, doesn't penalize (or reward) people who do creative model posing or sculpting, and eliminates uncertainty.

Yet, if you look at games that made that "mistake" in their early editions and are in the process of changing it, you'll still see hatred and fear concerning the vile cylinder.

For example, see Corvus Belli's Infinity. Or go digging through the Games Workshop edition change archives.

There's a much greater element of fashion to various game mechanics than one might expect.

Many games use it, because it makes sense
You have zero ambiguity in LOS with a cylinder, and zero issues with creative modelling. The game is enhanced to be more playable.

That is why Infinity is adopting it. And anyone who disagrees really doesn't have a good reason. It's worked marvelously for Warmachine, works great for Malifaux, and is currently working just fine for that new Relic Knights game. Dark Age has been using it for a long time, as has that new WW game. It's really a very, very sensible way to handle dynamic models.

GW is never a model you should use, and there's very good reasons. By their rules, 'Wings and Guns' dont count as LOS. So what did people do? Model frigging giant demons hiding behind their wings, or guys crawling with a gun in the air.

'Fear' over the cylinder model is overblown when it comes to making a solid ruleset for widespread adoption. All it does is enhance gameplay. Isn't that the point after all? To make a game that more people can play and enjoy by having it have clear and fun rules?

 Forar wrote:
Dude, this is supposed to be a fast paced game. If I have 48 battlepods on the table with good debris cover, it is going to take like 10 minutes just to get them all in place while ensuring that my opponent and I both agree that none are inopportunely 3mm too far in a given direction.

And if you have a buddy that is picky like that no matter what kind of LOS rules you use you will have similar problems and take just as long.

Now what you could do instead of just saying this is wrong is write up a rule on how it should be done, debate it, and I'll put it in the FAQ. Until then we really are wasting our breath.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

 Forar wrote:
Dude, this is supposed to be a fast paced game. If I have 48 battlepods on the table with good debris cover, it is going to take like 10 minutes just to get them all in place while ensuring that my opponent and I both agree that none are inopportunely 3mm too far in a given direction.

Duh.. the solution is to measure twice, ask your opponent about LOS thrice, and move each of your models once! That is what makes a palladium rpg tactical game fast paced. When put that way, doesn't it seem much more fun than a rule that is clear and makes some sense in the first place?

Ok, maybe you could write one instead of just saying it's done wrong? I'll see if I can add it to the FAQ. That was the first thing I took to KS way back and was told that it would not change but if enough players consider it a problem he might change his mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MangoMadness wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:

If you move and don't check or measure or ask the other player before you decide to shoot and he say no joy you can't really blame him.

What?

player 1 - "Im moving this model so i can shoot at your model, an you confirm that is a legal attack please"
player 2 - "confirmed"
player 1 - "im now moving this model so................"

You REALLY think thats how a game should be played?

REALLY?

*insert dumbfounded emoticon here*

Mike1975 wrote:
If you want, in your games use the Warmachine version of LOS. If you play in a tourney you will have to play according to the rules and FAQ that they have at that time. If you don't play in tourneys this should not be much of an issue.

Or, you know, they could just make rules that are easy to follow and make sense.

That's just as ridiculous as people saying look I have 26% cover and not the 25% that you say so you can't shoot me. Propose a WRITTEN alternative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Killionaire wrote:

 solkan wrote:

 Killionaire wrote:
This is a really, really basic rules issue that's been solved and identified in modern game design for the last 10 years or so: Do NOT use arbitrary 'see 2/3rds of a model' sort of stuff for determining LOS. Use a cylinder, which is unambiguous, doesn't penalize (or reward) people who do creative model posing or sculpting, and eliminates uncertainty.

Yet, if you look at games that made that "mistake" in their early editions and are in the process of changing it, you'll still see hatred and fear concerning the vile cylinder.

For example, see Corvus Belli's Infinity. Or go digging through the Games Workshop edition change archives.

There's a much greater element of fashion to various game mechanics than one might expect.

Many games use it, because it makes sense


I'm not a fan of the cyclinder because then you have to place the dang thing on the table and check every freaking time and that takes more time than just asking. Like asking someone takes soooooo muucchh time and effort. I've never used it though and when this LOS stuff came up months ago the group here did talk about it. Again, if you guys propose a well written alternative I'll add it to the FAQ. The smaller the actual change to game mechanics the more likely it is going to happen. The rules are written and printed so the only other choice is for the FAQ.


You have zero ambiguity in LOS with a cylinder, and zero issues with creative modelling. The game is enhanced to be more playable.

That is why Infinity is adopting it. And anyone who disagrees really doesn't have a good reason. It's worked marvelously for Warmachine, works great for Malifaux, and is currently working just fine for that new Relic Knights game. Dark Age has been using it for a long time, as has that new WW game. It's really a very, very sensible way to handle dynamic models.

GW is never a model you should use, and there's very good reasons. By their rules, 'Wings and Guns' dont count as LOS. So what did people do? Model frigging giant demons hiding behind their wings, or guys crawling with a gun in the air.

'Fear' over the cylinder model is overblown when it comes to making a solid ruleset for widespread adoption. All it does is enhance gameplay. Isn't that the point after all? To make a game that more people can play and enjoy by having it have clear and fun rules?

A) *facepalm* Again. For the third time. It doesn't have to be about having a friend or opponent be 'that guy'. The system, as described/written, will cause *entirely reasonable people to disagree*, and that kind of slowdown when dozens or even a hundred figures are moving per turn is not 'fast paced'. Moving a half dozen or up to a dozen figures in a skirmish game is one thing. Needing this level of preventative judging and nitpicking when a side might have 50+ figures on it is a potential issue they should have recognized years ago.

You keep saying that this isn't chess, that there's time to tweak the exact positioning. My point is that this stance is basically "Hey, take however long you like", which again, is not 'fast paced'. They emphasized this repeatedly over the last year and a half, and it seems like an awfully big stumbling block if their LoS system fails to account for it.

B) It's not my job. I'm not a professional game designer, and I'm sure everyone could pick my ideas apart just as well. Even if we all teamed up to craft a better LoS system, frankly, it's not our job to do PB's homework.

Luckily, I don't have to be a pro to recognize potential pitfalls, and I've waxed at length as to my thoughts on the matter in the past. If they want a thorough breakdown of the matter at this point, point them at the game Malifaux and say "basically that". The 'cylinder volume' approach seems to be fairly common, and having used it, I can see why.