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.

Written proposal: Go read the Malifaux, Warmachine, and Relic Knights LOS systems (apparently Infinity too). It is already written for you.
I said way back when when we were all having the LOS discussion that the "cylinder volume" approach was the way to go, but instead we have tree branches blocking LOS from a battlepod that can easily be seen (and if you have already moved your full X inches then you can't just "move a bit").

And while you are reading the warmachine book read the rest of the rules. That is what a good set of rules looks like and the game is very popular for it

And, to snip it out and note it on its own, that's addressing a singular model. My point about moving up to 50+ is that across 200-400+ maneuvers over the course of a game, some of those will likely have questions raised.

A single model moving once is just a data point. Across an entire game, it's far more likely to come up if there's any terrain at all in play and people actually use it, especially if they use it intentionally, in that they have a vested interest in having enough poking out to get a shot, but enough hidden to get the cover bonus, if not be completely protected from at least some return fire.

All this talk of laser pointers and 'getting down to eye level' (note; this is a terrible way to judge such things) or using strings, even if reasonable in the singular moment, because vastly less so across possibly dozens of situations in a single game.

Haven't read the rules yet but from the comments on this page, it seems quite laughable

Swabby wrote:
And while you are reading the warmachine book read the rest of the rules. That is a good set of rules looks like and the game is very popular for it.

I agree. Having played some Warmachine and read through the rules, I can say that it is a very solid ruleset.
Unlike another ruleset, *cough*Robotech*cough*, that needs Day 1 FAQ and rules amendments.

 Forar wrote:
And, to snip it out and note it on its own, that's addressing a singular model. My point about moving up to 50+ is that across 200-400+ maneuvers over the course of a game, some of those will likely have questions raised.

A single model moving once is just a data point. Across an entire game, it's far more likely to come up if there's any terrain at all in play and people actually use it, especially if they use it intentionally, in that they have a vested interest in having enough poking out to get a shot, but enough hidden to get the cover bonus, if not be completely protected from at least some return fire.

All this talk of laser pointers and 'getting down to eye level' (note; this is a terrible way to judge such things) or using strings, even if reasonable in the singular moment, because vastly less so across possibly dozens of situations in a single game.

Exactly. If you are moving squadrons of models, then something will inevitably come up and more than likely multiple times as well. Hand-waving it off with "you can pre-measure at any time", "just move it a little bit", "just house-rule it", etc. is not a solution. This is a major problem that will come up in games. Not only are the rules asking people to do things that are entirely subjective and hanging an important mechanic on it, but it IS going to be very time-consuming with 50-100 models and ample, dynamic terrain.

Mike1975 wrote:


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.

I did a few pages back and you even quoted the suggestion.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/780/521733.page#7130437

Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.

Is it perfect? No. Is it an improvement that gets rid of the nebulous "center" as the crux of the LOS determination? Yes. You can still have the main body/torso be the determining factor in Palladium style but make it less likely to get the situation where a most of the model is visible yet invisible. There is still the issue of having all of your limbs and head visible when some ideally shaped piece of cover like an oak tree (instead of a lamp post) is completely covering your torso but that should be less abusable than just the center. While determining exactly what constitutes the torso is still a potential source of argument, it's is usually but not always better than trying to argue where the pin point center is. Improvement is not the enemy of perfect. I would personally get rid of the LOS system entirely and start from scratch but that suggestion would NEVER be taken under advisement and just ignored given it is Palladium. At least the above placates their pride by incorporating what they came up with and just trimming back the ridiculousness. It can also be done with a simple two line FAQ/errata entry.

Ignore all references to the center when determining LOS. Replace it with "any part of the torso". i.e. "When you wish to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from any part of the torso of the acting mecha (or hull for non-humanoid pieces), to any part of the torso (or hull) of the target mecha." pg 11 LOS 2nd paragraph

With that simple change, we at least go from Rigeld2's pic below to the less ridiculous but still not perfect situation at the bottom.

its all a cunning plan to get everyone to play one game with their LoS rules. By the time your done with that game the second wave will almost be ready.....and your newborns will be graduated from university with a degree in psychology after writing their doctoral thesis on how Kevin ruined their parents friendships because of a stupid rule.

I think it is a cunning plan to get you so frustrated with the tactics rules that it will make you want to buy the RPG so you can use those rules instead. The twist at the end is that those rules are even worse.

Did Kevin have anything to do with the rules? I know before the rulebook was released, mike was saying Kevin had very little to do with this project at all when people were complaining about how bad the rules were likely to be due to Kevin. So as a question for those who have read the rulebook, just how high is Kevin in the list of credits?

The very first name listed. Executive Producer.

 Swabby wrote:
I think it is a cunning plan to get you so frustrated with the tactics rules that it will make you want to buy the RPG so you can use those rules instead. The twist at the end is that those rules are even worse.

Truth.

Sining wrote:
Did Kevin have anything to do with the rules? I know before the rulebook was released, mike was saying Kevin had very little to do with this project at all when people were complaining about how bad the rules were likely to be due to Kevin. So as a question for those who have read the rulebook, just how high is Kevin in the list of credits?

Credits, as found in the book:

Executive Producer: Kevin Siembieda

Creative Director: John Cadice

Lead Game Designer: David Freeman

Game Design: Carmen Bellaire

Additional Game Concepts: Kai Nesbit, Kevin Siembieda, Wayne Smith

Background Writing: Carmen Bellaire, Kevin Siembieda

Editing: Jeff Burke, Wayne Smith, Deke Stella

Graphic Design: Kris Aubin, Gunship Revolution

Print Production Manager: Deke Stella

Cover Art: Chester Ocampo

Illustration: Elmer Damaso, Daniel Dussault, Gunship Revolution, Brian Snoddy, Charles Walton

Painting Guide: Jeff Burke

Sculpting: Big Idea Miniatures, Lukasz Krysa, Olivier Nkweti, Tyler Russo, Jason Webb

Robotech Consultants: Jeff Burke, Douglas Wooten, Steven Yun, Tommy Yune

Special Thanks to: Thomas Roache, River Horse (Alessio Cavatore)

Funded with KICKSTARTER, Our sincerest thanks to all of our backers (omg yay! >.> )

And like 100'ish names under playtesting.

I was under the impression that alessio and nd were going to be doing the writing for the rules yet I can't really see a nd name in the game design part nor alessio. How does this square with what mike told us

Alessio's name was seemingly on everything a year or two ago. I suspect his involvement amounted to being sent the KS rules and probably making a few suggestions just so they could attach his name to the project.

All I know is that anywhere there is a description of concept it reads like Kevin wrote it.

There are several ways of sorting out decent LOS rules. PB have chosen to pick a terrible way of determining LOS which I will ignore and use an alternative from a game that works - like Malifaux.
Problem solved? No, because the official rules for this aren't right and this is true of every PB game I have ever played. The woolly BS needs to stop.

 Ironwill13791 wrote:
Written proposal: Go read the Malifaux, Warmachine, and Relic Knights LOS systems (apparently Infinity too). It is already written for you.
I said way back when when we were all having the LOS discussion that the "cylinder volume" approach was the way to go, but instead we have tree branches blocking LOS from a battlepod that can easily be seen (and if you have already moved your full X inches then you can't just "move a bit").

Not going to go out and buy another book just for LOS and the system needs to be close to what we have already if anybody wants any chance at all for it to be accepted as part of an FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:


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.

I did a few pages back and you even quoted the suggestion.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/780/521733.page#7130437

Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.

Is it perfect? No. Is it an improvement that gets rid of the nebulous "center" as the crux of the LOS determination? Yes. You can still have the main body/torso be the determining factor in Palladium style but make it less likely to get the situation where a most of the model is visible yet invisible. There is still the issue of having all of your limbs and head visible when some ideally shaped piece of cover like an oak tree (instead of a lamp post) is completely covering your torso but that should be less abusable than just the center. While determining exactly what constitutes the torso is still a potential source of argument, it's is usually but not always better than trying to argue where the pin point center is. Improvement is not the enemy of perfect. I would personally get rid of the LOS system entirely and start from scratch but that suggestion would NEVER be taken under advisement and just ignored given it is Palladium. At least the above placates their pride by incorporating what they came up with and just trimming back the ridiculousness. It can also be done with a simple two line FAQ/errata entry.

Ignore all references to the center when determining LOS. Replace it with "any part of the torso". i.e. "When you wish to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from any part of the torso of the acting mecha (or hull for non-humanoid pieces), to any part of the torso (or hull) of the target mecha." pg 11 LOS 2nd paragraph

With that simple change, we at least go from Rigeld2's pic below to the less ridiculous but still not perfect situation at the bottom.

Link did not work, believe it or not I did send PB that suggestion we came up with here. I even called KS personally about it a while back and was told it was not going to change. Hopefully if the change is shown as important enough and not a major change I can sneak it in on them. As before we con only try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Theophony wrote:
its all a cunning plan to get everyone to play one game with their LoS rules. By the time your done with that game the second wave will almost be ready.....and your newborns will be graduated from university with a degree in psychology after writing their doctoral thesis on how Kevin ruined their parents friendships because of a stupid rule.

Agreed, everyone has their preferences, I think the cyclinder format is effective but will take too much time. Plus there is no way a change that big will ever be accepted.

I think it's hilarious that Mike thinks there is going to be a FAQ.

Sining wrote:
Did Kevin have anything to do with the rules? I know before the rulebook was released, mike was saying Kevin had very little to do with this project at all when people were complaining about how bad the rules were likely to be due to Kevin. So as a question for those who have read the rulebook, just how high is Kevin in the list of credits?

KS does not even know the rules really. If you ask him to play you'll likely have to explain to him how it works. That's what Jeff and the rest are for.

I'll say this much, the book looks great. I would love to get a hardcover edition.

Mike1975 wrote:

 Ironwill13791 wrote:
Written proposal: Go read the Malifaux, Warmachine, and Relic Knights LOS systems (apparently Infinity too). It is already written for you.
I said way back when when we were all having the LOS discussion that the "cylinder volume" approach was the way to go, but instead we have tree branches blocking LOS from a battlepod that can easily be seen (and if you have already moved your full X inches then you can't just "move a bit").

Not going to go out and but another book just for LOS and the system needs to be close to what we have already if anybody wants any chance at all for it to be accepted as part of an FAQ.

It shouldn't have to be in an FAQ. It should have been designed correctly in the 1st place. ND has shown already that they know something about making good rules (see Relic Knights); so obviously this is all KS and his inability to keep his hands off the book (like he promised at the onset of this whole thing).

I would say go with Warboss's suggestion though. At least that will eliminate some of the glaring issues (Not like it will actually be implemented anyway. That would require KS to admit there are serious issues with his rules).

P.S. The cylinder method wont take too much time. It will actually end up being exceedingly quicker then this crap (with almost no arguments to boot). I speak from experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

vitae_drinker wrote:
I think it's hilarious that Mike thinks there is going to be a FAQ.

What does he think this is GW?

 warboss wrote:
Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.

I would prefer instead of center of the torso, that the center of the base be used to determine LOS. It is easier to determine the center of the base, chances are if you see the center of the base you are also seeing the center torso (unless they based it strangely). All the miniatures should be using the same size base so this seems easier to use. Get rid of the 25%/75% because it will confuse people. The only way that works is if they actually have a template outline that can be placed behind a miniature to show what would be considered LOS and what wouldn't be.

 Ironwill13791 wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:

 Ironwill13791 wrote:
Written proposal: Go read the Malifaux, Warmachine, and Relic Knights LOS systems (apparently Infinity too). It is already written for you.
I said way back when when we were all having the LOS discussion that the "cylinder volume" approach was the way to go, but instead we have tree branches blocking LOS from a battlepod that can easily be seen (and if you have already moved your full X inches then you can't just "move a bit").

Not going to go out and but another book just for LOS and the system needs to be close to what we have already if anybody wants any chance at all for it to be accepted as part of an FAQ.

It shouldn't have to be in an FAQ. It should have been designed correctly in the 1st place. ND has shown already that they know something about making good rules (see Relic Knights); so obviously this is all KS and his inability to keep his hands off the book (like he promised at the onset of this whole thing).

I would say go with Warboss's suggestion though. At least that will eliminate some of the glaring issues (Not like it will actually be implemented anyway. That would require KS to admit there are serious issues with his rules).

P.S. The cylinder method wont take too much time. It will actually end up being exceedingly quicker then this crap (with almost no arguments to boot). I speak from experience.

Dude, you say this as if I have not tried. The source told me no. Now that time has gone by and things are about to be released and an FAQ will be appropriate it's time to try again. Going for the stars is NOT going to help. Any suggestions have to be what could be passed off as a minor change or correction or it's likely going to get a no.

Ideally would it be sweet to have a game that magically makes everyone happy? Yes. Is that realistic? No. Why? Because everyone has a different idea of what perfect is. Can we try to make it better? Absolutely. But the bigger the change the more likely the answer will be no.

tl;dr don't rock the boat. The system may be crappy but we're not fixing it. We can't please everyone anyone so we're just going to stock with our crap system because that requires the LEAST effort

Sining wrote:
tl;dr don't rock the boat. The system may be crappy but we're not fixing it. We can't please everyone anyone so we're just going to stock with our crap system because that requires the LEAST effort

Oh yeah, really productive

 Dark Severance wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.

I would prefer instead of center of the torso, that the center of the base be used to determine LOS. It is easier to determine the center of the base, chances are if you see the center of the base you are also seeing the center torso (unless they based it strangely). All the miniatures should be using the same size base so this seems easier to use. Get rid of the 25%/75% because it will confuse people. The only way that works is if they actually have a template outline that can be placed behind a miniature to show what would be considered LOS and what wouldn't be.

The center of the base is even more problematic and you may not have considered it. Take the building that is covering the center of the torso on rigeld's pic that I posted last page. Now take off HALF the height and make the building even smaller... and move it over to the right. It is now covering the entire base and only reaches to the knees of the model yet the model is "invisible". I'm sorry but using the base while ignoring the model just doesn't work at all.

 warboss wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Even a simple word change removing mention the stupid center and making any part of the torso visible for LOS would be an improvement.

I would prefer instead of center of the torso, that the center of the base be used to determine LOS. It is easier to determine the center of the base, chances are if you see the center of the base you are also seeing the center torso (unless they based it strangely). All the miniatures should be using the same size base so this seems easier to use. Get rid of the 25%/75% because it will confuse people. The only way that works is if they actually have a template outline that can be placed behind a miniature to show what would be considered LOS and what wouldn't be.

The center of the base is even more problematic and you may not have considered it. Take the building that is covering the center of the torso on rigeld's pic that I posted last page. Now take off HALF the height and make the building even smaller... and move it over to the right. It is now covering the entire base and only reaches to the knees of the model yet the model is "invisible". I'm sorry but using the base while ignoring the model just doesn't work at all.

Yeah, so base is not ideal, center of mass is not ideal, cyclinder based is NOT going to happen. Thing is to reword/rework TLOS so that it can handle some of these odd situations without breaking down into rules lawyering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then your back to parts or percentages of the torso or model....

Hey, don't get exasperated with us! You said "you write something" and we're like "man, why would we re-invent the wheel? Half a dozen companies are using a thing, and it's pretty sweet and works pretty well" and your response is "woah, wait, no, gotta be a little tiny tweak".

Also, nobody expects YOU to buy the books, but surely Palladium has petty cash around to splurge on a $20 game book. Hell, they SHOULD have bought a bunch of modern systems and researched what was being done in the field, or even better, the people making the rules ideally would've been familiar with modern mechanics.

Hell, they may very well have been. So assuming they did their homework, the intentionally chose this method out of all the others out there. "True Line of Sight" or whatever it's referred to as was deemed superior to these other methods, and those of us that feel it's a poor choice are, imo, expressing ourselves fairly clearly as to why that isn't necessarily ideal mechanically, especially for what is apparently going to be asked of the game 'engine', as it were.

Look, I'm trying really hard to not make an appeal to authority or popularity or any of the other fallacies that pop up like bad pennies on the PB forums or the comments, but look at the numbers. There comments have dozens of people chattering, maybe hundreds during a busy time. The PB forums biggest spike of activity was 250'ish people eight years ago. This site has seen 150 times that activity. It is a bustling hub of wargamers, all with their own experiences and opinions, but they represent the market share that PB wants to break into and rake in some of that sweet sweet lucrative money from.

And the responses to just one section of the rules has been pretty solidly critical.

Does it mean *everyone* will hate them? No. Of course not. But poorly chosen or worded rules become just another barrier to entry, especially when they're essentially just cribbing off what a bunch of other games do, but apparently they've chosen poor source material.

As always, I applaud you putting in the work, but I'm not sure what middle ground there is to be found when the big boss will probably thumbs down 95% of our suggestions, and doesn't even necessarily understand the game or genre well enough to recognize why we're making them/choosing those mechanics.

It can't be both ways. He's the final say but he's not even cognizant of the system, and yet he's the top billing name AND listed under "additional game concepts". Believe me, I would be happy to question at length why someone doesn't understand the game forwards and backwards is being credited with game concepts. That's not sounding like a good recipe for making informed choices/judgement calls.

Not exasperated, but a big change is much less likely to happen then a small one. You know that.

Regardless of what or how this method was chosen, since MANY games out there use it that could have something to do with it, the idea is to find something that we can all live with and see if we can sneak it in there.

Stand back and put yourself in my shoes. I go and tell them to change to whole LOS system because theirs sucks, I get a thank you for your idea.

I go with them saying that I have a clarification and here it is and here is how it will help and I'm 20x more likely to get a positive response.

So you can complain about what is OR you can help change it to something you are more likely to live with. Your choice.

Fact is his name is on the top, get over it, he makes the final decisions, that may be like me deciding if the Challenger should have launched or not, something I have only basic knowledge about but there it is.

You can rail against it and bash your head and complain or you can try to change and alter what you can for the better no matter how small.

 Forar wrote:
Palladium ... SHOULD have bought a bunch of modern systems and researched what was being done in the field

What fairy dream land of lollipops and rainbows are you living in?

What you ask may simply not be possible.

If the problem is a page of gak, changing 2 or 3 sentences may not be able to correct it.

As I said before, I'm not a professional game designer, and as I've been saying for the last two years, I gave up 'fixing' Palladium systems a decade and change ago. I expected this gak to be handled by professionals.

And no. Wrong. You don't get to say he has final say AND that he doesn't know sweet feth all about the very product. If he's making final judgements on rules and adding content/mechanics, he should know it. He should be one of those that knows it best. If you see it as some sort of personal attack, perhaps you're the one that should step back.

If I'm working on a project enough that I'm in the top names, and someone asks me about Chapter 4, and I'm like "Chapter 4?", I'm about to have a very bad day.

As Warboss pointed out, we've given feedback. Over a variety of locations, but apparently none of it was listened to, so kindly drop the charade.

Tell you what, when they publicly publish the Errata/FAQ version 1.0, we can start talking about the 1.1 update. But until I see evidence that they're even willing to put that information out there, I'm not going to waste hours fixing what I see as their oversights.