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.

Mike1975 wrote:

 warboss wrote:
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

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

Warboss's suggestion seems like a minor change. If that is still too major then I would ask you to give an example of what you think qualifies as "minor" for your source at PB.

 Manchu wrote:

 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?

I'd tell you, but it's pretty exclusive, and I'm kinda happy keeping the population low. As always, the problem is people.

More to the point, Palladium likes to hide behind "we're new to miniatures!", but they are NOT new to games.

And one of the first steps of starting a new business venture is understanding the market and the audience. If they failed to do that, that's on them.

I mean, hell, has *anyone* here defended TLOS as a good choice yet? Even Mike himself dislikes it, but it's what we're stuck with, so... yay?

 Forar wrote:
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 their oversights.

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.

It's called delegation of authority. You can know almost nothing about something and still be responsible. Shipping container is the perfect example. PB is held accountable but left everything to a broker to handle. You don't have to know about something in detail to be responsible for it. That's what Project Managers do.

Mike1975 wrote:
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.

So it is actually "Jeff and the rest" who are making final calls on rules right? Instead of the guy who "does not even know the rules"? Right???

 Manchu wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:

 warboss wrote:
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

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

Warboss's suggestion seems like a minor change. If that is still too major then I would ask you to give an example of what you think qualifies as "minor" for your source at PB.

I already have that change in the FAQ....

 Forar wrote:
they are NOT new to games

Dude they are new, in the sense of having no apparent exposure, to everything that is not a 24-year old RPG that may be one of the worst in history.

 Manchu wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
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.

So it is actually "Jeff and the rest" who are making final calls on rules right? Instead of the guy who "does not even know the rules"? Right???

I think that is more than likely.

Mike1975 wrote:
I already have that change in the FAQ....

So PB has already accepted that change?

Mike1975 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
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.

So it is actually "Jeff and the rest" who are making final calls on rules right? Instead of the guy who "does not even know the rules"? Right???

I think that is more than likely.

I would hope so; in fact, I cannot imagine how it could be otherwise. Hyperbole aside, KS is not some maniac completely detached from reality after all, even if he does have a hermit empire in terms of RPGs.

Mike1975 wrote:
It's called delegation of authority. You can know almost nothing about something and still be responsible. Shipping container is the perfect example. PB is held accountable but left everything to a broker to handle. You don't have to know about something in detail to be responsible for it. That's what Project Managers do.

And like the container snafu (note, still waiting to hear *anything* about the 1-2 containers that are flat out missing in action), it still boils to the top, and either he made a bad call, or one of the people he chose did.

But when yous say

Mike1975 wrote:
he makes the final decisions

, walking it back to "well, he makes the final decisions on the final decisions of other people" still requires insight into how the system works, because otherwise he's making calls based on incomplete information.

I work with project managers. One of them has put himself through crash courses in IT infrastructure, access control management systems, CCTV systems, Duress systems, and a variety of other fields, to the point that any meeting he sits down in, someone is either going to be answering hard questions or having a very bad day if they try to pull the wool over his eyes.

Palladium is a "small company" with only like 6 people working for it, and it's well known that Kevin is a micromanger that requires everything come past his desk, but you expect me to believe that his name 3 times in the credits isn't intended to indicate he had a hand in crafting the mechanics as we see them? That he's the supreme authority that doesn't know how to play the game?

Seriously not inspiring confidence over here.

And again, you're asking for help with fixing the game before it even releases. I'm perfectly familiar with how "Day 1 Patches" can be a thing in software, but a game that has had upwards of 1.5-2 years cooking really ought to not have "so, LOS is kind of gak, but how can we make it less gak?" as point 1.

Like I said I tried a ways back, not that it's going to hit the street, it's time to try again. I could simply get a no, but it's worth trying just the same.

And knowing the basics as a PM does not require you to know the entire system or series of systems. I've taken courses in PM. PMBOK.

 Forar wrote:


I mean, hell, has *anyone* here defended TLOS as a good choice yet? Even Mike himself dislikes it, but it's what we're stuck with, so... yay?

I actually like and prefer TLOS systems. That said...despite dropping the term into the rules, the Robotech version is NOT true line of sight based but rather a Frankenstein mess of TLOS and abstracted LOS because of the whole "center" thing. Therein lies the problem.

When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the center of the acting figure’s body or center of gravity to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.

 Manchu wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:

 warboss wrote:
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

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

Warboss's suggestion seems like a minor change. If that is still too major then I would ask you to give an example of what you think qualifies as "minor" for your source at PB.

Feel free to pass on my suggestion. I purposefully based it on the palladium terms and robotech rules to be as functional as possible while still stroking their fragile egos.

Manchu, any chance you'll bring up the LOS issue during your battlefoam call? Promising them more $$ might sooth the reception regarding potential rules problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike1975 wrote:
When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the center of the acting figure’s body or center of gravity to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.

I'd drop the center of gravity stuff unless you plan on players hanging up each model at multiple points on a string to find it. I suggested the terms torso and/or main body because theyre existing terms and consistency is part of good game design.

It is difficult for me to think that other systems were not looked at in developing the rules: there are too many similarities to be a coincidence.

For some reason the LOS mechanic was chosen and determined to be good, contrary to our popular belief or not, it had plenty of time to be revised.
It may have very well been a change Kevin wanted to justify his credits, he always has to get his fingerprint on any product they make.
(Was there a last minute editing frenzy? I cannot believe he broke from tradition.)

The rule book is printed, Palladium is not going to spend more money on it now: that ship has sailed literally.

It is great to hear Mike is working on an FAQ, I just am unsure Kevin will let it see the light of day for a very long time.

Please do not give any new excuses to delay at least getting our dreaded "Wave 1" package out.
Being in discussions with Ninja Division for the "Wave 2" is really not looking good with just that statement.

Forar, I never thought I would show much sympathy for anyone on a forum but Mike is working with a rather socially challenged individual so he is caught between a rock and a hard place (been there!). Having to make excuses for someone when you know they are in the wrong and being kicked in the danglies by people you agree with is the strangest feeling on earth. He is probably thinking "Be grateful for what did go right, other things proposed I had to fight tooth and nail would have curled your hair...".

Putting words into someone's mouth who can easily defend themselves is what I do... let the flaming commence!!!!

As much as I want to rag on Kevin with everyone else, I strongly suspect Ninja Division came up with the boneheaded idea. Its in their white board intro videos they published during the KS before they washed their hands off promoting it. I don't think Palladium was the cause but they sure seem intent on not changing it thus far.

When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the center of the mecha’s torso to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.

@Talizvar

I respect that it's an awkward position to be in. Pretty sure I noted it at least once or twice today.

I just don't believe it'll go anywhere, and after reviewing and giving feedback several times, in depth, on this very forum, only to be told variations on 'that's just how it is, that won't change, I already tried/asked that', I'm wary of committing more hours to yet another request for the same.

If I'm going to have to rewrite the damned thing myself, I might as well do it from the ground up where necessary and know that I/my group will be happy with the final outcome. For every suggestion that's made that seems to get remotely any traction, there are a half dozen that are non-starters.

Maybe it's simply that PB and I don't see eye to eye on game mechanics anymore (if we really did, considering the pages of tweaks and fixes my old Rifts group had). Maybe Mike and I just don't communicate effectively enough to really get something concise through. But I have expressed my disbelief that the FAQ will be our salvation. We were asked for feedback, we gave it, I will be shocked if any of my suggestions were implemented, so why waste hours and frustration going through that again.

Unintentionally as it might have been, "fool me twice..."

 warboss wrote:
Manchu, any chance you'll bring up the LOS issue during your battlefoam call? Promising them more $$ might sooth the reception regarding potential rules problems.

I sent an email, er, opened a work ticket? something digital. So if ... when I don't hear back in a few days, I will call and ask them about the TLOS thing. But I have a feeling I will talk to "someone who doesn't know anything about it," which is my usual luck when talking to game companies, even ones with very few employees.

Mike1975 wrote:
When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, if an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the active mecha's torso or hull to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso or hull is not completely blocked by another figure, LOS blocking effect like smoke, or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.

The "center" term is the crux of the issue; why did you add it back? Ive edited the quote above as it is easier than rewriting on android. I added the smoke part in case there is such an effect in the game although I'm not sure there is but also to future proof it.

Damn, sorry, got people coming in and out of the office here.

When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the attacking mecha’s torso to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target as long as more than 25% of the target mecha is in the attacking unit's Field of View. If there is a difference of opinion on if there is enough of a mecha in the attacking players Field of View or not, then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.

What is the purpose of the 25% clause anyway? TLOS + cover works in every other game. I can understand a percentage rule to benefit from cover but I am coming up with nothing to justify a percentage rule to negate TLOS.

25% was just so that someone can't say I see that mecha's shoulder and arm so I can shoot it. There has to be some cutoff so that a player cannot just see a shoulder and fire. Where and how would you suggest a cutoff point? There's no good way that I can see.

Why can't you shoot at a shoulder? The clear solution is to give a heavy cover penalty/bonus.

ok, so what do you guys think? Warboss?

remove the 25%

When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the attacking mecha’s torso to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso. If the line is not completely blocked by another figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target. If there is a difference of opinion then both of the players will roll a single D6, the highest roll wins, if the roll is a tie, re-roll until there is a winner.

Or remove the resolve with D6 too?

 warboss wrote:
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.

LOS is only an issue when it isn't clearly line of sight. If there was shrub blocking the whole base but not the whole upper body, then there is obviously no line of sight issue. Now granted that is probably why they used 75%/25% to portray that, the problem is that as a rule it is taken literally.

If you can clearly see the upper body, then there is absolutely no reason anyone should be arguing line of sight. Sure I get that if we just say center of the base, then in your example someone could just say the small building blocks the base... so it isn't line of sight. So you use the first explanation of of line of sight is determined by if you see an equivalent part of the miniatures body (the most obvious yes I can see it clearly) rule. You add for when it gets questionable to if it is slightly blocked, determining the base. Then add in LoS is reciprocal, to adjust for any issues where terrain could block one model but not another from view (ie: Infinity).

"The Line of Fire is an imaginary straight line that runs from the centre of a miniature’s base to an enemy miniature. If there are any obstacles in the way that completely block an enemy miniature from sight, then there is no LoS. A target may only be selected by a figure if the miniature can “see” it, at least partially. An enemy model may not be shot at if any object, figure, or scenery element blocks totally the LoS. A miniature must be able to see the target’s head or a body area of equivalent size to be able to fire at him. The LoS is reciprocal, applying the rule “If I can see you, you can see me”. If a figure can draw LoS to its target, then the target can draw LoS to the figure as well.

Sometimes, due to the dynamism of the miniatures, it is difficult to determine visually if there is Line of Fire or not. In those cases, if the player can draw a LoS from the centre of his miniature’s base (For example using a tape measure or a laser pointer) that touches or passes through the diameter of the base of the enemy figure, without being blocked, then it is a legal target. But the player must not forget it is necessary to see, at minimum, the target’s head or a body area of equivalent size to be able to fire at him. Additionally, the Line of Sight is reciprocal, so if a figure can draw LoS to its target, then the target can draw LoS to the figure as well."

 Dark Severance wrote:

 warboss wrote:
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.

LOS is only an issue when it isn't clearly line of sight. If there was shrub blocking the whole base but not the whole upper body, then there is obviously no line of sight issue. Now granted that is probably why they used 75%/25% to portray that, the problem is that as a rule it is taken literally.

If you can clearly see the upper body, then there is absolutely no reason anyone should be arguing line of sight. Sure I get that if we just say center of the base, then in your example someone could just say the small building blocks the base... so it isn't line of sight. So you use the first explanation of of line of sight is determined by if you see an equivalent part of the miniatures body (the most obvious yes I can see it clearly) rule. You add for when it gets questionable to if it is slightly blocked, determining the base. Then add in LoS is reciprocal, to adjust for any issues where terrain could block one model but not another from view (ie: Infinity).

"The Line of Fire is an imaginary straight line that runs from the centre of a miniature’s base to an enemy miniature. If there are any obstacles in the way that completely block an enemy miniature from sight, then there is no LoS. A target may only be selected by a figure if the miniature can “see” it, at least partially. An enemy model may not be shot at if any object, figure, or scenery element blocks totally the LoS. A miniature must be able to see the target’s head or a body area of equivalent size to be able to fire at him. The LoS is reciprocal, applying the rule “If I can see you, you can see me”. If a figure can draw LoS to its target, then the target can draw LoS to the figure as well.

Sometimes, due to the dynamism of the miniatures, it is difficult to determine visually if there is Line of Fire or not. In those cases, if the player can draw a LoS from the centre of his miniature’s base (For example using a tape measure or a laser pointer) that touches or passes through the diameter of the base of the enemy figure, without being blocked, then it is a legal target. But the player must not forget it is necessary to see, at minimum, the target’s head or a body area of equivalent size to be able to fire at him. Additionally, the Line of Sight is reciprocal, so if a figure can draw LoS to its target, then the target can draw LoS to the figure as well."

Opinions???

Mike1975 wrote:
Or remove the resolve with D6 too?

That seems fine, as it is pretty standard.

The issue is, what is the subject of the disagreement?

(a) whether the model can be seen at all (TLOS)

(b) whether at least 25% of the model can be seen

In my experience, (a) is an easier question than (b).

Mike1975 wrote:

Or remove the resolve with D6 too?

Surely that should be in the rules preamble to lay a clear method of resolving disagreements with any rule interpretation.

 Dark Severance wrote:
The Line of Fire is an imaginary straight line that runs from the centre of a miniature’s base to an enemy miniature.

This does not match up to this:

 Dark Severance wrote:
The LoS is reciprocal, applying the rule “If I can see you, you can see me.”

Being able to draw a straight line to [any part of] Y from the center of X does not necessarily mean one can draw a straight line from the center of Y to X.

I like TLOS because it makes sense. "If you can see it, even just a little bit, you can try to shoot it." This rule does not mean that something almost entirely obscured is as easy to hit as something that is almost entirely visible. As I mentioned, this is where rules about cover come in -- but this is not the right place for rules about whether or not you can even take a shot.

 Manchu wrote:
Being able to draw a straight line to [any part of] Y from the center of X does not necessarily mean one can draw a straight line from the center of Y to X.

I didn't write the rules. I'm waiting to see if anyone recognizes them though. ^_^ I can tell you that they work just fine. The reason that LoS is reciprocal is for a couple reasons. One it gets rid of the issue of someone just being way too clever with terrain to where they are lined up perfectly and the other person can't see them yet they can shoot. Rules are meant as a means to facilitate and allow gameplay, not hinder it, no one likes a rules lawyer argument in the middle of a game. The reality is if you are able to shoot at someone, then they would definitely be able to see you and shoot back. (Granted there is cover but we aren't talking about cover, we're simply talking about LoS at this point.)

 Manchu wrote:
like TLOS because it makes sense. "If you can see it, even just a little bit, you can try to shoot it." This rule does not mean that something almost entirely obscured is as easy to hit as something that is almost entirely visible. As I mentioned, this is where rules about cover come in -- but this is not the right place for rules about whether or not you can even take a shot.

It isn't practical when you have dynamic miniatures with different poses, representing the same miniature. If all Veritech miniatures had a monopose and were exactly the same then TLOS would be something that could work. Since they do not TLOS doesn't make sense because the pose is meant to make the miniatures be cool and unique, so they don't all look alike. They however shouldn't effect game play and if you base it completely on what you see then gameplay is being effected by how the miniature is based and posed. The other issue with simply "If you can see it, even just a little bit, you can shoot" is that what a person claims they can see is debatable. It sounds easy to do but in a game tournament situation it isn't. For example a snipe miniature laying down prone on a base, obviously is harder to see vs a sniper that is kneeling or standing (even if they are the same miniature).

"I can see your arm so I can shoot"
"That is only because I'm using miniature pose B. If I was using A then you couldn't see me".