Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!

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.

**Manchu**

Dark Severance wrote:
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.

Punishing clever tactical movement in a miniatures game seems counterintuitive. And it is certainly not "realistic" that being a clear target for someone necessarily means they are a clear target for you.

Dark Severance wrote:
It isn't practical when you have dynamic miniatures with different poses, representing the same miniature.

I am not sure these models are capable of enough posability to make a difference. For one thing, I believe the flight stands are identical. For another, they fit pretty neatly into the space of the base, excepting only the barrel of their rifle or wingtips.

This actually brings up a further question: isn't this a squad based game? Therefore, should units be drawing LOS on units, rather than all this talk about individual models?

Dark Severance wrote:
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.

Manchu wrote:
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).

**Noir**

I think mike biggest issue, that he likely doesn't want to face. Is after all the time he put into the game it is DOA and the most he can hope for is using the models to play a some other game. It sad what PB did to the game and from the pic I seen the models too.

**Dark Severance**

Manchu wrote:
Punishing clever tactical movement in a miniatures game seems counterintuitive. And it is certainly not "realistic" that being a clear target for someone necessarily means they are a clear target for you.

I don't consider that clever tactical movement. There are a few games that use this same policy though.

Manchu wrote:
This actually brings up a further question: isn't this a squad based game? Therefore, should units be drawing LOS on units, rather than all this talk about individual models?

I take it then you haven't actually read the rules.

Here I took the time to type them up so everyone is aware what is being discussed instead of getting bits and pieces.

Squadrons
Soldiers, even ones that are deployed in tanks, planes or mech, are trained to operate in squads, as wingmen, in teams, or in similar groups. These groups are called "squadrons" in Robotech RPB Tactics. In most cases, a squadron will have several mecha in it. While all of the mecha in the squadron are a fighting unit, they are no forced to stay together, and may split up and move around as their player wishes throughout the game.

Line of Sight
Line of Sight is used to determine what a mecha can see. Many different rules and situations rely on whether a mecha has line of sight (LOS) to another mecha or not. Sometimes it will be obvious that a mecha has line of sight to another mecha, while other times you may need to get in close to try and get the "mecha's eye view" so you can determine if there is anything in the way. A piece of string or a laser pointing device can be very useful in determining a true LOS.

When you wish to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the center of the acting mecha's torso (or hull for non-humanoid game pieces) to the center of the target mecha's torso (or hull). If the line isn't completely blocked by another mecha, terrain, or anything else, then the acting mecha has LOS to the target.

Field of view is a sub-concept of Line of Sight. To determine what is in a mecha's field of view, draw an imaginary line from the center of the acting mecha's torso or hull to a given point. If the imaginary line isn't blocked then the point is within the Mecha's field of view.

If the LOS line can be drawn, the mecha can see enough of its target to affect it. It is possible to draw LOS but 25% or more (a leg or more) of the mecha is blocked from the opposing mecha's field of view, the target is in cover and will get cover bonuses against any attack made against it (see the Cover section in the Ranged Combat rules). A mecha is only out in the open if more than 75% of the mecha is within the field of view of the mecha drawing Line of Sight.

Mecha in the same squadron as the mecha that is attempting to establish a Line of Sight never block the LOS or Field of View to the target, as it is assumed that all of the mecha in a squadron are in communication and will shift around slightly to clear the Line of Sight for each other. Note, however that this does not actually allow you to physically move your mecha out of the way.

Cover
When the LOS to a target can be drawn, but 25% or more of the target is blocked from the attacker's Field of View by intervening scenery, terrain or or some other obstacle, the target mecha is in cover. A mecha is only out in the open (no cover bonus at all) if more than 75% of the mecha is within the attacker's Field of View.

Cover comes in two different forms, hard and soft. First there is soft cover that only provides concealment from ranged attacks; obstacles like stands of trees, billboards, tall fense and so on. Then there is hard cover that provides significant protection against incoming fire; hard obstacles like crashed spaceships, fortifications, buildings, rock outcroppings and other terrain features, mecha of a different squadron than the target, and similar solid objects. If a mecha is completely hidden from view by cover, then there is no LOS to the target at all.

If a target is in cover then ranged attacks made against it suffer a penalty of -1 to Strike for soft cover and -2 to Strike for hard cover. If the LOS is completely blocked, the mecha cannot be attacked at all.

Before your game beings, you and your opponent should designate what scenery and terrain pieces represent soft and hard cover. When the LOS is drawn through both soft and hard cover, only the hard cover penalty applies. Likewise, the penalty can only be claimed once for a given ranged attack, so no matter how many individual obstacles the LOS is drawn through, a -2 to Strike is the largest cover penalty possible, and even multiple pieces of soft cover still only inflict a -1 penality to Strike in ranged combat. If there is any dispute when determining cover, roll a die to determine with interpretation to use, high roll wins.

**MangoMadness**

Manchu wrote:
Punishing clever tactical movement in a miniatures game seems counterintuitive. And it is certainly not "realistic" that being a clear target for someone necessarily means they are a clear target for you.

There is a significant difference between

a) clever tactical movement in a miniatures game
b) abusing the ruleset to your advantage by manipulating your models and terrain to gain an unfair advantage.

The models that sit on the bases are an abstract representation of the statline and description provided by the ruleset, the model doesnt move its legs when running, flap its wings, sway about in the breeze or stick its head around corners. Most (good) rulesets acknowledge this and use rules that allow for the figurine to be modelled anywhere on the models base and use a system that represent that the actual game figure would be dynamic within its base rather than a static statue.

True line of sight would probably be really good when shooting at immobile objects like buildings, gun emplacements or statues but for dynamic mobile figures it falls very short and is open to abuse.

**warboss**

Mike1975 wrote:
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?

I'm fine either way on the 25% as I've had arguments with both. I've had folks try to fire main battle tank leman russ shots through pin holes in terrain because they can see a tiny splash of color and I've had people argue 20% vs 25% cover as well. If pressed for an answer, for the sake of simplicity and a faster game, I'd say leave out the 25% and leave in the d6 dice off for disagreements. The above is similar enough to what is already there to placate their fragile egos whereas the base idea is too different and would likely be rejected outright (and frankly I'm not a fan of using the base anyways for the reasons I stated earlier).

**Mike1975**

I'll give it a bit to let people argue both sides a bit more. We might have more people chime in. The more the merrier.

**Eumerin**

paulson games wrote:
There was a lot of empty space in that booth almost like they had expected mountains of stock that never arrived. Stuff had been rearranged but it was pretty obvious they had a huge amount of booth space without a lot of content. Also one oddity I noticed was in their row of mugs they had several Robotech ones but what stood out was the mug using the artwork for their Macross II cover, which I don't think they are licensed to do as Harmony Gold doesn't own rights to that series or the designs. It would be funny if they got sued over some silly little mugs.

Palladium released a Macross II RPG with multiple books way back when. So they likely have permission for Macross II artwork and products. Note that Macross II is the *only* other Macross series that they've covered.

Big West was involved in Macross II, but Studio Nue was not, which might have influenced how the rights worked out on that and why Palladium was able to secure them. Or it might have been before HG's views about the Macross rights evolved to what they currently are (similar to how Macross Plus was able to be licensed for US release without HG's interference).

**Merijeek**

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???

The Kevin is ALL THINGS and he is NO THINGS. Why can't you understaaaaaaand?

**Sining**

There's been no real answer to that

**Manchu**

Dark Severance wrote:
Here I took the time to type them up so everyone is aware what is being discussed instead of getting bits and pieces.

Thanks, that's quite helpful!

So to summarize:

- miniatures are deployed in units but shoot as individual miniatures at other individual miniatures
- an acting miniature needs LOS on its target to affect it
- an acting miniature draws LOS from the center of its own torso to the center of its target's torso
- a miniature's field of view is whatever falls on any line drawn from the center of its own torso
- if the acting miniature can draw LOS on its target but 25% of the target is not in the acting miniature's field of view then the target gets a cover bonus
- miniatures in the same unit do not block each other's LOS or field of vision

The first issue I see is, shouldn't it say the FRONT center of the acting miniature's torso? Can I draw my imaginary line from the back of my Veritech's torso? That is obviously not the spirit of the rules but if we're going to judge them from the perspective of folks who model for advantage ...

Second, the "center torso to center torso" LOS model is IMO not as good as TLOS. It certainly doesn't entirely obviate modelling for advantage plus it adds the wrinkle of determining what is the center of what is the torso, which is more complicated than the question of whether one miniature can see anything at all of another miniature. OTOH, it is hardly a terrible rule. I can even imagine a reason for it: given that a miniature stands for a moving vehicle/being, center mass is probably the best/most likely target point.

@Mike1975

I don't mind the "25% = cover bonus" rule at all. The idea of arguing about 25% versus 20% is rubbish,a great indication to avoid someone who makes the argument from that point on. But if you want to avoid the TFG overly literal interpretations then it could be reworded as "about one quarter of the miniature" and keep the d6 dispute settlement rule. That should be a minor enough change.

**Kendachi**

Manchu wrote:

The first issue I see is, shouldn't it say the FRONT center of the acting miniature's torso? Can I draw my imaginary line from the back of my Veritech's torso? That is obviously not the spirit of the rules but if we're going to judge them from the perspective of folks who model for advantage ...

Well, some things have Rear Fire, like the Defender, I think.

**Mike1975**

Manchu wrote:
Dark Severance wrote:
Here I took the time to type them up so everyone is aware what is being discussed instead of getting bits and pieces.
Thanks, that's quite helpful!

So to summarize:

- miniatures are deployed in units but shoot as individual miniatures at other individual miniatures
- an acting miniature needs LOS on its target to affect it
- an acting miniature draws LOS from the center of its own torso to the center of its target's torso
- a miniature's field of view is whatever falls on any line drawn from the center of its own torso
- if the acting miniature can draw LOS on its target but 25% of the target is not in the acting miniature's field of view then the target gets a cover bonus
- miniatures in the same unit do not block each other's LOS or field of vision

The first issue I see is, shouldn't it say the FRONT center of the acting miniature's torso? Can I draw my imaginary line from the back of my Veritech's torso? That is obviously not the spirit of the rules but if we're going to judge them from the perspective of folks who model for advantage ...

Second, the "center torso to center torso" LOS model is IMO not as good as TLOS. It certainly doesn't entirely obviate modelling for advantage plus it adds the wrinkle of determining what is the center of what is the torso, which is more complicated than the question of whether one miniature can see anything at all of another miniature. OTOH, it is hardly a terrible rule. I can even imagine a reason for it: given that a miniature stands for a moving vehicle/being, center mass is probably the best/most likely target point.

@Mike1975

I don't mind the "25% = cover bonus" rule at all. The idea of arguing about 25% versus 20% is rubbish,a great indication to avoid someone who makes the argument from that point on. But if you want to avoid the TFG overly literal interpretations then it could be reworded as "about one quarter of the miniature" and keep the d6 dispute settlement rule. That should be a minor enough change.

Agreed

Yes, most weapons can also only fire in the front 180 degrees unless they have rear fire, then they have a 360 degree arc. Even the Monster's arc is 180. I don't like that. I think it should be 60 or 90 to the front

**Manchu**

TBH I think those rules are pretty much fine as they are. They are not totally immune to abusively overly literal interpretation, sure. It doesn't strike me as a particularly strong criticism.

**Mike1975**

so good with this? If not, remind me, been a long day and mind is not working 100%

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.

**Swabby**

For what it is worth Mike, I would much rather have the rule that you just posted in the live version.

It isn't anywhere near perfect, but much better at resolving arguments than what is in the book now.

**Manchu**

@Mike1975

Here's how I would phrase it:

An attacking model draws LOS within its firing arc from the center of its torso/hull to

(a) the center of its target's torso/hull.

OR

(b) any portion of its target.

So (a) versus (b) is one issue. The published rule seems to be (a), which helps with TLOS concerns BUT generates the "where are the centers of the torsos?" issue. So the question is, which issue is more problematic: finding the center of a model's torso/hull or the broader implications of modelling for advantage? If the former, go with (b), if that latter go with (a).

Now, as I understand the published rules, LOS has nothing directly to do with cover and therefore the 25% issue. RATHER, cover is a matter of Field of View (FOV), which comprises all points to which a line can be drawn from the acting model's center torso within its firing arc. If at least 25% of the target model is not within the acting model's FOV, the acting model might still have LOS to its target BUT the target gets a cover bonus.

The way you have it phrased there, if at least 25% of the model is not within the acting model's FOV then the acting model does not have LOS on the target, which does not seem to be the published rule. And IMO it is not an improvement.

**warboss**

Mike1975 wrote:
so good with this? If not, remind me, been a long day and mind is not working 100%

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.

I'm not sure why but every time I come back to the thread, your rule gets more complicated with is the OPPOSITE of what I thought we were trying to do. Why is there a mention of Field of View? Just leave it at it's simplest to avoid palladium SCREWING IT UP EVEN FURTHER. Follow the KISS principle. You've also omitted the "hull" clarification for non-humanoid models they had in there. It's pedantic but that is exactly what rules are supposed to be.

When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from any point on the attacking mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid game pieces) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso or hull. 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 regarding LOS then the players should roll a single D6 (reroll ties) with the highest rolling player winning.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
@Mike1975

Here's how I would phrase it:
An attacking model draws LOS within its firing arc from the center of its torso/hull to

(a) the center of its target's torso/hull.

OR

(b) any portion of its target.
So (a) versus (b) is one issue. The published rule seems to be (a), which helps with TLOS concerns BUT generates the "where are the centers of the torsos?" issue. So the question is, which issue is more problematic: finding the center of a model's torso/hull or the broader implications of modelling for advantage? If the former, go with (b), if that latter go with (a).

Now, as I understand the published rules, LOS has nothing directly to do with cover and therefore the 25% issue. RATHER, cover is a matter of Field of View (FOV), which comprises all points drawn from the acting model's center torso within its firing arc. If at least 25% of the target model is not within the acting model's FOV, the acting model might still have LOS to its target BUT the target gets a cover bonus.

The way you have it phrased there, if at least 25% of the model is not within the acting model's FOV then the acting model does not have LOS on the target, which does not seem to be the published rule. And IMO it is not an improvement.

I'd be very against adding an either/or second step that complicates LOS. What purpose does it serve for a supposedly fast mass battle game where you have theoretically dozens of units to individually move and determine LOS? Adding a second step to determine LOS defeats the purpose of simplifying it. When you have 12 pods on average to move, simply looking down at the tabletop level and seeing if ANY torso to torso LOS is enough. YMMV obviously but any extra possible complication/decision point is a lateral step from what we have officially. If this were a dedicated skirmish game then my answer would be totally different but this is ostensibly a mass battle game with dozens of minis per side. One single step for LOS that makes sense and isn't easily abusable is better. Also, the further we deviate from what they have, the less likely they are to change anything.

In any case, it'll be likely my last thoughts on the subject as at this point I'd just be repeating myself. My problem has always been that the rule as written (going back to march 2013 and pretty much unchanged since) was easily abusable and more difficult than it should be for a mass battle game. Skirmish robotech is effectively dead despite the KS promises to the contrary so the rules should focus on making a mass battle game as good as possible to use with dozens of models on each side. I'd suggest using the simple quote above either with or without your 25% (preferably without... leave percentages instead only for the cover determination).

**Manchu**

@warboss

While we're being pedantic: By removing the center requirement we're narrowing LOS determinations regarding a humanoid model to its torso but we use the prospectively much broader area denoted by the term "hull" for non-humanoid models. This seems like a needless disadvantage to humanoid models.

I am certainly not advocating adding a second step to finding LOS. I am proposing that figuring out if you can target a model should be a different operation from figuring out if the target benefits from cover.

**warboss**

Do you mean advantage for humanoid models instead? I don't see any real disadvantage to humanoids when you consider that almost all non-humanoid models will be mounted on flight stands that position them higher where as only a small portion of humanoid models will have that. I think that evens out a potential disadvantage to humanoids. Could you clarify what the perceived disadvantage is? I'm honestly not seeing it.

**Manchu**

Without referencing centers, a humanoid model must draw its LOS from a smaller area than a non-humanoid. Imagine that the center of a non-humanoid model's hull is obscured behind terrain. Prospectively unlike the humanoid model, it could still draw LOS to targets from the extremities of its hull.

**warboss**

Manchu wrote:
Without referencing centers, a humanoid model must draw its LOS from a smaller area than a non-humanoid. Imagine that the center of a non-humanoid model's hull is obscured behind terrain. Prospectively unlike the humanoid model, it could still draw LOS to targets from the extremities of its hull.

Ah... but I actually see that as much more of a potential advantage for the humanoid models. With a smaller torso compared with "hulls", it is easier to completely block LOS when you want to as well as utilize cover compared with the usually larger and frequently flight based non-humanoids. The non-humanoids may get easier LOS to other models but they're also much more likely to be seen themselves and less likely to be able to utilize cover, which makes sense IMO. I personally feel that it is an overall advantage to the frequently smaller humanoid models. YMMV. In any case, my suggestion for mike hasn't changed.

**Mike1975**

Noir wrote:
I think mike biggest issue, that he likely doesn't want to face. Is after all the time he put into the game it is DOA and the most he can hope for is using the models to play a some other game. It sad what PB did to the game and from the pic I seen the models too.

Actually that is funny because I bought Alpha Strike, the Companion book, the Mekton KS, plus Heavy Gear all before PB offered to send me the rules. I still plan on using all 4 and seeing what I like best. I've read most of the Heavy Gear and Alpha Strike rules and am waiting on the fulfillment of the Mekton KS to compare that one. All I need are the minis. I'm going to play and have fun and know people are working on stuff for the other generations so if indeed this is DOA, which I don't believe for a second, more like a wounded animal limping onto the stage, I will be able to play all 3 generations and the sentinels regardless of how this ends up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here ya go warboss, just copied and pasted over the wrong one since we've looked at some many yesterday. Added the or hull and changed the any figure to an enemy figures since friendlies do not block LOS.

When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the attacking mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid game pieces) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid game pieces). If the line is not completely blocked by an enemy 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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Added the original text for comparison.

have at it

**Manchu**

warboss wrote:
The non-humanoids may get easier LOS to other models but they're also much more likely to be seen themselves

True, I suppose it balances. If nothing else, it certainly lends humanoid mecha (Robotechnology) a distinct feel in the mechanics, which might be thematically desirable.

Mike1975 wrote:
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

I still don't get this part.

Draw LOS from torso/hull to torso/hull. That's fine.

If one quarter or more of the target is obscured from attacking model's FOV then target has cover. That's fine, too.

But why are you making the cover rule part of the LOS rule?

**Mike1975**

I see your point Manchu, I wish they had partial and full cover in the rules. Cover and terrain are a bit too simplified for me. I'd want partial cover to be 1/4 to 3/4 cover and full cover >75%. Maybe it's just that I've played too much Battletech.

partial cover light (trees, billboards) +1
full cover light and partial cover heavy (rocks, buildings) +2
full cover heavy (rocks buildings) +3

When a player wishes to determine if one figure has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the attacking mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid game pieces) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid game pieces). If the line is not completely blocked by an enemy figure or terrain of any sort, then the acting figure has LOS to the target. 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**

Mike1975 wrote:
I see your point Manchu, I wish they had partial and full cover in the rules.

Just to be completely clear, I don't have an issue with the published cover rule. I took exception to splicing it into the LOS rule.

Mike1975 wrote:
I'd want partial cover to be 1/4 to 3/4 cover and full cover >75%.

To my mind, that granularity implies simulation of slower paced combat -- which is fine for stompy, clunky mecha but a bit thick for the nimble mecha starring in RoboTech. The 25% rule (which I'd rather call the "approx.1/4 rule") plus the hard/soft distinction is probably sufficient to preserve some tactical use of terrain while keeping the game light and fast.

Mike1975 wrote:
When a player wishes to determine if one model has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting model’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target model’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). If the line is (a) entirely within one of the acting model's firing arcs and (b) not completely blocked by an enemy model or terrain of any sort, then the acting model has LOS to the target. 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.

First, I cleaned up the language for consistency of terms. I also replaced "figure" and "mecha" with model. I realize PB used the term "mecha" but that doesn't actually cover every model used in the game.

Second, I added another "ANY part of" clause for clarity.

Third, I added language about firing arcs. I don't know what the proper term is for this as used in other parts of the rules.

Fourth, I think you should delete last sentence and replace it with:

If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).

In this clause:

not completely blocked by an enemy model or terrain of any sort

what is the function of the word "completely"? Can a line ever be partially blocked? If not, delete the word "completely."

Finally, I think that clause is actually incorrect. As I understand the published rules posted above, friendly models NOT in the acting model's squadron do block LOS.

**rigeld2**

Manchu wrote:
Finally, I think that clause is actually incorrect. As I understand the published rules posted above, friendly models NOT in the acting model's squadron do block LOS.

I was going to post the same thing.

**Mike1975**

Your guys are right on the squadron thing. Friendlies from other squadrons do block LOS.

I think the Firing arc thing is redundant since Firing Arcs are something different than LOS and have their own explanations. It will also increase the length of the explanation. Besides you have 2 arcs in the game, front and rear.

I hate seeing Mecha all over the place, in fact if you read the rulebook you'll get sick of the confusing messages it gives because mecha can be both singular and plural. It's appears way to many freaking times but it's PB's baby and they insist on using the word. Believe me I tried. Try reading a few pages and marking how many times that word appears.

Rigeld: The word Completely was from PB's wording.

The Quick Reply BOX is a PITA, squishes everything.

When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). If the line is not blocked by friendly mecha from a different squadron, an enemy mecha, or terrain of any sort, then the acting model has LOS to the target. If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If this is good, I'll send it to them with the rest later today.

**rigeld2**

Replace "is not blocked by friendly mecha from a different squadron, an enemy mecha, or terrain of any sort" with "is blocked by anything other than a mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha".

Remove the "If there is a dispute..." sentence. It's poor rules writing, plain and simple.

**Manchu**

When a player wishes to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from ANY part of the acting mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models) to ANY part of the target mecha’s torso (or hull for nonhumanoid models). If the line is blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the acting model has LOS to the target. If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, each player rolls a D6 and the higher roll wins (re-rolling ties).

Assuming firing arc is adequately covered elsewhere, I think this is good.

BUT before sending it out, let's review the changes:

(1) clarifying the point about squadron mates not blocking LOS

(2) replacing "center of" with "ANY part"

The first point is non-controversial so we can skip it.

The second point attempts to eliminate potential arguments over finding the center of a model's torso/hull. It does not obviate concerns about modelling for advantage but I think those concerns are minimal anyway considering the miniatures at issue.

The question is, are potential arguments about finding the center of a model's torso/hull so (hypothetically) problematic as to warrant FAQing?

rigeld2 wrote:
Replace "is not blocked by friendly mecha from a different squadron, an enemy mecha, or terrain of any sort" with "is blocked by anything other than a mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha".

Agreed and incorporated above.

rigeld2 wrote:
Remove the "If there is a dispute..." sentence. It's poor rules writing, plain and simple.

This is a pretty standard way of resolving in situ type disagreements. Perhaps it should be (as someone suggested above) be a preface to all of the rules. But, if it isn't, what is the harm of appending it here (next to an issue where it is most likely to be evoked)?

**rigeld2**

I think so. It's sloppy and a poor effort. Why not try and fix it?
Another question is if they do FAQ it (they won't), will they change their source docs so that future printings don't have this issue? If not, I wouldn't bother with getting them to FAQ it.